# A Western 'Sturmovik': great asset or waste of resouces?



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2012)

A dedicated, well armored single-engined attack plane - would it be of use for the RAF, USAAF and/or other 'Western Allied' air forces? A plane entering the service in, say, mid 1941, either a 'classic' layout or a pusher. It need to be able to carry plenty of armament (guns/cannons, bombs/rockets), perhaps able to dive bomb. The speed, even in 'clean' configuration, is in 300 mph range, maybe up to 350 in war's ending -we can discuss the pros cons of such a plane for years after 1941, too.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Apr 5, 2012)

Off top of head: Seems like the RAF and USAAF were headed in that direction judging by lines of development toward war's end resulting in AD-1, Martin Mauler and the like, and Typhoon and such so my guess is that early development of something like you describe was thought to be worthwhile in retrospect. However, I would guess development of a single engine airframe would be a challenge. It's stand-in for the time was the twin engine Douglas DB-7, and a host of other twins that gave it the payload you describe, no?


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 5, 2012)

Such type of aircraft was adopted by tatical airforces like the VVS, Luftwaffe and the IJAAF. The Western Allies needed fighters when the war started, because they were short of them. They needed fighters first to defend themselfs and later to escort their workhorses that were the heavy bombers. Later, the rocket-armed high performance fighters of the Western Allies proved adequate to deal with the targets they faced.

In short: I don't think such type of aircraft would be useful for the Allies.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 5, 2012)

It all comes down to that magic phrase "air superiority" ..... the Eastern Front and the Western Fronts(s) were very different animals as we have discussed on this forum many times.

When the Soviets were unable to secure "local" air superiority in a sector, 'Sturmovik' paid the price. Huge losses. They were unwieldy and needed air cover. But even unloaded they were unable to run. Whereas .... Typhoons and P-47's certainly required fighter protection when they were loaded up ... but they could run and fight as fighters when need be.

I think the 'Sturmovik' was very much a creature of the Soviet Game and the Soviet Front - like the T-34, used in masses with no qualms about losses.

But - that said - the modern Gulf War 'Sturmovik' certainly was inspired by the original .... and is a marvel of destruction. 

[IIRC, Rudel was not only a tank ace but an airplane 'ace' -- mostly flying Stukas. Were there any 'Sturmovik' aircraft aces on the Soviet side ...?]

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2012)

Rudel was also flying the Fw-190s, hence the aerial kills.

The Sturmovik was good vs. (light Flak), but weak vs. fighters. Ideal for 1944 over NE Europe, even earlier at MTO - with plethora of 20mm, but almost no LW? Was the P-47 better attack plane that Vultee Vengeance? How dothe planes fare in the payload vs. combat range vs. take off run charts?


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 5, 2012)

The IL-2 was a relatively fast and agile plane when was introduced as a single seat acft, and typical from Russian hardware: cheap, reliable and easy to use. The gunner add a considerable wheight and consequentely negative flight characteristics. This was only "fixed" with the advent of the IL-10. 

I don't think the Russians went wrong with the IL-2 and the T-34 (which was a world beater at it's introduction). The problems of such machines were much about the circunstances in which they had to operate i.e without personal adequately trained, effective fighter cover, rustic contruction due to extreme necessities of the war, ideal construction materials, lack of radios, etc. Certainly those machines would have performed much better if they had followed what was expected to them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2012)

Part of the problem for the western allies was range. IL-2s could perform several missions a day on the Eastern front and didn't have to fly far from their bases to the front lines. Such missions, while not unknown to the western allies, were not as common. The A-20 was not long legged for a Western bomber/attack plane and had troubles in certain theaters. While IL-2s could be used over most if not all of the Russian front all of the time, such a specialized attack plane could only be used at certain times and in certain areas of the Western (or asian) theaters. While it may have been useful at times, at other times they would have been sitting idle with no targets in range making them a rather expensive proposition for the benefit they offered. Remember that it takes 2-4 years to get a plane into service so even wanting it for 1944 means start of work should have started in 1941. Such planes were not a priority in 1941 or 42.


----------



## davebender (Apr 5, 2012)

Thousands of Spitfire, Hurricane, Typhoon, P-40, P-47 and P-51 fighter aircraft were destroyed attempting to perform CAS missions they weren't designed for and weren't particularly good at. Why not give these pilots an aircraft designed for CAS? An aircraft that can bomb accurately from low level and armed with cannon powerful enough to punch through light armor.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2012)

Lets not get carried away here,

You want a Western IL-2?

Take a Fairey Battle. Stick in an early Griffon engine, move the rear gunner closer to the pilot, armor the crap out of it, stick four 20mm Hispano's in the wings and a few .303s. basicly add 3000lbs (50% of the empty weight) to both the empty and loaded weight and go for it. 

The extra weight will pretty much kill a good part of the extra performance of the Griffon engine. The 30% or so rise in wing loading from the Battle is still less than some of the fighters but means less maneuverability than the Battle, and we all know how well the battle did in low level attacks 

the armor will help a lot from Flak but if there are any fighters around the "Super Battle" is little more than a fresh kill mark on the fighters.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 5, 2012)

You're not the first to have thought of turning the Battle into a dedicated ground attack/tank buster aircraft, Shortround. As the discussion goes, with local air superiority it's a grand idea.

The RAF were hampered by their 'Bomber Barons', who tended to see that level bombing was an answer to everything. This all goes back to the Italian Douhet and Stanley Baldwin's "The bomber will always get through...", not to forget Trenchard's imposing figure. RAF policy pre WW2 stuck rigidly to the idea that the best form of defence was offence; i.e. more bombers. This meant dedicated ground attack aircraft and dive bombers did not enter service with the RAF for some time later. These were known as Army Co-operation and initially such units were equipped with the likes of Westland Lysanders. The dive bomber/close support Hawker Henley, which would have been an impressive machine, became a target tug and never got to prove itself in combat because of this narrow minded policy. This changed when chaps like Arthur Coningham appeared and changed RAF perceptions of close support in the North African desert. He became head of 2 TAF in France from 1944. Brilliant man.

Specification B.20/40 for a day bomber spec was also classified as a Close Army Support Bomber; the aircraft had to have a high speed, 280 mph at 5,000 ft using a Merlin, plus dive bombing and photo reconnaissance capability. Boulton Paul, Fairey, Hawker and Westland submitted proposals. Nothing happened. The Fairey design resembled a land based Barracuda. 

In 1942 a spec was raised and issued to firms, but didn't receive a number, for a "highly manoeuvrable single-seat low attack aircraft for employment against military forces on the ground, aircraft, invasion craft and shipping." It's primary role was as a tank buster to replace the Hurricane IID armed with 2 x 40 mm cannon. Armament options for the new type was to be 3 x 40 mm, 2 x 40 mm plus 2 x 20 mm, 4 x 20 mm and six unguided rockets, or 2 x 20 mm and one Vickers 47 mm gun. Provision was also to be made for 2 x 500 lb bombs. Max speed was to be at least 280 mph at 3,000 ft. This spec saw responses from Armstrong Whitworth, Boulton Paul, Cunliffe-Owen, Martin Baker and Philips and Powis (Miles). Both AW, BP and Martin Baker submitted twin boom pushers, although BP submitted three designs, their P.100 was a pusher with swept main wing and canard foreplanes and end plate fins. They also submitted a short span cantilever reverse staggered biplane (!) design. 

From all this in 1943 it was decided not to put a new ground attack aircraft in service and the Air Staff settled on the Hurricane IV and the addition of rockets to the Mosquito, Typhoon and Tempest; the advantages to these two latter types being that they could revert back to being fighters.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 5, 2012)

"... Rudel was also flying the Fw-190s, hence the aerial kills."

Rudel was bagging planes for years before he got 190's. He'd lost his leg(s) by then.

MM


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2012)

The Battle was just an example, it was really too old and it's wing makes a Hurricane's look thin. But a large, thick, high lift wing is what is needed for close support aircraft operating from short bad airfields near the front. 

The Battle was never intended to be a tactical bomber. It was a cheap, single engine, semi-strategic bomber. It was meant for level bombing.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 6, 2012)

".... Thousands of Spitfire, Hurricane, Typhoon, P-40, P-47 and P-51 fighter aircraft were destroyed attempting to perform CAS missions they weren't designed for and weren't particularly good at."

Or not ........

Read Closterman on flying Tiffies off steel plank in France, db, ..... huge losses ...... guys flying into the ground and FLAK .... and FLAK towers.

But I'm not convinced Sky Raiders would have survived any better than P-47's .... in Western Europe.

MM


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2012)

One reason the IL-2 was important to the Russians for the CAS mission was their fighters weren't very good for it. With many of their V-12 powered fighters having a single 20mm cannon (and that gun not having the 'punch' per round of some other 20mm guns) and single 12.7mm machine gun it took several of these fighters to equal ONE IL-2 for strafing (or to equal one Hurricane). Many of their single engine fighters (not special variants) were limited to a pair of 100kg bombs which also means a light bomber for ground attack was needed more than in Western air forces. No disrespect to the Russian fighters, there is only so much you can do with a 1200hp engine. If you bias the plane to air combat (small wing for higher speed) you can't also have large load carrying capacity.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 6, 2012)

The western allies would probably have had the luxury to field such an attacker, but in my opinion, a more simple armor upgrade of a suitable front line fighter such as the Tempest / Typhoon, maybe P-47 or possibly even P-51 would yield a similar result without the need for a new airframe and the logistical effort needed for it. It'd also keep training efforts to a minimum.
The Germans did that with the Fw 190 F series and it proved successful, basically eliminating the need for a dedicated attack aircraft.


----------



## Juha (Apr 6, 2012)

riacrato said:


> The western allies would probably have had the luxury to field such an attacker, but in my opinion, a more simple armor upgrade of a suitable front line fighter such as the Tempest / Typhoon, maybe P-47 or possibly even P-51 would yield a similar result without the need for a new airframe and the logistical effort needed for it. It'd also keep training efforts to a minimum.
> The Germans did that with the Fw 190 F series and it proved successful, basically eliminating the need for a dedicated attack aircraft.



Hello Riacrato
the Typhoon was in fact armoured. Mod 346 (55 lbs of fixed armour) and 347 (496 lbs of removable armour) were introduced in spring 1944. I am not sure of the exact disposition of this armour but photos show trial installations of sheet armour applied to the cockpit sides and floor and around the radiator. Nor do I know to what extent this armour was employed on operations. However many photos of Typhoons from D-day onwards show stencilling on the radiator fairings - "This fairing is armoured" - as a warning to groundcrew who might be removing the fairing.

Juha


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 6, 2012)

Suspect the F4U would have done "quite well" in the context of this thread.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2012)

Agree about that. Maybe to install the belly armor, akin to the AU-1? The generous wing should (and did) allowed for a great payload, with decent take-off run distances.


----------



## davebender (Apr 6, 2012)

> Fw 190 F series and it proved successful, basically eliminating the need for a dedicated attack aircraft.


I don't think so.

The Ju-87D / G was a far better CAS aircraft then the Fw-190F. But like any dedicated CAS aircraft the Ju-87D required air superiority. If there's little chance to achieve air superiority then the Fw-190F offers some CAS capability plus good survival vs enemy fighter aircraft.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 6, 2012)

Juha said:


> Hello Riacrato
> the Typhoon was in fact armoured. Mod 346 (55 lbs of fixed armour) and 347 (496 lbs of removable armour) were introduced in spring 1944. I am not sure of the exact disposition of this armour but photos show trial installations of sheet armour applied to the cockpit sides and floor and around the radiator. Nor do I know to what extent this armour was employed on operations. However many photos of Typhoons from D-day onwards show stencilling on the radiator fairings - "This fairing is armoured" - as a warning to groundcrew who might be removing the fairing.
> 
> Juha


Hi Juha,
learned something new today. It surely helped contribute to the success the Typhoon enjoyed as a ground support aircraft.

@dave: The Ju 87 D is a dive bomber, not an attacker. Something people tend to forget when they compare it to the IL-2 or similar planes. Sure the two aircraft types have a large area of overlap in their roles but there are things one can do that the other can't. A Ju 87 D is not very suitable for roaming over the battle field at low height a Fw 190 F is not as precise when it comes to dive bombing. The Ju 87 G is more similar, but heavily gauged towards anti-armor work.


----------



## davebender (Apr 6, 2012)

I disagree.

The Ju-87D/G had excellent low speed maneuverability and good armor protection. Exactly what you need for attacking ground targets with cannon and cluster munitions.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2012)

davebender said:


> I disagree.
> 
> The Ju-87D/G had excellent low speed maneuverability and good armor protection. Exactly what you need for attacking ground targets with cannon and cluster munitions.


 
Why the Stuka and not the Hs 129?


----------



## davebender (Apr 6, 2012)

The Hs 129 is ok too but the Ju 87D was more versatile. An excellent dive bomber that could be converted to CAS by hanging cluster munitions or gun pods on the wing hardpoints. It's good to have that versatility in case you need to hit a bridge or some other small hard target with a 1,000kg bomb.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Hs 129 is ok too but the Ju 87D was more versatile. An excellent dive bomber that could be converted to CAS by hanging cluster munitions or gun pods on the wing hardpoints. It's good to have that versatility in case you need to hit a bridge or some other small hard target with a 1,000kg bomb.


 
Really. It seems that popularly the Stuka has a worse reputation than it deserves. Lack of fighter escort also resulted in tremendous losses of IL-2s, but only the Stuka has the credit being of a "vulnerable, obsolete design". Therefore, using this logic most strike aircraft of WWII deserve the same reputation as the Stuka.

BTW: 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg_


----------



## davebender (Apr 7, 2012)

I agree. The same holds true for Me-109 fighter aircraft. The winning side gets to write popular histories of the war. That's why the P-51 is typically portrayed as some sort of Uber fighter even though it had little impact on the war prior to 1944. Makes you wonder how Europeans managed to fight an air war before Fw-190s and P-51s entered service.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2012)

davebender said:


> Makes you wonder how Europeans managed to fight an air war before Fw-190s and P-51s entered service.



They didn't, they had to wait for the P-51, because you know, there was no other aircraft that could escort the bombers.


----------



## slaterat (Apr 7, 2012)

The Hurricane MKIID and Mk IV were both dedicated ground attack aircraft. The II Ds had 2 x.303 and 2 x 40 mm cannons plus 380 lbs of armour. The Mk IVs had 2 x.303 plus rockets, bombs or 40 mm cannons plus 350 lbs armour.

Slaterat


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2012)

I am still trying to follow this thinking.

The P-51 wasn't great because..............?

While the P-51 could be beaten in some aspects of it's performance, no other fighter (except _maybe_ one) could do what it could do. Fly from England well into Germany, fight the Lufftwaffe fighters on a more or less equal basis and return home. 

We may argue about exact climb rates, or speeds at a given altitude or exact turning circles of different models/marks but even _IF_ we concede the P-51 was no better in Combat than the Bf 109XX, no model of the 109 could do what the P-51 could do. No model of the Fw 190 could do it and no model of the Ta 152 could do it. 

On the Allied side you had ONE possible substitute and ONE came too late. The P-38 was the possible alternative but had pluses and minuses of it's own and the too late plane was the P-47N. And again there are pluses and minuses. 

The Spitfire's range coulda/shoulda been stretched but it would never equal the P-51s. 

The Tempest never had the range either.


----------



## Juha (Apr 7, 2012)

davebender said:


> I agree. The same holds true for Me-109 fighter aircraft. The winning side gets to write popular histories of the war. That's why the P-51 is typically portrayed as some sort of Uber fighter even though it had little impact on the war prior to 1944. Makes you wonder how Europeans managed to fight an air war before Fw-190s and P-51s entered service.



Hello Dave
I agree on Bf 109 with one reservation, that is in popular aviation literature in English. Germans, Finns etc knew how the 109G handled and Russian had high regard on it.

While Ju 87, and Bf 110, were IMHO clearly better planes than their images given in at least earlier popular aviation literature in English, Ju 87D and G were rather slow and large SE plane and so vulnerable.

And P-51 had range, it was a very good SE fighter with excellent range, that made it so important.

Juha


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2012)

The P-51 was also easier to manufacture and maintein than the others.

About the 109, I think specially the Americans hold a negative view of it because in fact most versions they faced in the critical period of '44 were inferior. While later, more capable versions were being flown mostly by inexperienced pilots.

Now about the 190: it's latest version was usually outclassed by the latest 109 version. However, the plane was excellent, it only lacked proper power. In the West, understanding it was frequentely vectored by radar, together with it's light controls and excellent armamment, it can be easly understood why Anglo-American pilots considerated it better than the 109. Of course, I'm refering to the fighter variants of the aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2012)

Trying to steer this back on-topic, with the quote from Wikipedia:



> Just 21 of the 152 Spitfires that were destroyed or damaged from all causes from 1–30 June 1944 were shot down by German fighters.[104]



(above France, that is)

My intention is not to pile up on the Spit; W. Allies were employing, in the time when they had air superiority (1943 on) many modified fighters as erzatz-attackers. P-40s, Hurricanes, Spits, P-51s etc. With a 'Flak-proof' ground/surface attack plane, the notorious FlakVierling would've stood far less chances to make a kill, than it would be the case with, say, Kittybomber in cross hairs. The combat range of a dedicated attacker (sized along the lines of Sturmovik/Vengeance/Battle) is bound to be greater than of a fighter adopted for the role.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2012)

You don't need much range for close support aircraft. Supporting the troops in Normandy from English airfields was a temporary condition.

I would also take a second look at that quote from Wiki, it may not be wrong but it may be being misinterpreted. "destroyed or damaged from all causes" may include take-off and landing accidents, engine failures and the like in addition to Flak. All the armor in the world won't stop those losses. 
In some Spitfire books there is a photo of a Spitfire that took 3 20mm hits to the rear fuselage. If you find it and look carefully you can see a wrinkle or buckle in the fuselage skin in addition to the shell damage. The Plane go the pilot home but it was a structural write-off. You can increase the armor on radiators, oil coolers, cockpits and even fuel tanks and engine cowlings but trying to armor the entire airframe is impossible. There is no such thing as 'Flak-proof', just greater or lesser resistance to fFlak hits in vulnerable locations. Multiple hits in wings, rear fuselage and tail can still bring down the aircraft. 
The FlakVierling also used a rather powerful 20mm round and did not use mine shells. It might very well be able to defeat armor that would withstand 20mm MG/ff or MG 151/20 ammo.


----------



## davebender (Apr 8, 2012)

I agree. 

However you need endurance so your CAS aircraft can loiter over the battlefield.


----------



## davebender (Apr 8, 2012)

The 2cm Flak38 fired even more powerful Brandsprenggranatpatrone mit Zerleger rounds that contained 22 grams of HE. 

For comparison purposes.
18.6 grams of HE. MG151/20 round.
6 to 11 grams of HE. Hs.404 round.


----------



## stona (Apr 9, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> The P-51 was also easier to manufacture and maintein than the others.
> 
> About the 109, I think specially the Americans hold a negative view of it because in fact most versions they faced in the critical period of '44 were inferior. While later, more capable versions were being flown mostly by inexperienced pilots..



The P-51 is easier to build than a Bf109?

It wasn't the aircraft that the USAAF faced in 1944 that were particularly inferior,it was the most important component,the pilots,that were.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

I was refering in easy to manufacture in comparison with the other high performance American fighters.

About the pilots, I don't think so. In altitude, the P-51 was faster than all LW fighters in the critical period of the air campaign. The Germans even had numerical superiority initially, not to mention their radar advantage, and they still lose. They were outclassed and later outnumbered. More capable German designs arrived too late.


----------



## stona (Apr 9, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> I don't think so. In altitude, the P-51 was faster than all LW fighters in the critical period of the air campaign. The Germans even had numerical superiority initially, and they still lose. They were outclassed and later outnumbered. More capable German designs arrived too late.



I can't remember or check if that is so at the moment. Even if it is,speed alone does not make a superior fighter. It is just one of many factors. In fighters of similar performance it is the pilots,their training and tactics,which will be the decisive factor. Combat between USAAF P-51 pilots attacking Fw190s piloted by converted bomber pilots with no,or minimal,training in fighter v fighter combat is only going to have one result. It did on many occasions. 

The Mosquito was a very fast and well armed aeroplane in certain versions but a good air to air fighter? I think not.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

stona said:


> I can't remember or check if that is so at the moment.



And I cannot the numbers. But someone here should be able to confirm this or post charts. The P-51 was faster than the Bf 109 G-6 (even with MW-50), the G-10 and the G-14. The Fw 190 A, not need to mention, specially the "anti-bomber" versions, and was still faster than most production Doras.



> Even if it is,speed alone does not make a superior fighter. It is just one of many factors.



If you have superior speed, and a satisfatory degree of the other features, just the case of the P-51 in high altitude fight, then you have a superior machine. The superior training of American pilots, gyro gunsight, anti-g suits, usually superior fuesl, better manufacturing quality of the components of american aircraft, as well as the the tactical superiority of the P-51, being able to fly well ahead of the bombers to fight the Germans before they intercept them, all helped. The Germans were outclassed and outnumbered by the P-51 in practical terms. They themselfs recognized this.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2012)

Somethings change with speed so blanket generalizations can be picked but in general the P-51 could out roll a 109 while the 190 out rolled the P-51 and so on.
While speed is not everything the differences in other aspects of maneuver have to marked in order to make a big difference. 

Consider the 109 with with a P-51 on his tail, what are his choices/options?

he can't out run it( given that they start at about the same speed, not always the case), he can't out dive it, he can't out roll it (depending on initial bank of both aircraft) and getting into a turn may or may not work. If going less than full speed climbing (or a climbing turn) may work but from high speed the P-51 may be able to stay in position long enough to get in a burst or two. 

Any difference between two planes has to be great enough to actual make a difference in combat and not just win a bar bet. If the P-51 is only slightly worse in some categories it may not be enough to make a decisive difference in combat.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

Frankly, I don't understand many things in WWII aviation. For example, if the P-51 outclassed the Bf 109 G, then why the Ki-100 and the N1KJ were a match for the P-51 if they were aircraft in the same level of the Bf 109 F? And so on...


----------



## stona (Apr 9, 2012)

There are many factors in aerial combat and the performance of the aircraft is only one of them.
The P-51 didn't outclass the Bf109G in a way that would make it undefeatable. It was a better aeroplane in many ways,that I would agree with.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

Certainly. The greatest differential of the P-51 in comparison with the LW in BoB, were the outclassed-by-the-109 Hurricane was predominant, was it's range.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 9, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> You don't need much range for close support aircraft. Supporting the troops in Normandy from English airfields was a temporary condition.
> 
> I would also take a second look at that quote from Wiki, it may not be wrong but it may be being misinterpreted. "destroyed or damaged from all causes" may include take-off and landing accidents, engine failures and the like in addition to Flak. All the armor in the world won't stop those losses.
> In some Spitfire books there is a photo of a Spitfire that took 3 20mm hits to the rear fuselage. If you find it and look carefully you can see a wrinkle or buckle in the fuselage skin in addition to the shell damage. The Plane go the pilot home but it was a structural write-off. You can increase the armor on radiators, oil coolers, cockpits and even fuel tanks and engine cowlings but trying to armor the entire airframe is impossible. There is no such thing as 'Flak-proof', just greater or lesser resistance to fFlak hits in vulnerable locations. Multiple hits in wings, rear fuselage and tail can still bring down the aircraft.
> The FlakVierling also used a rather powerful 20mm round and did not use mine shells. It might very well be able to defeat armor that would withstand 20mm MG/ff or MG 151/20 ammo.



The range was a bigger issue at the places where RAF USAAC were fighting, than where VVS was using it's Stormoviks or LW their Ju-87s. Along the support for the ground troops (at Sicily, Italian mainland, Normandy and further, Balkans, Asia/Pacific) I'd like to see the 'assaulters' flying vs. radar posts airbases in France Low Countries. Now I know that many times the twin-engined bombers were doing those tasks, but the the bombed-up fighters were there in numbers, too. Those would be the planes to replace in the ground attack role. 
With threat of Axis AF's growing small, the light flak was the main menace for day, low-level 'assaulters'. So a plane tailored to to be resilient to that threat should make many pilots return home, even if it could not be called 100% Flak-proof. A pilot was anyway far greater asset than plane, so if we write-off it, that's not a big deal.


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2012)

That would be 1939 to 1943 when Germany lost control of airspace over the English Channel, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, the Bay of Biscay, naval base at Brest (France), various parts of the Soviet Union etc. Otherwise Rommel would have kept rolling all the way to the Suez Canal and Allied troop landings in North Africa and Italy would have been impossible.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

That's one way to see the things. Other is the USAAF engaged and destroyed the cream of the Jagdwaffe. The lost of air superiority in many of the theaters you mentioned was directly connected with this.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

You know people, the P-47 was extremely popular as an attacker, however I already somewhere it's turbocharger was extremely dangerous in case it caught fire. Anyone has details about this?


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2012)

Sure we did. American volunteer pilots flying prototype P-51Bs swept the Luftwaffe from the sky at El Alamein, allowing British 8th Army to counter attack.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> Sure we did. American volunteer pilots flying prototype P-51Bs swept the Luftwaffe from the sky at El Alamein, allowing British 8th Army to counter attack.



Leave this to the guys in Hollywood. 

You still don't understand my point: The British and Soviets achived great victories, but still they didn't defeated the majority of Germany's fighter force. By 1944, the British and Soviet air forces were improving, but so was the LW. The Americans and their bombing campaign that put an end in the LW plans.


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2012)

> British and Soviets achived great victories, but still they didn't defeated the majority of Germany's fighter force


Britain achieved daytime air superiority when and where it mattered most. If that doesn't count as defeating the Luftwaffe then what does?


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> Britain achieved daytime air superiority when and where it mattered most. If that doesn't count as defeating the Luftwaffe then what does?


 
Britain was able to prevent Hitler from obtain air supremacy over the country in 1940, but this didn't defeated the LW. In the following year, the Germans went to Russia and captured most of the rich areas of the country. Now tell me: puting the Americans out of the equation, would the Soviet and British air forces prevail against the LW? If you cut the Americans totally, including the Lend-Lease, Britain and the USSR would face an increasingly difficulty situation, were Germany is each time stronger, and capable of outclass and outproduce such two nations in aeronautical design, and well as in practically everything. In fact, it's hard to see how the British economy would hold it's own without the Lend-Lease. It was a world war, you cannot try to minimize the participation of such a major participant nation.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> That would be 1939 to 1943 when Germany lost control of airspace over the English Channel, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, the Bay of Biscay, naval base at Brest (France), various parts of the Soviet Union etc. Otherwise Rommel would have kept rolling all the way to the Suez Canal and Allied troop landings in North Africa and Italy would have been impossible.



Field Marschall Franz Halder had scathingly declared that Hitlers refusal to take Moscow in early 1941 was the turning point of the war. Hitler while brilliant and diplomatically transcendant he was a timid military tactician and unable to fight the Blitz-Blitzkrieg his generals were convinced was necessary to win. He seemed overly concerned with securing the materials that had lost Germany WW1 and therefore lost the initiative by living in the past. Hitlers thrust at France via Belgium was about securing the Alsation Iron ore supplies not some brilliant flanking tactic, his invasion of Norway was about securing Iron ore supplies (and probably neccessary, Vikidun Quisling had informed Hitler that the Norweigen cabinet had decided not to fight should Britain invade Norway thereby allowing violation of its neutrality) and his stopping at the gates of Moscow and performance of a bizzare swing down south to attempt to secure oil fields and resources of the Ukrain before settling down for a sieg. Germany might have smashed the Sovet Army instead the swing down south gave it time to consolidate.

After the failure to take Moscow, when the German army was in a position to do so, the rest was perhaps only a matter of time due to the time it gave the Soviets to recover and then bring their greater manpower and material wealth to the fore. However, I suspect that had the Germans succesfully secured their cyphers they may still have won. For instance there would have been no Palm Sunday Massacre of Transports to Nth Africa, no massive causualties of Paratroops over Crete, no warning to Air Marschall Dowding of Adler Tag. This was a close run thing: had the Germans complicated their enigma machines with say an extra wheel or two, a fully rewirable keyboard (instead of the 10 'optimal letters') and had they actually deployed the rewirable reflector UKWD in quantity in early 1943 they would have secured their cyphers. The UK Typex and US Sigba cypher machines were merely elaborated copies of captured German machines.

The P-51B only performed its first tentative missions in December 1943. I would regard the Germans as having reached full performance parity 10 months latter in October 1944 when the Me 109K4 performed its first missions. A partial closing of the gap occured in March 1944 with the Me 109G6ASM with the slightly improved Me 109G14AS 3 months after that.

Prior to that ie during 1943 and late 1942 there seems to have been a very puzzling policy of emphasising Me 109 cost and production advantages over performance improvement by compromising aerodynamics to allow armament, armour and equipment growth. It is hard to determin how much production would have been lost had they decided to produce more refined upgraded Me 109. To me it seems the main effect would have been simply to delay introduction of more heavily armed and armoured versions of the Me 109 as tooling for the more refined upgrades was distributed although while the tooling for these upgraded models was distributed perhaps the tooling for more ordinary models would be compromised. It would have been worthwhile to blow of some other aircraft program to pull an extra 10mph out of the Me 109.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Field Marschall Franz Halder had scathingly declared that Hitlers refusal to take Moscow in early 1941 was the turning point of the war.


 
Do you think the Germans would be able to stop the Soviet winter counter-offensive? And what about the 600,000 Soviet soldiers they would left in their flank had such course was taked?


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2012)

Britain and the Soviet Union were both critically dependent upon U.S. economic assistance. But they don't need the U.S. Army Air Corps to win the war.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> Britain and the Soviet Union were both critically dependent upon U.S. economic assistance. But they don't need the U.S. Army Air Corps to win the war.


 
Maybe. Japan would probably be defeated much faster in this scenario, and both Britain and the USSR would quickly have the benefit of move more forces to the Far East defense against Japan to Germany. The US also would continue to help them even with more LL materials.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 9, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Field Marschall Franz Halder had scathingly declared that Hitlers refusal to take Moscow in early 1941 was the turning point of the war. Hitler while brilliant and diplomatically transcendant he was a timid military tactician and unable to fight the Blitz-Blitzkrieg his generals were convinced was necessary to win. He seemed overly concerned with securing the materials that had lost Germany WW1 and therefore lost the initiative by living in the past. Hitlers thrust at France via Belgium was about securing the Alsation Iron ore supplies not some brilliant flanking tactic, his invasion of Norway was about securing Iron ore supplies (and probably neccessary, Vikidun Quisling had informed Hitler that the Norweigen cabinet had decided not to fight should Britain invade Norway thereby allowing violation of its neutrality) and his stopping at the gates of Moscow and performance of a bizzare swing down south to attempt to secure oil fields and resources of the Ukrain before settling down for a sieg. Germany might have smashed the Sovet Army instead the swing down south gave it time to consolidate.
> 
> After the failure to take Moscow, when the German army was in a position to do so, the rest was perhaps only a matter of time due to the time it gave the Soviets to recover and then bring their greater manpower and material wealth to the fore. However, I suspect that had the Germans succesfully secured their cyphers they may still have won. For instance there would have been no Palm Sunday Massacre of Transports to Nth Africa, no massive causualties of Paratroops over Crete, no warning to Air Marschall Dowding of Adler Tag. This was a close run thing: had the Germans complicated their enigma machines with say an extra wheel or two, a fully rewirable keyboard (instead of the 10 'optimal letters') and had they actually deployed the rewirable reflector UKWD in quantity in early 1943 they would have secured their cyphers. The UK Typex and US Sigba cypher machines were merely elaborated copies of captured German machines.
> 
> ...



There you go again Siegfried, channeling Joseph Gobbels, LOL.

Hitler refused to take Moscow??? What's next ? Stalingrad wasn't a German defeat, but more of Hitler's right brain thinking, his plan for the Heer to invade Siberia.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2012)

People, the topic is about the suitability of the 'Sturmovik-type' airplane for the Western Allies, late war. Please, if you want to discuss the Hitler's refusals, or the contribution of the various AFs to the destruction of Luftwaffe, I'm sure you can find the appropriate topics to share your opinions there.


----------



## stona (Apr 10, 2012)

davebender said:


> Britain achieved daytime air superiority when and where it mattered most. If that doesn't count as defeating the Luftwaffe then what does?



That's true. But it certainly didn't defeat the Luftwaffe in a terminal way. Leigh-Mallory's cross channel commitment of Fighter Command after the Battle of Britain cost the lives of hundreds of RAF pilots. The Luftwaffe had been defeated but not destroyed by Fighter Command in that battle.
The Luftwaffe was systematically destroyed from mid 1943 until the end of the war and the USAAF takes much of the credit for this.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## davebender (Apr 10, 2012)

1 January 1945.
Operation Bodenplatte employed about 1,000 German aircraft.
It's readily apparent the Luftwaffe wasn't terminally damaged as of this date.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 10, 2012)

"... Operation Bodenplatte employed about 1,000 German aircraft."

*None of which were Sturmoviks*, IIRC. 

MM


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> People, the topic is about the suitability of the 'Sturmovik-type' airplane for the Western Allies, late war. Please, if you want to discuss the Hitler's refusals, or the contribution of the various AFs to the destruction of Luftwaffe, I'm sure you can find the appropriate topics to share your opinions there.



The Western "fighters" carried much heavier weapons loads than Soviet fighters. Both machine guns and bombs. A MK V Spitfire had the same number of barrels as a Sturmovik even if less ammo and twice as many as some Lagg-3/Yak fighters. American fighter/bombers with six .50 cals could do a pretty good job of strafing also. 
The Soviets needed a bigger 1500-1800hp plane because so many of their fighters were 1200hp machines. Once the British finally got rid of the Blenheims and Battles and went with A-20s, Maylands, Baltimores and the like, the need for a specialized ground attack plane also lessened. Please remember that the Russian PE-2 was no great shakes as an attack plane either. Performance it had, armament (and bomb load) it did not. Again with only 1200hp engines little else could be expected. The DB-3/IL-4, for all it's utility as a bomber was also too low powered to carry a heavy gun armament, a bomb load, and have enough performance to act as a close support plane. 

The Allies had choices. They may not have been ideal in all conditions but if you want 5,000 western Sturmovik aircraft what 5000 western fighters (with engines bigger than Allisons) are you willing to give up?

The Soviets didn't have a lot of choice. Until the M-82 engine came along the M-35/38 was the only game in town and only a few airframes were available to do the job. It may not have been ideal either and choices were made with it too.


----------



## stona (Apr 10, 2012)

davebender said:


> 1 January 1945.
> Operation Bodenplatte employed about 1,000 German aircraft.It's readily apparent the Luftwaffe wasn't terminally damaged as of this date.



Yes it was. This isn't the place for that discussion. By this time the Jagdwaffe was offering no resistance at all to most USAAF raids. No fuel,not enough pilots. 
Bodenplatte was a final,ill advised and innefective nail in its coffin.
The Luftwaffe had to jump through all sorts of logistical hoops just to mount that raid (that's all it amounted to). Some of the men flying that day had let valour get the better part of discretion. Many were barely trained as fighter pilots,very few were trained at all in ground attack or strafing. Can you imagine an allied attack like that in 1945?
Buy Don Caldwell's latest book. There are some nice tables showing just what the RLV units were capable of as they were gradually minced in the last two years of the war. There are also tables of 8th AF strengths and limited information on the 15 AF by way of contrast.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2012)

davebender said:


> 1 January 1945.
> Operation Bodenplatte employed about 1,000 German aircraft.
> It's readily apparent the Luftwaffe wasn't terminally damaged as of this date.



Terminally damaged doesn't mean totally incapable of striking back. 
It does mean that the Luftwaffe was never going to win the air war or even have control of the air over Germany for more than very brief periods of time. Too small time periods to make any appreciable difference in the outcome of the war.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2012)

Hi, SR6,

The number of barrels of the Western fighters was indeed greater than of the Soviet ones; the susceptibility to the Flak was their problem. 
We know too well that Soviets, even with 1800 HP engines available from mid war, were still pursuing with Sturmovik type. 

As for the material to build stuff, we might decide that 2 'Sturmoviks' are better than 1 A-20 (we have B-25 in production), and decide to pursue that avenue; maybe even not bother with A-26. Or, that B-26 is too tricky, deciding to have 2 'Sturmoviks' for one of those. Or, decide that single stage Griffon (maybe Sabre?) is great asset for the armored, Fulmar/Battle-sized assault plane. Spit can have it's Merlins and two stage Griffons. The Hercules can be 1st or 2nd choice for the Brits. 
We might decide that a V-3420 is offering good performance, and build those instead of V-1710s (or along with those? Allison was claiming that in 1944 was able to build 10000 more V-1710s than required, so 5000 extra engines are there). 
So we can cancel, for example, 1000 A-20s, 1000 B-26s, 1500 in-line engined fighters and have 5000 'Sturmoviks'.



> The Soviets didn't have a lot of choice. Until the M-82 engine came along the M-35/38 was the only game in town and only a few airframes were available to do the job. It may not have been ideal either and choices were made with it too.



I can readily agree that Soviets had somewhat less of the choices, engine-wise, but I'm not following you there completely - care to elaborate a bit?


----------



## davebender (Apr 10, 2012)

> if you want 5,000 western Sturmovik aircraft what 5000 western fighters (with engines bigger than Allisons) are you willing to give up?


We don't need to give up fighter aircraft.

The U.S. Army Air Corps didn't care for the A-20 light bomber. So the A-20C will be the last version produced. Not building 3,200 A-20G and A-20H light bombers gives us over six thousand 1,600hp radial engines. Just about the right size for a single engine CAS aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2012)

And were did all those A-20s go that the US didn't want?

Why many of them went to the Soviet Union who obviously didn't need them because they had the Sturmovik.

The US had Sturmovik aircraft if they wanted them. Single seat up armored Grumman TDPs, Vultee Vengence (1500 built), Curtiss SBC etc. 

Somebody already had the idea:







Vengence had up to six .50 cal guns and the SBC a pair of 20mms. Ditch some of the bomb load and fuel and add armor. But it doesn't bring a new gun or weapon that can't be carried by existing planes. It doesn't allow for long range strikes and it requires more aircraft to deliver a similar quantity of bombs. The heavily armored attack aircraft is a special purpose aircraft, especially for the west who's normal fighters carried a much heavier war load than the Soviet fighters did.


----------



## Glider (Apr 11, 2012)

When discussing the effectivness of the IL2 or similar in RAF or USAAF I think its worth thinking about the area. The RAF and USAAF used the Typhoon and P47 as the equivalent. Compared to the IL2 there is no doubt that the IL2 could take more damage but equally I have little doubt that the IL2 was easier to hit.

We will never know but a personal guess would be that losses to AA fire would be similar with the fewer hits on the Typhoon and P47, being cancelled out by the better ability of the IL 2 to take damage. Taking this a stage further the IL2 units would have more damaged aircraft which wouldn't have done them any good re readyness rates. Also the P47 and Typhoon were less dependent on fighter cover.

So overall I don't see the idea of having Il2 aircraft on the Western Front would add to the effectiveness of the RAF or USAAF


----------



## stona (Apr 11, 2012)

Glider said:


> So overall I don't see the idea of having Il2 aircraft on the Western Front would add to the effectiveness of the RAF or USAAF



Except that the RAF and USAAF ersatz ground attack aircraft were woefully inneffective at destroying armour 

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Glider (Apr 11, 2012)

Partly true but only partly. There were some important points on this.

a) The RAF and USAAF didn't ace huge numbers of German Tanks on a regular basis.
b) The Ground the Russian Airforce fought over tended to be open with few places for tanks to hide.
c) IN the 40mm cannon the RAF had an anti tank weapon at least as good as any other airforce.

The reason why they didn't deploy it was because the number of targets were not sufficient. I know these were tested on the Tempest and probably but I am not certain about the Typhoon so had the need developed, the weapons were there. The development of the 40mm continued for instance these were tested with the little john adapter which significantly improved their penetration, even if they were not deployed.


----------



## stona (Apr 11, 2012)

The Army considered the claims by the RAF to be "fantastic". It was only after the German counter-attack at Mortain that a report by 2 ORS showed just how fantastic they were,and that the USAAF was just as bad. Needless to say 2ndTAF rejected poor old Major Pike's report.
After the German Ardennes offensive another joint report concluded.






That's 99% overclaiming! 
Get hold of a copy of "Air Power at the Battlefront-Allied Close Air Support 1943-1945" by Ian Gooderson for the whole sorry story.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 11, 2012)

I think you may find a similar story in the east. The 23mm guns don't showup for quite a while and Soviet rockets were, if anything, less effective than the Western rockets. The small Bomb cassettes may have been better if available. The morale effects of the attacks may have been as important as the material effects.

Of the 32,000 IL-2s how many had guns heavier than the 23mm?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2012)

IMO one of the greatest myths of the ww2 is that planes make for good tank busters. Worthy of a separate thread, actually.

With a dedicated single-engine, well armored ground attack plane (two seater, but single seater will do) for the late war Western airofrces, I'm trying to come up with a design that would be far better able to survive hits from LMG to 20mm Flak range, carrying diverse armament to pounce different targets. 
A concrete example might be a plane of P-39 layout, with an armored bathtub for pilot, engine radiators (maybe for cannon ammo), with 37-40mm cannon* firing through the prop, LMGs/HMGs, etc.
Another plane might be something akin the Saab 21, a pusher with Griffon/Sabre/V-3420, pilot at the front (maybe even the fan-cooled radial), cannon MG ammo in between, guns under pilot. Both planes carrying rockets under wings, plus maybe bomb(s) under hull. Maybe dive brakes?
I'd really like to see other people's 'paper planes' 

*The HE shells having proirity, so the US M4 Vickers 'S' class would be just fine.


----------



## davebender (Apr 11, 2012)

The IL2 had another advantage in common with all good CAS aircraft - low wing loading which provides superior slow speed maneuverability at low altitude. That's what allows a CAS aircraft to hit targets rather then just scattering bombs and bullets about the countryside. A P-47 with its high wing loading can never match the weapons delivery accuracy of the IL2 or Ju-87.


----------



## Tante Ju (Apr 11, 2012)

Glider said:


> We will never know but a personal guess would be that losses to AA fire would be similar with the fewer hits on the Typhoon and P47, being cancelled out by the better ability of the IL 2 to take damage. Taking this a stage further the IL2 units would have more damaged aircraft which wouldn't have done them any good re readyness rates. Also the P47 and Typhoon were less dependent on fighter cover.



That is true if we think of AA as a few thousend 12,7-20mm guns over the front. However there were millions of rifles, machineguns and submachineguns out there firing at aircraft, too.. of course: chances by one rifleman to shoot down aircraft was extremely small, _but with a million rifles firing, one will find its mark eventually_. The point of Il-2 armor was not to protect against 20 mm and such - those rounds were far too powerful - but to protect against always available last resort AA defence. The Il-2 was immune to this threat, the P-47 or Typhoon with their minimum armor was not. So Il-2 could stay over the danger zone reliably.

Makeshift fighter bombers also do not make ideal strafers. Fighters are optimzed in handling for high speed, effective fire needs good low speed handling. It allows much better accuracy, and much more firing time. An Il-2 was perfectly happy at 200 km/h, for a fighter-bomber its flying near the stall..


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 11, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> IMO one of the greatest myths of the ww2 is that planes make for good tank busters.


 
The Ju-87 G is against this argument.


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> The Ju-87 G is against this argument.



Was it, have you info on actual Soviet tank losses to Ju 87 attacks? Pilots' claims were only claims. Ju 87Gs and Hs 129Bs destroyed Soviet tanks, but how many?

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Apr 11, 2012)

Juha said:


> Was it, have you info on actual Soviet tank losses to Ju 87 attacks? Pilots' claims were only claims. Ju 87Gs and Hs 129Bs destroyed Soviet tanks, but how many?
> 
> Juha



8 July 1943
The Russian attack began in the morning, moving west in an attempt to cut the Begorod-Oboian highway. Along the woods north of Belgorod, Gruppenkommandeur Hptm. Bruno Meyer, flying a Hs 129B of IV./SG 9, spotted moving Russian tanks and large concentrations of troops in the attack on the German flank. Meyer radioed to base that he saw at least 40 tanks and, "....dense blocks of infantry, like a martial picture from the middle ages." and ordered the rest of his Gruppe up from Mikoyanovka to assault the Russian attack. The Luftwaffe immediately scrambled 4 squadrons, a total of 64 Hs 129s, to Meyer's coordinates. Using high-velocity 30mm cannons, the planes swept the forset, pumping shells into the rears of the tanks. Within a few minutes, half a dozen tanks were destroyed and burning. Fw 190 fighters joined the fray, strafing infantry and bombing wherever the Soviets were clustered. Follow up attacks by squadrons led by Major Matuschek, Oblt. Oswald, Oblt. Dornemann and Lt. Orth along with attacks on the infantry by Major Druschel's Fw 190 jabos, soon destroyed the Russian brigade and they retreated into the woods. The Soviet armoured assault had been blunted solely through air power.


I'm also surprised that people forget that the Germans retreated WEST from the Falaise pocket because the Allied jabos were only just annoying.


----------



## Tante Ju (Apr 11, 2012)

Hitting accuracy seems extremely good - 30-40% at least. 


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

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iskzI1TZuqM_

IMHO the how many is not as interesting as "when and where". Ju 87G and Hs 129B could reliably destroy tanks. The point of these units was not so much generally destroying tanks, but hunting for them where they broke through and pouring behind frontline where there was no defence against them. They were the same concept as Panzerjaeger like Nashorn on ground.. getting AT weapon quickly where it is needed. A Stuka/Hs 129B could meet these threats quickly within many hundred km radius.. even destroying or even immobilizing a dozen in a critical time and place could effectively make sure the rest had no chance to exploit the breakthrough. They could tip the balance in a critical situation quickly. 

The number destroyed doesnt really show this.. sometimes knocking out just 6 out of 8 tanks that broke behind the lines means a lot more to the military situation than destroying 50 in the factory assambly line. Its immidiate felt on front, and front will not collapse because loss of rear organisation..


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2012)

Hello Njaco
hat's only what LW says, IIRC there was no Soviet report that exactly matched, again IIRC correctly nearest thing was a Tank Brigade which cancel its attack because of LW attacks and German A/T fire (A/T guns of some units from 2.SSPzGrD) and lost 9 tanks on that day to a/c and A/T guns.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Apr 11, 2012)

No problem. I just question why people seem bent on disparaging the effort of ground-attack aircraft - especially when it worked fairly well. It seems to me that no matter whether it was only 5 tanks or 500, there are many instances where armoured attacks were stopped, blunted or reversed because of ground attack aircraft. "To Win the Winter Sky" by Danny Parker about the Ardennes campaign is filled with examples of Allied destruction of German armour by Tempests and Typhoons and others. It feels like you can't see the forest because there are too many trees sometimes.


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2012)

Now according to Soviet data not one of their tanks was destroyed by a/c during Summer 44 campaign in Karelian Isthmus in spite of numerous Ju 87D and Fw 190F attacks against them by the LW and numerous FAF level bombing and dive bombing attacks in which Ju 88As used up to 1000kg bombs just before their effect against tanks.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Apr 11, 2012)

Summer of '44...hmmmmm. How experienced were these bomber pilots? I just read in Galland's autobiography that about that time he was working up pilot reserves for 262 and pulling pilots from Eastern Front to Western (requiring a new training program for the different tactics in that theatre). Many jabo pilots at that time really didn't know what they were doing and didn't have the experience.


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2012)

Hello Njaco
I know, but on the other hand pro CAS people many times tended to forget that some soldiers were fighting on the ground, not just looking on the wonderful job CAS planes were doing. There have been some articles in aviation magazines claiming that CAS a/c alone stopped the German Mortain counter attack totally forgetting that there was one US infantry division supported by 2 A/T battalions fighting hard to stop the Germans.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Apr 11, 2012)

Understood. Hey, I'm no expert, just have questions.


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2012)

Njaco said:


> Summer of '44...hmmmmm. How experienced were these bomber pilots? I just read in Galland's autobiography that about that time he was working up pilot reserves for 262 and pulling pilots from Eastern Front to Western (requiring a new training program for the different tactics in that theatre). Many jabo pilots at that time really didn't know what they were doing and didn't have the experience.



German actions of course didn't have any effect on FAF and Finns had high regard on the skills and motivation of the pilots of the Kampfverband Kuhlmay. The Jabo staffel came from Lappland, they had experience on ground attacks but they had not used the massive AA protection the Soviet armies had during their major offensive operations, so they had first heavy losses before adjusting to situation and chaged to less risky attack profiles.

Juha


----------



## razor1uk (Apr 12, 2012)

I think a lack of Soviet data on aerial induced armour losses in '44, says more about the cold war mentality of the Soviet armoured proponants its armoured doctorines; 
The 1st Gulfwar in my eyes, with the ensuing mass destruction of Soviet supplied 'Mongol' tanks (cheaper reduced tech Soviet armour for export) from alliance aerial ground armour, and how easily they were destroyed and damaged, even if manned my by non-Soviet trained soldiers, helped speed up the fracturing and the fall of the CCCP. 
This strengthed those Generals etc close to Yeltsins 'camp', for his coming coup d'etat against Gorbachevs more sheduled ideas of progressive political change-over, be they viewed right or wrong now; I personally think that the alcoholic Yeltsin did much harm to CCCP/CIS verses what MG had propossed, but then, that milk was spilt a long time ago from that situation.

What I mean is, the Soviets understood armour pretty well, and in so understanding, possibly didn't bother to record or ignored some things, for the morale of its forces - they had both many tank vs tank, A/C vs tank battles in WWII, being on both offencive and defencive sides. Also to maintain 'Patriotic'ness for its divisions, with the ever prospect of WWIII in Centeral European Plains, why let info out/survive that could give its tankers liquid underware if and when WWIII happened - which it didn't parcé, as it was expected too.

Either that, or such data has yet to be... translated, found, de-classified etc, or is lost within the archieves perhaps.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 12, 2012)

> The 1st Gulfwar in my eyes, with the ensuing mass destruction of Soviet supplied 'Mongol' tanks (cheaper reduced tech Soviet armour for export) from alliance aerial ground armour, and how easily they were destroyed and damaged, even if manned my by non-Soviet trained soldiers, helped speed up the fracturing and the fall of the CCCP.



Writing was on the wall much earlier than the time when the 1st Hellfire or Maverick hit the Iraqi T-55/-62/-72. 

BTW, think that here is some (non-intentioned) misleading. Conventional Soviet war machine was featuring PVO and Frontal airforces, 'onion-layered' SAM defences (both towed and SP, from 200 km monsters to MANPADS using data from C3I system), radar-directed AAA, and then we have tanks, mechanized infantry artillery, SP AT missile platforms, attack heliopters, air-dropped assets etc. Soviets knew all too well that Cold war tanks are easy targets for Cold war air forces helicopters, that can use anything from napalm, cluster bombs, all kinds of guns missiles. The concept of combined arms was there, both in theory and practice.
Now we have Iraq, facing the cutting edge Western armed forces, tailored to defeat Soviet conventional forces in Fulda gap. Was it really a contest? With air defenses non-existent after month long air campaign, the Iraqi tanks would've been easily killed by napalm, cluster bombs shells, let alone with Paveways other guided weaponry. The Western tanks, in aggregate far better armed armored, with true night view sights, have no problems taking out any tank that withstood the air attacks.
So the huge losses to the tanks vs. planes/choppers were no surprise, even to the most staunch supporter of the armor.
The 'Mongol tank' is somewhat of a red herring. The export customers would buy the T-55/62/72 line of tanks, mass produced designs that lacked sophistication (even in Soviet use) when compared with 'upper class' of Soviet tanks, the T-64/80 line. Soviets did employed gun-launched missiles for the 'mass' tanks, but that's probably the only significant difference.


----------



## razor1uk (Apr 12, 2012)

I understand your point there Tomo and that it is better made more believable than what I arrived at.

I think most of my last line is maybe closer to the topic lack of data


> "...or such data has yet to be... translated, found, de-classified etc, or is lost within the archieves perhaps."


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 12, 2012)

Indeed, we could use some Soviet-era data; the stuff fro their archives already debumked many misconceptions held about the Eastern front (P-39 as the tank buster being one of the most repeated, even in the most acclaimed books).

Time and again I'm finding myself thinking about taking lessons in Russian; eg. the book 'Domestic artillery' by Shirokorad is just too juicy to pass on. It has only 1188 pages (1188, that's right)


----------



## stona (Apr 12, 2012)

Juha said:


> Was it, have you info on actual Soviet tank losses to Ju 87 attacks? Pilots' claims were only claims. Ju 87Gs and Hs 129Bs destroyed Soviet tanks, but how many?
> 
> Juha



No we don't,we have a lot of German claims. As far as I know the Germans never attempted any kind of scientific analysis of armour destroyed from the air claims against actual armour destroyed like the Western Allies.
The whole point of the post D-Day allied system was that it actually tried to match claims to armour destroyed from the air and found a 99:1 discrepancy.It is important to know how good your tank busting aircraft are doing.It is vital intelligence,hence the effort put in to ascertaining what exactly was going on. Read the book I mentioned,the reports are there.
I am discussing armoured vehicles and tanks. Allied CAS was more than annoying. It was devastating against soft skinned vehicles and effectively prevented the concentration or movement of German formations in daylight,as long as the aircraft could fly.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2012)

The Douglas AD-1 Skyraider was a VERY GOOD fighter bomber. It could hold its own or better as a fighter when empty and could carry 4000 pounds or more of ordnance. The speed was 322 mph or so and, when light, it could climb over 4,000 feet per minute. It could climb over 2,500 feet per minute when loaded with ordnance. With four 20 mm cannons, it was formidable. Not fast, but definitely could make any attacker feel the hurt.

However, the R-3350 wasn't really developed into a reliable pwoerplant until late in the war. After WWII, the R-3350 was quite relaible. During WWII it was OK to questionable. However, had it been available in WWII, I have no doubt it would have been a top-notch asset. In Vietnam, I saw just two of them put an entire company of enemy into full flight to get away. They stayed around for over an hour and the bad guys gave up and left when they found out that anyone who fired at us was killed quickly or made to flee a long way. When the two ran low on fuel and ammo and departed, 4 more showed up and the enemy ran before they even had to fire once. Imagine several flights of, say, 4 to 8 each supporting an assault in WWII! If they had been over Normandy, it would have gone MUCH easier.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2012)

GregP said:


> The Douglas AD-1 Skyraider was a VERY GOOD fighter bomber. It could hold its own or better as a fighter when empty and could carry 4000 pounds or more of ordnance. The speed was 322 mph or so and, when light, it could climb over 4,000 feet per minute. It could climb over 2,500 feet per minute when loaded with ordnance. With four 20 mm cannons, it was formidable. Not fast, but definitely could make any attacker feel the hurt.
> 
> However, the R-3350 wasn't really developed into a reliable pwoerplant until late in the war. After WWII, the R-3350 was quite relaible. During WWII it was OK to questionable. However, had it been available in WWII, I have no doubt it would have been a top-notch asset. In Vietnam, I saw just two of them put an entire company of enemy into full flight to get away. They stayed around for over an hour and the bad guys gave up and left when they found out that anyone who fired at us was killed quickly or made to flee a long way. When the two ran low on fuel and ammo and departed, 4 more showed up and the enemy ran before they even had to fire once. Imagine several flights of, say, 4 to 8 each supporting an assault in WWII! If they had been over Normandy, it would have gone MUCH easier.



Really? How so?

Was it so superior to the fighter bombers that were on hand for Normandy?


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2012)

Yes Wuzak, the AD-1 was far superior to the fighter bombers then on hand:

1. In ordanance load. 
2. In maneuverability. I have seen a light one outmaneuver all other warbirds at an airshow (perhaps rehearsed? Can't say). 
3. Power. Definitely out climbs any WWII fighter bomber. It climbs with a Bearcat when lightly loaded.
4. Armament. With four 20mm cannons, it packed an equal or greater punch than most. Greater than most. Of course, I can't say anything about ordnance introduced later than WWII, but it would have been a great asset in WWII ... IF it were there ... And I know it wasn't.

This is why I really don't like "what ifs" ... you can't really demonstrate your point except in words.  On the other hand, if you stick to what REALLY happened, we already KNOW the answers since both the battles and the war are over and done.

Cheers.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2012)

GregP said:


> Yes Wuzak, the AD-1 was far superior to the fighter bombers then on hand:
> 
> 1. In ordanance load.
> 2. In maneuverability. I have seen a light one outmaneuver all other warbirds at an airshow (perhaps rehearsed? Can't say).
> ...


 
Well, the Allies did have the Typhoon and Thunderbolt for fighter/bomber duties. While neither could carry as large a load as the AD-1 maybe thet's because it wasn't thought necessary. The Typhoon could match the AD-1 for gun power, and many would argue that the 8 .50s of the Thunderbolt could too.

You also had the Mosquito FBa and the Invader.

Just wondering what the superior firepower of the AD-1 could have been used for to expidite D-Day. Much of the issues for the landing parties was due to the fortifications - which had survived shelling from the Navy.


----------



## GregP (Apr 13, 2012)

The AD-1 has wonderful cross-type speed brakes and is VERY accurate in its ordnance delivery.

If I were running the aerial show on D-Day, and if I had AD-1's avialable, I'd pepper the pillboxes with napalm, 20 mm fire, and iron bombs. My bet the napalm would prove to be the winner and would result in MORE naplam. Fire has a way of making people run, doesn't it?

Of course, we'll never really know will we?


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 13, 2012)

The effectiveness of German aerial tank busting efforts are perhaps best valued by their ability to halt an attack long enough to allow an response by their own armour. The idea being to harass tanks that had broken through and were running riot behind the lines. If the tanks accompanying infantry can be detached or destroyed they become vulnerable to man portable AT weapons. The Ju 87G tank busting Stuka performed the same role as the oft decried US tank destroyer. Perhaps they mainly scored mobility kills and only field repairable ones at that but a few hours of time can give a lancer time to dig in, prepare AT defences, escape or receive reinforcements. In that context a mobility kill is still a kill.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 13, 2012)

GregP said:


> The AD-1 has wonderful cross-type speed brakes and is VERY accurate in its ordnance delivery.
> 
> If I were running the aerial show on D-Day, and if I had AD-1's avialable, I'd pepper the pillboxes with napalm, 20 mm fire, and iron bombs. My bet the napalm would prove to be the winner and would result in MORE naplam. Fire has a way of making people run, doesn't it?
> 
> Of course, we'll never really know will we?


 
Weren't naval gun barrages quite accurate, considering the target wasn't moving and was relatively close?

Not sure if napalm was used in bombs much at the time of Normandy.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 13, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Weren't naval gun barrages quite accurate, considering the target wasn't moving and was relatively close?.



Naval guns were about 0.6% dispersion at full range of about 20km, perhaps 0.4% for a well designed round and gun like Bismarks 38cm guns. This doesn't include the effects of aiming errors.

There is a naval saying that good gunnery gives you straddles only God gives you hits. Once you are straddling that is the best that can be done.

Naval gunnery computers, like the Bismarks C/38 were quite capable of tracking a target, measuring is velocity and synthesising (synthetic is a proper naval term) its course and producing a perfect firing solution taking into account their own course, wind, correolis effect and manouvering however it was still neccessary to spot shell splash. Bismark achieved a straddle in its first salvo against Nelson in the final fight and it looked like another repeat of the destruction of Hood however she then lost her aim. It is thought that defective or absent inputs from the rudder position sensor were the cause of this since the rudders were obviously disabled (one had been unjammed). One reason Hood was almost certainly doomed against Bismark was that her older dryse table (computer) calculated in polar co-ordinates and thus made simplifying assumptions that were very costly in terms of accuracy given her angle of approach. Bismark like PoW did their calculations in cartesian form.

Land targets wouldn't be hard.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 13, 2012)

GregP , you're way off on what a AD-1 could lift, it could lift 8,000 pounds of ordinance, totally it could lift more than it's empty weight. Or maybe you're thinking in kilos, and talking in pounds.
It weighted 11-12,000 empty, and max take off weight was 24-25,000 pounds. Wasnt aware it could climb 4,000 fpm, but with no wing load, and light on fuel, I guess it's possible. We called them A1's or Spads in the other sevices.


----------



## Glider (Apr 13, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> That is true if we think of AA as a few thousend 12,7-20mm guns over the front. However there were millions of rifles, machineguns and submachineguns out there firing at aircraft, too.. of course: chances by one rifleman to shoot down aircraft was extremely small, _but with a million rifles firing, one will find its mark eventually_. The point of Il-2 armor was not to protect against 20 mm and such - those rounds were far too powerful - but to protect against always available last resort AA defence. The Il-2 was immune to this threat, the P-47 or Typhoon with their minimum armor was not. So Il-2 could stay over the danger zone reliably.
> 
> Makeshift fighter bombers also do not make ideal strafers. Fighters are optimzed in handling for high speed, effective fire needs good low speed handling. It allows much better accuracy, and much more firing time. An Il-2 was perfectly happy at 200 km/h, for a fighter-bomber its flying near the stall..



The Typhoon was well protected against rifle calibre weapons apart from the obvious exception of the radiator and was still a difficult target to hit. The main danger to these aircraft were the dedicated anti aircraft weapons.

The point I was trying to make is had the allied armies needed to have dedicated anti tank aircraft, then they had the weapons available. In the desert and Far East the Hurricane IID when faced with tanks did an effective job with the 40mm. Their performance didn't seem to get in the way, for the commander the problem was the lack of targets.

In practice the theoretical advantage of the Hurricane IVD having more weapon options was outweighed by the training needed to be effective. A similar problem was encountered with the Typhoon with its bombs and (in theory) rocket option. In practice it was one or the other for a squadron, not both

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 13, 2012)

Yes the Skyraider COULD carry 8,000 pounds of ordnance. But most carried about 4,000 pounds plus some fuel tanks for extended loiter and other stores. Hey, the B-17 COULD carry over 12,000 pounds of ordnance. But if you wanted fuel to get to Berlin and back plus ammo plus crew, you were carrying 4,000 pounds of bombs. So that figure is most often quoted.

The Skyraider had a lot of hard points and all could be singletons, MERs, or TERs. I once saw one configured with ALL TERs, and all were full! I would not have wanted to attract his attention for any reason, were I an enemy! Anyway, the Skyraider was more valuable when he could loiter, so almost all carried two or four drop tanks plus ordnance plus missiles.

Naval gunfire was good to about 25 miles inland or so. Past there, you were using aircraft, artillery, or man-portable arms unless you happened top have the New Jersey offshore. It was good for 30 - 35 miles inland.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 13, 2012)

GregP said:


> Hey, the B-17 COULD carry over 12,000 pounds of ordnance. But if you wanted fuel to get to Berlin and back plus ammo plus crew, you were carrying 4,000 pounds of bombs. So that figure is most often quoted.



The load a B-17 could carry was different for different versions, but, IIRC, could be as much as 17,600lb for the B-17G.

However, the B-17's bomb bay was restrictive, so it certainly couldn't carry that internally. They could only carry 2 x 2000lb bombs internally, though other bombs could be used as well. 

I think for Berlin missions B-17s could carry 10 or 12 500lb bombs (5000 or 6000lb).

But you are correct, for longer missions the bomb load had to be reduced - not just because of the fuel load, but because extra fuel tankage could be carried in the bomb bay.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 14, 2012)

GregP said:


> Yes the Skyraider COULD carry 8,000 pounds of ordnance. But most carried about 4,000 pounds plus some fuel tanks for extended loiter and other stores. Hey, the B-17 COULD carry over 12,000 pounds of ordnance. But if you wanted fuel to get to Berlin and back plus ammo plus crew, you were carrying 4,000 pounds of bombs. So that figure is most often quoted.



The 4000lb figure is often quoted but it is a bit misleading. Because of the restricted size of the bomb bay in the B-17 certain types of of bombs did not fit very well. D-17s quite often carried five 1000lb bombs to Berlin or ten 500lb bombs, however when carrying incendiary bombs the load fell to just over 3000lbs because the bulkier incendiary bombs didn't fit. One bomb group carrying 5000lb per plane and one bomb group carrying 3000lb of incendiaries equal 4000lbs _average_, but understates the B-17's capability by 20% 




GregP said:


> Naval gunfire was good to about 25 miles inland or so. Past there, you were using aircraft, artillery, or man-portable arms unless you happened top have the New Jersey offshore. It was good for 30 - 35 miles inland.



navel gun fire is good for closer to 15 miles. New Jersey has a max range of 41,604 yds=23.63 statute miles ( (Campbell's "Navel Weapons of World War II) and if you keep the ship a few miles off shore (40-50 ft of water) and out of range of some die hard shore gun, you are under 20 miles even for the New Jersey.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 14, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> navel gun fire is good for closer to 15 miles. New Jersey has a max range of 41,604 yds=23.63 statute miles ( (Campbell's "Navel Weapons of World War II) and if you keep the ship a few miles off shore (40-50 ft of water) and out of range of some die hard shore gun, you are under 20 miles even for the New Jersey.



Any battlewagon captain who let his ship get close enough to land to be in 40-50 ft of water would soon be in command of a rowing boat. A monitor no problem its designed for that, Battleships usually liked a lot more elbow room and clear water under the keel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2012)

I've personally shot an 8-inch cannon 27 miles at the proving ground in Yuma, Arizona, U.S.A. while working for Motorola. We developed the proximity fuze for the 8-inch and 6-inch rounds.

And while I was in Viet Nam, we called for Naval gunfire as required from further inland than you suggest above.

Still, the message is the same. Naval gunfiore is effective, but only for a small band inland from water deep enough for the gun platform.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 14, 2012)

Didn't the Navy have some rocket agumentated shells during Vietnam era ?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 14, 2012)

GregP said:


> I've personally shot an 8-inch cannon 27 miles at the proving ground in Yuma, Arizona, U.S.A. while working for Motorola. We developed the proximity fuze for the 8-inch and 6-inch rounds.
> 
> And while I was in Viet Nam, we called for Naval gunfire as required from further inland than you suggest above.
> 
> Still, the message is the same. Naval gunfiore is effective, but only for a small band inland from water deep enough for the gun platform.



But in the context of the defensive positions for D-day, naval gunnery was well within range.


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2012)

Obviously the beach is always in rangge of Naval gunfire. But, naval officers have no visual on the pillboxes near the beach, and they missed most of them. The Skyraiders can hit a very small target accurately with napalm ... and that is the basis for my contention that they would affect the invasion by removing the pillboxes from long-winded defenses. Even if tghe Germans ducked to avoid the flames, the Allies would have a chance to advance and lob grenades into the pillbox slits.

What is you contention, Wayne? Do you think hordes of Skyradiers would NOT affect D-Day? With their accurate ordnance delivery, how is that a possible outcome?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2012)

I know during the invasion of Iwo, the US Navy ships were firing point blank right into targets on Suribachi. I know it's a bit different, but the directing of the assets is what makes the biggest difference. If you have someone to spot the rounds, or the strike aircraft, your results will be much better.


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2012)

All too true evan ...


----------



## Juha (Apr 14, 2012)

Over Normandy Spitfires/Seafires and later Grasshoppers and Austers were used to direct naval gun fire. And on D-Day at least RN naval gunfire was accurate achieving even hits through gun casemate embrasures.

Juha

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2012)

I see. Then we really didn't have 10,000 casulaties with 2,500 dead? Sorry, I just don't believe naval gunfire was that good. 

If so, the reinforced positions would have fallen MUCH sooner than they did on D-Day.

My contention is that a bunch of Skyraiders armed with napalm could have reduced the casualties. They certainly would not have added to the casualties.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 14, 2012)

GregP said:


> Obviously the beach is always in rangge of Naval gunfire. But, naval officers have no visual on the pillboxes near the beach, and they missed most of them. The Skyraiders can hit a very small target accurately with napalm ... and that is the basis for my contention that they would affect the invasion by removing the pillboxes from long-winded defenses. Even if tghe Germans ducked to avoid the flames, the Allies would have a chance to advance and lob grenades into the pillbox slits.
> 
> What is you contention, Wayne? Do you think hordes of Skyradiers would NOT affect D-Day? With their accurate ordnance delivery, how is that a possible outcome?



Not sure Greg.

The Allies certainly had aircraft to do the same job, but did they?

Was the Skyraider's accuracy present from the beginning, or was it due to development over 20-30 years in the aircraft and technique, and sighting methods?

How long would a Skyraider last on D-day with the 2200hp mid-early 1944 version of the R-3350 which was, at that stage, still a fire waiting to happen?


----------



## Juha (Apr 15, 2012)

GregP said:


> I see. Then we really didn't have 10,000 casulaties with 2,500 dead? Sorry, I just don't believe naval gunfire was that good.
> 
> If so, the reinforced positions would have fallen MUCH sooner than they did on D-Day.
> 
> My contention is that a bunch of Skyraiders armed with napalm could have reduced the casualties. They certainly would not have added to the casualties.



Well, I noted that RN fire support was accurate, saying nothing on USN. Lossrates on Commonwealth beaces were 4,5%, 5,8% and 4,1%, not light but not extraordinary heavy. Naval fire support for the Commonwealth beaches was by RN. On US sectors it was mostly USN affair, but there was also one British monitor and 4 light cruisers plus one French light cruiser giving hand IIRC. There were many reasons why Omaha was so bloody, some originated from US Army, some from Heer, some from USAAF and some from USN. I agree that Helldivers, Avengers and Hellcats would have been better planes than B-26s for the last air attacks against targets on Omaha and that USN rocket launching landing crafts missed their targets but on the other hand some USN destroyers gave good fire support to the troops on the Omaha.

Juha

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 15, 2012)

I admit to not understanding the discussion re the Skyraider. I would rather expect any aircraft first issued in 1947/8 to have advantages in 1944. Think of the difference a number of 109G's would have made in the BOB, the Me 262 in 1941, the P51 over Pearl Harbour.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 15, 2012)

Skyriders would've fallen as an easy prey for the Ta-183, or the Wasserfall AA missiles. The 10,5cm Flak with proximity fused ammo would've got them, too. All of that LW stuff was 2 days from entering service when the ww2 abruptly ended.


----------



## GregP (Apr 15, 2012)

oops


----------



## GregP (Apr 15, 2012)

I thought they were taxiing out for takeoff when the war ended, thus causing them to halt on the spot and decay into nothing except memories that continue to surface in Luft 46.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 15, 2012)

"... I would rather expect any aircraft first issued in 1947/8 to have advantages in 1944. "

I know, Glider, seems counter intuitive, but there's the aircraft (the platform) and there's the 'system' (technology, training, science, etc. etc.) that supports the platform. I think the Germans struggled to support the Me-262 ... it was an advantage for them certainly, but no where what it might have been if the metallurgy was better, or the land-approach not so vulnerable.

There would have been huge teething problems with the Spad, in 1943, in the ETO, INHO.

MM


----------



## wuzak (Apr 15, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> There would have been huge teething problems with the Spad, in 1943, in the ETO



Not the least unreliable engines.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 15, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Skyriders would've fallen as an easy prey for the Ta-183, or the Wasserfall AA missiles. The 10,5cm Flak with proximity fused ammo would've got them, too. All of that LW stuff was 2 days from entering service when the ww2 abruptly ended.


 
I think the Skyriders meet similar, if not worse oposition in Vietnam. Not my area, anyone can talk about this?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 15, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> I think the Skyriders meet similar, if not worse oposition in Vietnam. Not my area, anyone can talk about this?


 
In both instances the Skyraiders would be operating with air superiority.

Not sure if Skyraiders operated in the same areas as the majority of flak/SAM sitese were, or if they were within reach of the North Vietnamese air force.


----------



## GregP (Apr 16, 2012)

The Skyraider is a rugged fighter-bomber that doesn't need local air superiority. All it would need is an escort of lightly-loaded Skyraiders. It would certainly out-turn most of the opposition, hits as well as any, and if easy to throw around in ACM. I think it would out-climb most of the opposition. In a dive it can accelerate or use huge cross-type speed brakes to get behind and shoot. It would be able to fight longer than any of the likely opponents. 

Once the bomb-laden planes unloaded, the enemy would really be in trouble since the'd be facing more light Skyraiders with all the ammo still in the wings. It's like getting reinforcements immediately after the attack.

In Viet Nam, NOBODY wanted to get a gaggle of Skyraiders angry with them; there was simply too much ordnance flying around. They faded into the plants (I won't say "trees") or rice paddies (swamps) and stayed put when the Skyraiders showed up. My bet is if they built a new Skyraider today, we'd buy it and it would kick some butt anywhere in the world. Even the MiG jets tended to stay away becasue the Skyraiders could turn on a proverbialdime and nail them as they swept in.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 16, 2012)

Three Skyraiders were lost in air to air combat during the Vietnam era, two to Mig-17's

But in return 2 Mig-17's were shot down by Skyraiders, pretty good I think, since the Migs were almost twice as fast.


----------



## GregP (Apr 16, 2012)

Not bad at all! Thanks for making my point. The MiG's left the Skyraiders alone for the most part. We were in Vietnam for a LONG time with air operations going on the entire time.

Go Skyraiders!


----------



## pinsog (Apr 17, 2012)

GREGP

How big of a turboprop, how many hp, could you fit into the engine compartment of a Skyraider?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 17, 2012)

A Western Sturmovik is useful only if it is clearly better at engaging armour/hardened targets than the existing aircraft in the arsenals of the Western Allies. In this thread, I haven't seen any statistics that either provide evidence for or against the thesis that a Sturmovik-style aircraft would be beneficial for the West.

What's needed is an examination of how effective Sturmovik aircraft really were - the Il-2 in Russian hands and the Hs-129 in German hands. You'd need to compared this with dive bombers, fighter bombers and other G/A style aircraft.

The Hurricane IID was probably the closest thing to a dedicated anti-tank aircraft deployed, but it was judged too vulnerable to German ground fire to survive over the fields of France. How vulnerable is too vulnerable? Was sort of loss rates would be considered acceptable or unacceptable?

The Western allies also generally ignored dive bombers for tactical support, at least in the ETO. Dive bombers performed with notable success in the MTO and Southeast Asia, but were virtually absent from the Western European sphere of operations. Fighter bombers were considered more survivable than dive bombers and slow(er) moving G/A aircraft, but was the survivability bought at the price of effectiveness?


----------



## Altea (Apr 17, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> When the Soviets were unable to secure "local" air superiority in a sector, 'Sturmovik' paid the price. Huge losses. They were unwieldy and needed air cover. But even unloaded they were unable to run. Whereas .... Typhoons and P-47's certainly required fighter protection when they were loaded up ... but they could run and fight as fighters when need be.


And Liberators, Bostons, Blenheims didn't they need "local" superiority to operate? Il-2 was unwieldly than what? Typhoons, P-47's? Explain-it.
What are "huge" losses for you, 1%, 15%; 30%?




> I think the 'Sturmovik' was very much a creature of the Soviet Game and the Soviet Front - like the T-34, used in masses with no qualms about losses.


And not the Stuart or the Grant? You think you would have better survived in a Crusader in June, 1941 against panzers?




> [IIRC, Rudel was not only a tank ace but an airplane 'ace' -- mostly flying Stukas. Were there any 'Sturmovik' aircraft aces on the Soviet side ...?]



Why not Efimov, 288 missions, 58 aerial fights and 7 victories against german fighters? His far from being the only one.

Who's more manoeuvrable in turning circles at low alt, The Il-2, the Typhoon or the P-47?

Regards


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 17, 2012)

"... Why not Efimov, 288 missions, 58 aerial fights and 7 victories against german fighters? "

Sorry, Altea, never heard of the man. Sounds interesting. Can you provide more detail on Efimov, please ...?

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 17, 2012)

Jabberwocky said:


> A Western Sturmovik is useful only if it is clearly better at engaging armour/hardened targets than the existing aircraft in the arsenals of the Western Allies. In this thread, I haven't seen any statistics that either provide evidence for or against the thesis that a Sturmovik-style aircraft would be beneficial for the West.
> 
> What's needed is an examination of how effective Sturmovik aircraft really were - the Il-2 in Russian hands and the Hs-129 in German hands. You'd need to compared this with dive bombers, fighter bombers and other G/A style aircraft.
> 
> ...



Maybe it's a misunderstanding that this thread is about the tank buster for the W. Allies air forces - it is not. It is about the well armored ground attack plane that would be able to withstand ground fire far better than the fighter planes pressed into that role. If the plane can be used as a tank buster, even better. There is really no problem that a design features dive brakes.
As for the bolded part - from 1943 on, the main threat for the GA planes in the MTO/ETO was Flak arm of the LW (plus whatever can fire upwards from KM Heer), not the fighter arm. Was the effectiveness harmed by the historical approach (fighters bombed-up for GA work)? No one can say a 100% correct answer, but IMO the 'proper' GA planes were better tools for that job.

I rate Hurri IID really high; the custom tailored plane for 1943 and on should be able to sport both 40mm and bombs/rockets in the same time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2012)

What make good CAS aircraft for a particular air force also depend on the support they can get. The IL-2 was easy to fly (at least the early versions) and gave the pilots a chance to become more experienced. Russian airfield construction was none too good and logistics in many cases was also below western standards. 
Western forces had more construction equipment at their disposal for more rapid construction of front line airfields and perhaps larger ones that could handle faster planes. More trucks meant that fuel could be moved easier for twin engined planes or 2000hp fighters. Bombs could be moved easier and so on. 
The Russians would have had a hard time deploying Western style fighter bombers in 1942-43 in terms of supporting them and providing pilots for them. The IL-2 worked for them and as I have said before, their fighters were much less effective in the CAS role, not saying they were not used but six Russian 82mm rockets do not come close to eight 3 in rockets in target effect. The RS-82 rocket weighing about 15 lbs compared to the 82 lbs of the 3in rocket fitted with an HE warhead.
Western fighters could carry gun and bomb loads closer to what the IL-2 carried meaning that the only real advantage would be in the armored aircrafts survivability. Now you have to decide if the survivability of the armor out weighs the longer exposure time on the attack runs.


----------



## Altea (Apr 18, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Sorry, Altea, never heard of the man. Sounds interesting. Can you provide more detail on Efimov, please ...?
> 
> MM



Efimov or Yefimov is not the problem. Here a link with some erronated data:
Aleksandr Iefimov - Wikipédia
The full interview in AVIONS 163 
http://www.avions-bateaux.com/produit/avions/1168
The problem is that your post is irelevant and not making sense at all.
-So you compare Il-2 losses to what?
- You compare Il-2 manoeuvrability to what?
- Il-2 efficiency at battlefield to what?
- What is the difference between a pigeon?  

Let him speak now, for himself, in spring and summer of 1942 an Il-2 was lost all 20 (~30 in fact*) combat missions: 
"_ IF you ask me the reason of such a losses, i would say that it was due to the lack of training ans low morale of the pilots. They came in the front with only 8 to 10 flying hours, were not trained to dogfights, had bad handling level andno self-confidence. They were opposed to Luftwaffe vets with amizing experience and firing very well."_

Well what can we expect, if even a Luftwaffe rookie had about 350 flying hours, that time?
Should it be the opposite, i doubt that Luft pilots (at least those surviving to the 109 take-offs and landings) would have been able to shoot anything...

Situation changed in the second part of the war, fresh pilots had then at least 20-26 hours of flight in reserve regiments, and were forbidden to join the front, without group combat training, by 2, patrols or squandrons...

So, loss rate of the stormovik stabilised at about 80-90 (in fact 110-120*) combat sorties. 

* Soviets were not counting failed assault missions in pilot log-books, only those that reached and "destroyed" primary or secondary target...


BTW, if Wawell attacked in June 1941 with peasant's 200 T-34 and KV tanks instead of the marvels of western technology as cruiser tanks and mathildas, supported by IL-2 and Pe-2 instead of 15th's Squadron Battles of supported by the SAAF Gauntlets, the fate the battle would be no doubt.

What kind of other plane would you use to support Wavell's attack in 1941?


----------



## Njaco (Apr 18, 2012)

Calm down, Altea. Lets not have this thread turn into a mess.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 18, 2012)

A specialised ground attack aircraft such as the Sturmovik or Stuka can do an excellent Job if opperated within certain restrictions:
1 An escort must be provided.
2 The aircraft must not be opperate deep behined enemy lines so that it is not exposed to attrition in its penetration but only over the top of the front lines ie as mobile artillery. In this role I rate the Stuka highly because apart from its abillity to dive bomb accuratly when used as an AT aircraft its steadiness allowed an accurate aim not possible with most fighters.
It is harder to rate the Sturmovik.

The Germans incidently solved the problem of synchronised firing of 30mm guns through the propellor ark and long barreled high velocity Mk 103 guns were to be mounted in the wing roots to fire through the propellor ark of the Ta 152. Both the Ta 152H and the shorter spanned Ta 152C were to receive this. Not only would they make a powerfull bomber destroyer able to engage the bombers at the limits of the range of their defensive weapons but these guns would have an potent anti-tank capabillity; the Mk 103 managed over 140mm with tungsten cored amunition and about the same with uranium (which was used as a tungsten substitute by the Germans). This would make the Tank a poten anti-armour aircraft completely on a par with any allied fighter.

In general the RAF nor USAAF never produced an dedicated ground support aircraft (the vultee vengence came close) and made do with fighters adapted to this role. It is possible that some of the poor accuracy attributed to allied rocket firing AT aircraft was down to the fact that aircraft were poor platforms for aiming such weapons. Although the Stuka became outmoded as the war moved on it can be argued that the Luftwaffe had such and aircraft in the early war years while the USAAF, RAF did not. (they might have borrowed a Navy aircraft)


----------



## riacrato (Apr 18, 2012)

I think Hs 129 development shows rather well that MK 103 was no longer adequate at defeating 1944-45 armor.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2012)

Pinsongs,

Douglas Aircraft tried to make a turboprop Skyraider. Look up the Douglas Skyshark. It had a Westinghouse T-40 in it of some 5,000 HP (supposed to be 6,500 HP but never made it ...). The Achilles heel was the gearbox. Douglas tried to field it with contra-props and the gearboxes were simply not up to 5,000 HP at the time.

I think it is certainly possible since the Tupolev Bear bomber runs contraprops of 14,500 HP each and has no problems other than melting teh cowlings occasionally.

If it had been a success, I don't think the Skyshark as proposed would have been the end result anyway since you couldn'd see out the back! It would have had to be fitted with a bubble canopy yo be viable ... but I like the idea very much.

Even today, an armed Douglas Skyraider could not be dismissed easily by any ground forces. Of course, today the Skyraider would have to sneak up using nap-of-the-earth terrain masking to avoid the shoulder-fired ground-to-air missiles, but they'd manage to sneak up on enough, given modern surveillence and gps gear. Altogether a very interesting scenario, particulalrly since the U.S.A. is considering buy Embraer ALX attack planes that, while very good, are much less capable than a Skyraider.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 18, 2012)

".... Everything is relative"

I agree, Altea, except for life itself, truth and maybe love. 

I will read the links you kindly provided.

My "source" for the comment about Typhoons losses was (among other sources, such as Pierre Closterman) based on long conversations with the Senior Sargent of my RCAF Squadron back in the 1961-62 days as a reservist Airframe Tech. He was a crusty fellow who served in the RAF as a servicing "Commando" on Typhoons from just after Normandy till war's end. These guys supported the Typhoons operating from steel plank runways in forward areas. As the war moved closer to Germany and into increasingly industrial areas the Typhoons encountered flak (and flak towers) in an environment that was not quite what the Sturmoviks ran into in the east (the Baltics being a possible exception).

All ground support activity requires air superiority, regardless of AC type, I have never disputed that.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 18, 2012)

*Aleksandr Iefimov*

"... il est crédité de 7 victoires homologuées, dont 2 individuelles et 5 en coopération, obtenues au cours de 222 missions de guerre. Mais c'est surtout pour son tableau de chasse de destructions au sol qu'il doit sa renommée:
126 chars
*85 avions*
30 locomotives
193 pièces d'artillerie
43 canons de DCA..." ** [Wikpedia en Francais]

Sounds impressive, Altea.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 18, 2012)

GREGP

If you were actually handed a Skyraider aircraft and told to put a turboprop in it, how many hp turboprop do you think you could reasonably fit?

Looked up the Skyshark. That would have been something if they could work out the bugs.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 18, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Not only would they make a powerfull bomber destroyer able to engage the bombers at the limits of the range of their defensive weapons but these guns would have an potent anti-tank capabillity;* the Mk 103 managed over 140mm with tungsten cored amunition and about the same with uranium (which was used as a tungsten substitute by the Germans). * This would make the Tank a poten anti-armour aircraft completely on a par with any allied fighter.



Any supporting evidence for A) the 140 mm penetration figure and B) use of uranium cored 30 x 184 mm ammunition by Germany?

To get the 140 mm penetration figure, the MK 103 would have to match the penetration of the BK 3.7 with tungsten cored Hartkernmunition. That is, get the same penetration as a larger, faster, heavier round with 2/3rds more muzzle energy. Seems unlikely to me.

I've asked this question on Tony Williams forum. Maybe i'll get an answer there.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 18, 2012)

riacrato said:


> I think Hs 129 development shows rather well that MK 103 was no longer adequate at defeating 1944-45 armor.



140mm penetration at 90 degrees equals about 50mm penetration at 45 degrees allowing for a slope effect factor of 2.4.

I think this will be enough for anything but frontal armour on any allied or soviet tank, Pershing or IS2 ESP considering the high fire rate.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2012)

Pinsog,

Today I think we could fit about a 6,000 to 8,000 HP turboprop and use a single propeller coupled with automatic torque control (auto rudder), sort of like the Pilatus PC-21 has. Even with aggressive throttle use, the auto torque rudder cancels any torque feeling the pilot gets and the plane flies straight.

I think it would be a great aircraft and could be fitted with modern avionics to make a formidable weapon ... again. 

Of course, I'm sure there are doubters out there, and they are entitled. Still, I'd take a turboprop Skyraider ANY day versus an Embraer ALX .... just my two cents worth and probably worth what you paid for it. The Skyraider is rugged, naval-capable, has great endurance, and hits as hard as any attack aircrtaft ever did. Think of it with the normal armament plus a chain gun like on an Apache helicopter with a second crewman for attack purposes to use teh chain gun! Or even a single seater with two chain guns instead of the 20 mm cannons!


----------



## pinsog (Apr 18, 2012)

GregP said:


> Pinsog,
> 
> Today I think we could fit about a 6,000 to 8,000 HP turboprop and use a single propeller coupled with automatic torque control (auto rudder), sort of like the Pilatus PC-21 has. Even with aggressive throttle use, the auto torque rudder cancels any torque feeling the pilot gets and the plane flies straight.
> 
> ...



6,000 to 8,000 hp???!!!!! Wow. Would the same go for either a Corsair or a P47 Thunderbolt?

I agree on the utility of a turboprop Skyraider. I think it would be an awesome piece of equipment. How would it stack up against a Warthog? Pro's and con's of each when compaired to each other.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 19, 2012)

I got this reply from Tony Williams (co-author of this excellent book: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/volume1/ )



> This quote from Flying Guns WW2 was based on contemporary German data, covering the MK 101 as well as MK 103:
> 
> The initial AP loading for the cannon was of the traditional type; a heavy (500 g) medium-velocity (690 m/s) thick steel shell with 14-15 g of HE initiated by a base fuze, and capable of penetrating 25 mm / 300 m / 90º. This was replaced by a 455 g APHEI of different design, fired at 760 m/s and with the penetration improved to 32 mm, reducing to 27 mm at 600 m (at a more realistic 60 degree impact, the figures were 27 mm and 21 mm respectively). However, by the time the Hs 129 entered service, special tungsten-cored APCR shot had been developed for the anti-tank role and this Hartkernmunition (also called Wolframkern) was able to penetrate up to 75-95 mm of armour at 300 m (depending on the type of armour), dropping to 42-52 mm when impacting at 60°.
> 
> I don't know of any absolute confirmation that the Germans actually used uranium-cored ammo, but I do recall a report some years ago that an ammo collector had found a radioactive 5cm projectile.



So, that's a no to the 140 mm penetration figure, and no confirmation on 3 cm uranium cored ammunition.


----------



## Altea (Apr 19, 2012)

*It's not a personnal attack, just my english lessons when i was 11.



michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Everything is relative"
> 
> I agree, Altea, except for life itself, truth and maybe love.
> 
> ...



J'v got nothing against Clo-Clo, Tphoon's and "roastbeefs". Nevertheless Typhoon's effectiveness was low, at about 2% hits with rockets. From RAF official, and even a little optimistic sources, from:
FANA - FANATIQUE DE L'AVIATION n° 437 -TYPHOON MORTAIN en vente sur eBay.fr (fin le 04-mai-12 02:36:39 Paris)

So when Air Marshall Conningham went to inspect "Das Reich" and "Leibstandarte" destruction, he has founded over Falaise and Mortain only 9 german tanks thant "could be" considered as destroyed by aviation for more than a hundred of 83th group claims.

Don't be sad, the Magic german riacarato's FW-190 had 100 times worse results.
The general effectiveness of the luftwaffe was for about 2.4% of the soviet tanks destroyed in 1941-45, from statistics published in 1947. Sometimes 8-10% with Stukas in 41-43 and 0-0.5% in 44-45 with FW's. (read Steven Zaloga).

Sturmovik attaks were more letal than Typhoon ones of course, but just because they were beginning attacks at less than 200 km/h from 900 m and endind it at about 6 m high less than 30-50m from the tank at about 400 km/h, often in the blow of their own rockets. Cause to inertia and speed of the Typhoon, it had no opportunity to stop attack it at such a short distance, and had less time and distance for alignement/fire/ adjust (900 to 400 m i believe).

On the other hand, unsurprisingly the Il 2 was had more chances to be damaged but also more chances to survive to its dammages, moreover it had to fulfill 3 to 6 passes, one for the rockets, one for bombs, 1 to 3 for canons.

What is concerning Flack density, you should provide valuable comparative data, not only pilot memors. 
Even on a secundary ans calm front as Carpathian mountains, Romanenko remembers that his Stormovik was hitten each time for 4 sorties, and knocked-off each time for 4 hits (change of plane, definitly or not). It was much worse, of course on other major fronts.

Regards


----------



## Altea (Apr 19, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> 140mm penetration at 90 degrees equals about 50mm penetration at 45 degrees allowing for a slope effect factor of 2.4.
> 
> I think this will be enough for anything but frontal armour on any allied or soviet tank, Pershing or IS2 ESP considering the high fire rate.



Siegfied, if the mk-103 was such a magic weapon, can you explain why germans were desperatly trying to adapt the the VK-3.7 on the Henshel 129B/R3 ? Now considering the real capabilities of the MK-103 weapon it was estimated from LII-VVS polygon trials and ABBTU studies for the 1943-45 period that:
A single HS-129 *could *damage per combat sortie 0.02 medium tank, 0.05 light tank, 0,09 armored car, 0.14 car, 0.03 artillery in position, 0.002 floating bridge of TPM type. 
All his here Henschel Hs.129
In fact you need a full half-geschwader to knock-off at best a single T-34 or sherman. And no JS-2 or KV-1 of course, that were out of run for a 30 mm weapon capabilities...
Polygon conditions were not real battelfield conditions . No stress, no smoke, no AAA, no low alt summer turbulencies, no winter snow curtain. So the fact that it could, does not mean that it did, in the real frontlife conditions. 
Anyway, by russian winter, neither the MK-101, nor the MK-103 were working at all...

Regards


----------



## Juha (Apr 19, 2012)

Hello Altea
have you info on Soviet assesments on the real effectiveness of Il-2 against tanks and other AFVs?

TIA
Juha


----------



## riacrato (Apr 19, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> 140mm penetration at 90 degrees equals about 50mm penetration at 45 degrees allowing for a slope effect factor of 2.4.
> 
> I think this will be enough for anything but frontal armour on any allied or soviet tank, Pershing or IS2 ESP considering the high fire rate.


 
I'd like to see the source for that claimed penetration.

Real world evidence shows a completely different picture. MK103 defeating IS2 FRONT armor clearly belongs into the world of fantasy imo.

If MK103 was such a great AT weapon, it would not have been abandoned in favour of 3.7, 5 and even 7.5cm weapons starting 1943.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 19, 2012)

"... *It's not a personnal attack, just my english lessons when i was 11."

I give up, Altea, I haven't the foggiest idea what you are trying to say ... let alone the point you are trying to advance.

Maybe you should have continued past the age of 11 , or, post in french.

"... Polygon conditions were not real battelfield conditions . No stress, no smoke, no AAA, no low alt summer turbulencies, no winter snow curtain."

"... you should provide valuable comparative data, not only pilot memors."

Make up your mind, man. Data vs Real World conditions. You seem to want it both ways.

MM


----------



## Altea (Apr 20, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> *The IL-2 was a relatively fast and agile plane when was introduced as a single seat acft*, and typical from Russian hardware: cheap, reliable and easy to use. The gunner add a considerable wheight and consequentely negative flight characteristics. This was only "fixed" with the advent of the IL-10.
> 
> I don't think the Russians went wrong with the IL-2 and the T-34 (*which was a world beater at it's introduction*). The problems of such machines were much about the circunstances in which they had to operate i.e without personal adequately trained, effective fighter cover, rustic contruction due to extreme necessities of the war, ideal construction materials, lack of radios, etc. Certainly those machines would have performed much better if they had followed what was expected to them.



To put numbers at Jenish's words, first serial Il-2 fully armed with 400 kg bombload achieved in clean configuration 433-435 km/h at SL and 451 at 2500 m. It should be noticed the "real" serial Hurricane mk II speed was only 427 km/h at SL, and about 400 when it had to be fitted with soviet ShVAK canons. It (Il-2) was also 100 km/h (60 mph) faster than latest Stukas or Dauntlesses of the time (end of 1940). The soviet tested 109E's reached 440 km/h at S.L. at "nominal" motor regime. Moreover du to it's TsAGI high-lift wing profile (rounded LE, high Curvature), and low wing loading (135-140 kg/m²) the Il 2 was able to acheve a full 360° sustainted turn in only 22-23 secunds, when it took full 26.3-29.1 secunds for the 109E!

Due to the many reasons: chaos, urgency and very low production standards, called *circunstances * by Jenish and that would be very long to enumarate, the mass produced Il-2 lost at about 30 km/h speed compared to the early ones, and some other performance. No reason for this event to occure in western industry, neither England, nor the USA were invaded by ennemy....

In 1944, this 1937's concept was quite outdated and comparing it with more modern Typhoons and P-47's seems quite unfair. The updated shtormovik was the Il-10, but due to some circunstances was not ready yet.

Soviets had always some engine late, anyway obtain about 2000 hp from the 46 litres Mikulin at short delays, was probably not such a challenge for the western engeeners with high graded fuels.

BTW, the western Stormovik could have been someting like the Su-6 either with the Centaurus or the R-2800 adapted to low alts, from 43.

Regards


----------



## Altea (Apr 20, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Part of the problem for the western allies was range. IL-2s could perform several missions a day on the Eastern front and didn't have to fly far from their bases to the front lines. Such missions, while not unknown to the western allies, were not as common.



I agree with that, the AM-38 was such a glutton, that the rear gunner had to be supressed in order to fulfill the state requests.
Anyway, some fuel could have been carried in the armored bomb bays. This was experienced in USSR, not adapted, Stalin wanted the pilots to carry the full bomload.

Otherway, the Il-2 was able to operate from unpreapared and short airfields, that was partly compensating it's short range.

Regards


----------



## Altea (Apr 20, 2012)

The real effectiveness from what soviet source? 

Army ?
Air force ?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 20, 2012)

".... In 1944, *this 1937's concept* was quite outdated and comparing it with more modern Typhoons .."

What 1937 concept ... ? The Sturmovik? It first flew in 1939. The Typhoon just 1 year later. On the other hand, the Hurricane first flew in 1935.

I still don't know where you are going with this, Altea.  No one (on this forum, at least) is under-estimating the importance of either the T-34 or the Il-2, or their contribution 

However, if your goal is to successfully argue that the Eastern Front and the Western Front were essentially interchangeable and Russian and Western tactics and values were more or less the same ....  .... well, good luck with that. 

MM


----------



## Altea (Apr 20, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... In 1944, *this 1937's concept* was quite outdated and comparing it with more modern Typhoons .."
> 
> What 1937 concept ... ? The Sturmovik? It first flew in 1939. The Typhoon just 1 year later. On the other hand, the Hurricane first flew in 1935.


Yes a 1937 concept. Iliushin submitted his project in january of 1938th. It flew with some delay, i would say.





> However, if your goal is to successfully argue that the Eastern Front and the Western Front were essentially interchangeable and Russian and Western tactics and values were more or less the same ....  .... well, good luck with that.



In summer of 1941, nor the Typhoon, neither the P-47 were operationnal anyway. 
Whatever, none of them could achieve the same hit probability withe the same rockets as the Il-2 for obvious reasons, no one could withstand the same punishement as the Il-2, no one was able to fly that slow and low improving strike accuracy, but at the cost to be heavily damaged themselves.

We are comparing apples ond oranges. 

Whithout speaking about tactics and interchangeability, i don't see why Il-2, Pe-2 or even LaGG-3 with 37 canons should have been useless in North Affrica in 1941?


----------



## Altea (Apr 20, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Make up your mind, man. Data vs Real World conditions. You seem to want it both ways.
> 
> MM



But you can read Polack and Shores on your own language, Rockets were not accurate weapons on trials, and even worse in the real world. The hit probability (2%, sometimes i red 4) was very low. Il-2 had certainly better results with them, cause it could fire at close range, and had much more time during it's shalow dive to do it, than fast P-47 or typhoons.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 20, 2012)

"... In summer of 1941".

There were, what ..? .... 200 Sturmoviks ... in service? The crews weren't trained, they had no rear gunner, no tactics had been developed, and they certainly weren't armed with rockets. Speaking of tactics .... Sturmovik tactics were the same tactics as T-34 tactics ... massed assault.

In North Africa .....? no one is saying they would be useless ... but I don't think they would have been any improvement on the canon-armed Hurricane or the Beaufighter. By 1941 what the British needed in N. Africa was reliable tanks ... and lots of them [another thread, another topic, mon ami].

MM

RCAF Typhoons [and there were plenty in '44 -'45] carried 2x500 lb bombs, not rockets, IIRC. RAF Typhoons used rockets.


----------



## GregP (Apr 20, 2012)

Hi Pinsog,

I think the gun the A-10 would still be a winner ... but VERY large and heavy. The A-10 might not be as effective against tanks with another gun, but it certainly would have been lighter! The proposed turboprop Skyraider would be an attack plane, not a tank killer. As for the Corsair, that was more of a fighter than an attack plane, and a turboprop Corsair would not come close to a modern jet fightger in capability. On the other hand, a turboprop attack plane could supplant an attack jet and be as survivable or more so depending on the construction. It would certainly be more maneuverable.

I personally doubt a turboprop Corsair would come close to a turboprop Skyraider as an attack plane. For just ONE thing, the visibility is awful in a Corsair and pretty good in a Skyraider. I'd rather SEE the target than guess where it will turn up in the sky or ground view.

All this is a big "what if," and I am not too fond of "what ifs" becasue there are no facts on which to base your conclusions. A detractor can think of as many ways to snuff an idea as the originator can of proceeding with it. I think a modernized Skyraider would be a top-notch weapon. It can be argued the other way as easily, and they could be more correct than I am. I don't think so, but it's my idea so I might have a bit of bias there?

Alas, I seriously doubt anything so simple and relatively inexpensive would ever come to pass today ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2012)

Before we get too far afield I don't believe the Russians had the 37mm gun service in 1941 so how effective it was anywhere is kind of moot. 

Many times the "concept" predates the official requirement or specification by a year or two ( or 3,4,5) let alone when the hardware actually shows up. 
A lot of times a " concept" is proven to faulty becaue some of the basic conditions have changed in the intervening years. The concept may have been a good when first thought up but counter weapons or tatics or other conditions have changed the actual conditions of employment. 

There is no question that the IL-2 performed tasks which no other Russian or lend lease aircraft could do. The IL-2 was suited to Russian manufacturing conditions and to Russian operating conditions. 

The question is if the IL-2 or suitable copy/replacement would have made much difference to the Western Allies. 

The Western Allies had a lager supply of twin engine bombers for tactical use.
The Western Allies had fighter planes that carried 2-3 times the gun load of soviet fighters and some that carried close to the gun load of a normal IL-2.
The Western Allies had fighter planes that could carry 2-5 times the bomb load of a normal Russian fighter and equal to or 1 1/2 times the load of th IL-2.
The Western Allies had more construction equipment for the rapid construction of front line airstrips and better transport capability to supply front line airstrips. 

That pretty much leaves us to argue about the survivability and the accuracy of weapons deliver. The Western Allies also had, for the most part, better trained pilots before they went into combat. 

Everybodies rockets were pretty bad when it came to accuracy. Wiki says 16 mils for the RS-82 which is about 4 1/2 feet at 100yds or 13 1/2 feet at 300yds. So it is possible to miss at 300 yes even with. A perfect aim, perfect ignition, perfect timing, no cross wind and a stationary target. The RS-82 carried about 1/3 the amount of HE as a British 3 in mortar bomb ( not rocket). it would need a very direct hit to take out a tank. The RS-132 would be much better But was still a much smaller/lighter rocket than the Western Allies used. 
The smaller Russian bombs meant they had to land closer. While a 500lb bomb certainly does not have the kill or damage radius 5 times that of a 100lb bomb it is larger. Perhaps the IL-2s dropping of more than 2 bombs at a time can help. 

An IL-2 type plane may have been useful to the Western Allies, but it's absence in the west would be no where near as critical as it's absence in the East. A single IL-2 having the attack capability of 2 or 3 Russian single engine fighters before you factor in the armor. It had no such attack superiority over Western Fighters.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 20, 2012)

GregP said:


> Hi Pinsog,
> 
> I think the gun the A-10 would still be a winner ... but VERY large and heavy. The A-10 might not be as effective against tanks with another gun, but it certainly would have been lighter! The proposed turboprop Skyraider would be an attack plane, not a tank killer. As for the Corsair, that was more of a fighter than an attack plane, and a turboprop Corsair would not come close to a modern jet fightger in capability. On the other hand, a turboprop attack plane could supplant an attack jet and be as survivable or more so depending on the construction. It would certainly be more maneuverable.
> 
> ...



I certainly didn't mean to imply a Corsair or P47 would be able to compete with a Skyraider in the ground attack scenario, or that a turbo prop Corsair has any kind of job in a modern airforce. Nor could the Skyraider carry that monster cannon they built the A10 around, although it could carry a LARGE number of Hellfire missles. I have just often wondered how big a turboprop would fit in either a Corsair or P47. I think that would make an awesome private airplane for an uber rich person.


----------



## Juha (Apr 20, 2012)

Hello
if some one is interested in Il-2 combat history I can recommend two books, Osprey's Oleg Rastrenin's Il-2 Shturmovik Guards Units of WW 2 and the memoirs of Vasili B. Emelianenko.

Juha


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 20, 2012)

Thanks, Juha.

MM


----------



## Juha (Apr 20, 2012)

Hello Michael
especially Emelianenko's memoirs, at least the Finnish edition of it, is very good indeed. Helped to understand the war on the Eastern Front and how bloody it was.

Juha


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 22, 2012)

The definitive WW2 western Shturmovik was the Republic P-47 thunderbolt, It actually could load more bombs than the Ilyushin, you dont need anything more.


----------



## Altea (Apr 23, 2012)

> michaelmaltby said:
> 
> 
> > "... In summer of 1941".
> ...


----------



## merlin (Apr 23, 2012)

Juha said:


> Hello
> if some one is interested in Il-2 combat history I can recommend two books, Osprey's Oleg Rastrenin's Il-2 Shturmovik Guards Units of WW 2 and the memoirs of Vasili B. Emelianenko.
> Juha



Or if you're interested in tactics (and not 'massed'):
- Close Air Support by Peter C Smith,
- Strike from the Sky by Richard P Hallion
- Red Phoenix by Von Hardesty


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 23, 2012)

"... And hurricanes, had rear gunners?" 

Good one, Altea , Bazinga.

"... Why not? RS rockets were experienced from 1935 to 1937, adapted in Red Army in 1938, mass-produced from 1940. "

We were talking rockets on Sturmoviks, re: June 22, 1941, Altea, not "rockets" in the USSR in general, since Tzar Nick ....

"... And so what? Typhoon were used with extreme parcimony?"

Don't know if "Cab Rank" is parcimonious or not, Altea.





"... And so what? They were *bette*r?"

Oh, Altea, why do I have to chose ....?

MM


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qexMo-2ZLos_


----------



## Altea (Apr 23, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".
> 
> *We were* talking rockets on Sturmoviks, re: June 22, 1941, Altea, not "rockets" in the USSR in general, since Tzar Nick ....
> 
> MM



Yes we were, and we are. What else? 
So again, rockets were used by ShAPs (air assaults regiments) since 1939.
Not as widely as it should be, i admit, but used anyway.

About Il-2 you make the point, only 18 of them were dipatched in western districts on june 1941, the 1st. Maybe more for the 22th. 
The first fully equipped regiment (4st ShAP) joined the front *and fired its rockets* at the end of june the 27th, from Perov end Rastrenin book. 

About the RS rockets, the point is mine, since they were commonly fired from I-15, I-15bis, I-153, DI-6 and others retro-planes serving in ShAPs in this summer.

Regards


----------



## stug3 (May 25, 2012)

The US UK air forces didnt need a Sturmovik. They had P-40s, Mustangs, P-47s, Mosquitos, Typhoons Tempests which all proved to be extremely effective for CAS. The Allies established air superiority in every theater in which they faced the LW. FW-190s obviously couldnt stop them and Ta-152s and Ar-234s that existed mainly on paper were about as potent as Tigers Panthers with no ammunition or oil.


----------



## Tankworks (May 25, 2012)

Would the Whirlwind have been worth developing further beyond its limited use in the anti-shipping role?


----------

