# The ETO's finest single engined ground attack aircraft



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 25, 2005)

Contenders to be drawn from Russia, Germany, Italy, England and the U.S.

Which country fielded the best single engined ground attack plane* (that saw at least 6 months of significant combat before the end of the war) and what was that plane?





*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder.


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 25, 2005)

Fw-190 A series.

Kiwimac


----------



## Brunner (Mar 25, 2005)

190 F/G series, P47 D (significant firepower and tough airframe).


----------



## Iskandar Taib (Mar 25, 2005)

No one's mentioned the Stormovik yet?


----------



## Brunner (Mar 25, 2005)

Sturmovik wasn't so good. In fact it was very vulnerable. One precise hit on the big radiator under the belly and Il2 was a pile of burned metal lying in the vast fields of Western Russia.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 25, 2005)

Iskandar Taib said:


> No one's mentioned the Stormovik yet?



Well, because they did not fly in the *E*uropian *T*heatre of *O*perations.  

Thread title _ The ETO's finest single engined ground attack aircraft_


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 25, 2005)

OK, let's count Russia's aerial conflicts against Germany as part of the ETO. (What Theatre is that anyway?)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 25, 2005)

Well, if it's not part of the ETO, I don't know what it is.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

how is eastern Europe not part of Europe??

i'd count russia........


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 25, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> OK, let's count Russia's aerial conflicts against Germany as part of the ETO. (What Theatre is that anyway?)



Yes put the EF into the mix.


Lanc, the ETO was France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Luxenburg and Germany.

Other ares of the globe used SWP, SEA, MTO, SPA, CPA, POA, NPA.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

to me the European Theatre of Operations should include both the eastern and western fronts anyway...........


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 25, 2005)

Hmmm, well the Fw-190 met it's match in both Russia against the Yaks and in the ETO with the P-51, so I reckon that although the Typhoon / Tempests were excellent, it should really go to the P-47, as it's a radial, it had a reasonable range, no dispute with the firepower, although cannons are cannons, but it could certainly deliver ordinance, and with great speed...yep, definately the Thunderbolt here.......


----------



## Brunner (Mar 25, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> to me the European Theatre of Operations should include both the eastern and western fronts anyway...........



Definitely, it is a part of ETO sensu largo


----------



## Erich (Mar 25, 2005)

The eastern theater was not part of the ETO. In German it would be the Ost front not Reich Defence. there is a big difference. Eastern Front would be the corresponding name in English.........

by the way the Fw's never met their match to the Yaks, the Fw's still being superior with superior flying skills by the German pilots


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 25, 2005)

Typhoon or P-47 both good ground pounders with good firepower and speed although the P-47 had a longer range and properly could take a bit more damage.


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 25, 2005)

Well I was wondering about that, Erich....I have a great fondness for the Fw-190A's....
I'm presently reading this article on the Russian Yaks, [Air International Nov. 1975], and they claim the Yak-3 first saw combat on the tail-end of Operation Zitadelle, the pilots claiming a clear superiority over both the Bf-109G and Fw-190A at altitudes below 19,685 ft [6,000m]....They go on to say'' that weighing 5,864 lb, the Yak-3 possessed a specific wing loading of 36.66lb/sq ft and a power loading of 4.83 lb/hp. At a height of 3,280 ft, it could complete a full 360 degree combat turn in 18.5 secs while gaining 3,940 ft in altitude; it's initial climb rate was 3,800 ft/min and could attain an altitude of 16,405 ft in 4.1 mins; it was exceptionally light on the ailerons and capable of a remarkable roll rate; light stick pressure produced fast and accurate snap rolls and all manoeuvres were performed precisely and smoothly...etc...etc....an ideal fighter for close-in, high-g manoeuvring combat and it's agility was second to none''........
Now all I've read previously indicates the Fw-190A's were THE rate-of-roll fighter with great performance to way above the Yaks low ceiling.....They did go on to say the Yaks were a handful taking-off and landing, with inexperienced pilots commonly ground-looping them.
All I can think of was they probably had a helluva lot more Yaks than Fw's, and it was towards the end of a big campaign....I'm not that up-to-speed on Russian aircraft and have been browsing to learn more, so I was quite surprised to read this....I would happily put the Fw-190 in with the Thunderbolt, Typhoon/Tempest/ category, it's certainly earned it......


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 25, 2005)

The typhoon tempest were the best. especially after the napier Sabre engines became more reliable I wouldnt have liked to be on the receiving
end of an eight six inch salvo from a tiffy!!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 26, 2005)

The Tempest's the best, it could give you 4x20mm and 8x 6inch rockets together in a devastating blast.


----------



## Brunner (Mar 26, 2005)

Erich said:


> by the way the Fw's never met their match to the Yaks, the Fw's still being superior with superior flying skills by the German pilots



It wasn't that simple. majority of the yaks delivered to the combat units, but with exception of very late yaks3 were of, how to say it in the mildest way, very medium quality. Another problem is that it was hardly possible to find two same Yaks. One was faster, another turned left better, another was better in diving. But as I said this doesn't refer to Yaks 3 which were quite good fighters.
Pilot training is another question...


----------



## trackend (Mar 26, 2005)

Im a lover of the Tiffy myself but thats more because I have spoken to some fellas who as Sqauddies saw them in action (one described Tigers being decapitated even in hull down sand bagged positions) than to do with its technical specs so I will listen to you guys with interest.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 26, 2005)

trackend said:


> Im a lover of the Tiffy myself but thats more because I have spoken to some fellas who as Sqauddies saw them in action (one described Tigers being decapitated even in hull down sand bagged positions) than to do with its technical specs so I will listen to you guys with interest.



Do you have these books on the Typhoon/Tempest?

THE HAWKER TYPHOON TEMPEST 
by Francis K. Mason
ISBN 0-94667-19-3

THE TYPHOON TEMPEST STORY
by Thomas Shores
ISBN 0-85368-878-8


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

it's definately between the tiffy and P-47 but i'm sayin tiffy.....


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 26, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> trackend said:
> 
> 
> > Im a lover of the Tiffy myself but thats more because I have spoken to some fellas who as Sqauddies saw them in action (one described Tigers being decapitated even in hull down sand bagged positions) than to do with its technical specs so I will listen to you guys with interest.
> ...




I've got both the Dvd's TYPHOON at WAR and TEMPEST at WAR - They're really worth getting! - Check out 

http://www.ddvideo.co.uk/


----------



## trackend (Mar 27, 2005)

Thanks KK and concorde I shall make inquires I ve got some footage
of various ground attack aircraft gun cams and the Tiffy stll looks impressive to me. I also have a book by Francis Crosby of the Imperial War Museum Duxford but its a general fighter aircraft book and only gives an outline to the aircrafts development and performance ie climb rate, ceiling ect


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 27, 2005)

Trackend, 

Did you say that you had a book by Francis Gabreski that, "... gives an outline to the aircrafts development and performance ie climb rate, ceiling ect""

I am trying to find out what the climb rate was for the P-47D with paddle blade prop.

Does that book of yours address this?


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 27, 2005)

Thanks Brunner for the enlightenment on Yaks....I've never really been a fan on things Russian and what you say supports other things I've read about them...I have a respect for German engineering, and the precision they have with the things they make do, and Erich is correct in the quality of airmanship of the Luftwaffe, right to the end.....

I feel that in 'ground-attack' there is a difference between strafing and bombing/rocketing, and with 8 x .5's, the P-47 certainly gets the 'strafing' prize, and while I don't know the full extent of the P-47's service in the ETO other than escort duties, I do know a deal about the Typhoon Tempest's service...[ those books mentioned being THE one's to read on them...]

Therefore, I believe the 'Typhoon' really should be the holder of the 
'Best Ground-attack in the ETO'', most of what I've learned indicates this, particuarly an ancestor having flown them, and the Tempest's role was more one of maintaining the Air Superiority that the Allies had achieved by then....their work sorting-out V1's was well known, and their scraps with the Luftwaffe also...
There is another book called '' The Wild Winds'' by Paul Sortehaug, which is RAF 486 [NZ] Sqn.'s story, who were also in the same 2nd TAF Wing as my ancestor's Sqn., and their story is a great read....

''Typhoon'' for me, guys..... [''P-47 - as ''Best Strafer''.........]


----------



## Erich (Mar 27, 2005)

I think the Tiffy and Jug would be best described as fighter-bomber.

Ju 87D variant bitte


----------



## Brunner (Mar 28, 2005)

Erich said:


> I think the Tiffy and Jug would be best described as fighter-bomber.
> 
> Ju 87D variant bitte



It's hard to describe P47 without any ambiguity. It was excellent as a fighter-bomber, its firepower and endurance beyond doubt, but originally it was designed to perform escort duties on high altitude.
Jug pilots knew that and dived to strafe only if sure that there are no 190's in their sector...

Erich, I would say Ju87 G, Kanonenvogel

Gemhorse, I am not Yak enthusiast at all too.
I am under great impression of German precision and technology (even if such point of view is not very popular in my country).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

well if you want a dedicated ground attack platform this changes things.......


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

The Tiffy still has it by a short nose


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 28, 2005)

Typhoon or P-47, no doubt. In the East could be Il-2m of Ju-87D-5


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

but erich's right, the tiffy and -47 are fighter-bombers, not dedicated ground attack platforms.........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 28, 2005)

My question isn't limited to dedicated ground attack platforms. Just the best single engined ground pounder.

I like the P-47.


----------



## Udet (Mar 29, 2005)

Only Germany and the USSR deployed aircraft designed exclusively for the purpose of ground attack.

The Luftwaffe had both the Henschel Hs129 and the Stuka -first as dive bomber, later as tank buster-. The soviet fellows launched their IL-2.

Later on the RAF and USAAF found some of their toys had good capabilities in the ground attack mode: P-47, Typhoon and Tempest.

The Germans also deployed some of their planes to perform ground attack tasks: the Bf110 in North Africa, equipped with 3 cm cannon and the very famous Fw190 Fs.

Perhaps the very best ones were the Fw190 and the P-47. Both had radial engines and could endure heavy damage and survive.

The soviets followed a similar path, and the several Yak versions, saw service conducting ground attack missions, sustaining prohibitive losses since the Yaks were extremely vulverable, even to rifle caliber guns.

The IL-2 is, no doubt, the most overrated and overinflated aircraft of the entire conflict. 

It is simple: had Germany won the war, the obsolete tag would be belonging to the Shturmovik.

You do not know clumsy until you see footage of Il-2s in flight. Its nearly 1 ton of armor, while of good help against massed light caliber guns greeting it from the ground, turned out to be its own enemy.

Interception was easy, for we are talking about a single engine aircraft, and its massive armor was of very little help against the heavier guns and cannons of German fighters; flak crews also had an easy target to pull the trigger at.

If you are thinking of bringing up the argument of the rear gunner included on the late versions of the IL-2 i will have to tell you it was the same flawed idea as recorded on all planes that carried defensive armament.

If the four engine heavy bombers of the USAAF, with its massive size and massive defensive machine guns were extremely vulnerable to interception, think of the situation of an aircraft the same size of its interceptor, virtuallu uncapable of manouvering, fitted with only ONE defensive MG.

An aircraft that suffered horrific losses, as it is the case of the IL-2, is a true testimony of the actual capabilities of the plane -and of the pilots that flew it as well.-

I am confident when saying this: even if attacking ground targets from the air was a very difficult task i am convinced the Germans were the best at it.

Mr. Zetterling conducted interesting researches on the matter and discovered both the RAF and USAAF failed big time to destroy German armored units in France, prior to the D-Day landings.

Other than causing important delays on the arrival of panzer units to the critical points of the front, the damage they inflicted to German ground units was minimal.

They would claim numbers of panzers destroyed that did not even exist for the entire Normandy campaign of 1944.


----------



## trackend (Mar 29, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Trackend,
> 
> Did you say that you had a book by Francis Gabreski that, "... gives an outline to the aircrafts development and performance ie climb rate, ceiling ect""
> 
> ...



Hi Dave The book is called Fighter Aircraft by Francis Crosby Published by Hermes House in 2003. Anness publishing Ltd Email [email protected]

It doesn't mention anything about the paddle Prop all it says is according to this book is a total of 15,660 P-47's where produced out of which 12,602 were D models
Engine... Pratt Whitney 2535hp R-2800-59 double wasp eighteen cylinder radial
Armament.....Eight 0.5 machine guns plus external bombs or rockets to a max of 2500lbs.
Wingspan 40ft 9in
Length 36ft 1in
Height 14ft 8in
Wing area 300sq ft
Weights empty 9950lb
Maximum take off 17,500lbs
Performance Max speed 433mph
Ceiling 41,000ft
Range 1900 miles with three drop tanks
Climb rate 3200ft per minute
It does also mention the P-47M but all it says is that was used to catch V1's as it had a speed of 470mph and air brakes fitted so it could decelerate once it had caught enemy aircraft (although personally im not sure the reason for the airbrakes is that accurate).
Sorry that's all the info I have Dave.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 29, 2005)

Udet,

do you think the Ju 87 could have been 'converted' to a fighter? Why I ask, you ask?  Well there was plans to make the Il-2 into a fighter. 

trackend,

I think your book is wrong about the 47M and V-1s. The Ms arrived in the ETO after the V-1 threat had been eliminated. 'The first P-47M was delivered in December 1944, and they were rushed to the 56th Fighter Group in Europe. However, engine problems delayed their use until the last few weeks of the war in Europe.'


----------



## Udet (Mar 29, 2005)

Krazi:

The Stuka was designed for dive bombing and to keep up with the advance of panzer units (that is why it had a non retractable sound undercarriage so it could land on very rough terrain, to refuel, rearm and continue supporting the panzers). So it could not be converted to fighter. Not without making radical modifications to the original design; so had it 

Had the IL-2 been converted to fighter, it is kind of easy to figure out the outcome of its engagements against German fighters.

The 


The Stuka with its fixed undercarriage (meaning drag), had almost identical maximun speed to that of the IL-2 (which had a retractable undercarriage), does that tell you anything?


----------



## Brunner (Mar 29, 2005)

Do you know that in the end of 1941 the Soviets tried to equip Sturmovik with the radial engine? 
There was a single plane with M 82 engine (the same as in Su2 and La5), but its performance wasn't quite impressive...  

Well, as for me, the performance of Sturmovik wasn't impressive at all, even with AM35/ AM38 engines  

What is interesting about this particular Il2 is that it was the first Sturmovik with rear gunner armed with UBT 12.7mm machine gun.

I'm trying to find any pictures, sketches or whatever, of this weird Il2 but telling the truth I'll be extremely surprised if I succeed to find any...


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 29, 2005)

Several ranking German Generals credited the P-47 in ground attack mode as a very significant part in the defeat of Germany.

I also heard of 1 German division surrendering to a P-47 squandron - the only time in history a ground unit surrendered to an airial unit alone in the history of warfare.

The spread of 8 x .50cal must be awesome especialy against troops.


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 29, 2005)

Yeah, that's what I thought, 8 x .50's would certainly be like a 'scythe through the wheatfields'....

The fact the Typhoons WERE inlines should give them extra points in terms of valuable services rendered......

Another thought, Mustangs were used from quite early in the War as 'Ground-attack', on account of the early variants being more suitable for low altitude work, in ETO CBI, so how do they rate in this...they certainly went on to do excellent work at this way into Korea...??

Gemhorse


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 29, 2005)

Gemhorse, 

You said: "The fact the Typhoons WERE inlines should give them extra points in terms of valuable services rendered...... "

I'm not sure I understand. An in-line with a closed liquid coolant system would be less preferable to a ground attack plane.

Wmaxt,

You said: "I also heard of 1 German division surrendering to a P-47 squandron - the only time in history a ground unit surrendered to an airial unit alone in the history of warfare. 

Ha! That's a great story if true!


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 29, 2005)

Well, it's well documented the pre and post-D-Day work that the Typhoon Sqn.'s did, and as an inline, and therefore more vulnerable to ground-fire, it is consequential by the losses incurred by them as balanced against the damage they did...
They did clear the way to a large degree for the Invasion Forces, and helped keep them free of obstruction....this was the most notable aspect or feature of the Typhoons service, as the Tempest Sqn.'s tended to move in, the further into Germany the Allies went....For example, our RAF 486 [NZ] Sqn. started-off with Typhoons but changed to Tempests as the Allies moved on into Europe...

It's a close thing between the P-47 and Typhoon, both were excellent Ground-attack aircraft...but 4x 20mm's against select ground targets have gotta be more destructive [along with the ordinance carried] than 8 x .5's [and ordinance carried]....P-47's were deadly against troop concentrations, not really a Typhoons target, eh?, but against emplacements, vehicles etc., that was more the Typhoons speciality.....I must add also, a 20mm, 37mm or 40mm round isn't selective in damage to either a P-47 or a Typhoon, no matter what engine they have, but a P-47 has a distinct advantage in attacking troop concentrations because of the radial's ability to absorb small-arms fire.......

Gemhorse


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 29, 2005)

I would go for the P-47 for the following reasons:

1) Radial engine. When the bad guys are shooting back at you, it really is a tremendous advantage. In addition, I believe the P-47 airframe could take more damage.

2) I think that any most any target vulnerable to four 20mm's will be vulnerable to eight .50's and the P-47 carried more ammo to allow it longer firing time. 

3) I believe the P-47 was a more stable platform for the delivery of gunfire, bombs and rockets. (My opinion)


At any rate, both were excellent ground attack planes.


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 29, 2005)

Yeah, I agree, they were both excellent aircraft, respectively...and I am not too familiar with the P-47's service but it's rep is excellent....good to see there is still a few flying, something that can't be said for the Typhoon unfortunately........

Gemhorse


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 29, 2005)

The main reason there is only one Typhoon left is that after the war, the RAF decided that they didnt require that type of Aircraft anymore. and thought that the Tempest V, VI II were better, so they were all melted down to make saucepans and suchlike!! I think it was a crime against the state personally!

The main failings that the Typhoon were the initial unreliability of its engine. and the elevator flutter that sometimes caused its tail feathers to come off. once those problems were ironed out i think that it was far more potent than the P47 which was a very good aircraft. as for the stability as a weapon platform, the Typhoon had far chunkier wings than the P47, so i think it would be more stable. watching the DVD on the Typhoon, when you see the Tanks vehicles ripped apart in the falaise gap, in my mind, thats what swings my opinion in favour of the tiffy.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

i'm saying tiffy, the four times 20mm are far better than eight .50cals...........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 31, 2005)

There is also the issue of rockets. I understand that the American rockets mounted on P-47's were much more destructive than the rockets that the British mounted on their Typhoons. 

From: http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/dday/ddpg8.htm

"There is, however, an interesting report from Montgomery's 21st Army Group that questions the alleged success that British air-to-ground rockets enjoyed against tanks and motorized transport."

---------- 

In 1944, America introduced the The 140 lb. HVAR rocket, affectionately dubbed the "Holy Moses" because of its impressive destructive effect.

The below excerpt indicates that the American rocket could penetrate 75mm of armor or four feet of reinforced concrete at 1,000 ft. 

From: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...rmans"+++"surrendered"&hl=en&client=firefox-a

As deadly as the P-47 could be on the German war machine, it became even deadlier shortly after D-day when the first American rockets that could be fired from the wing of a fighter plane arrived. (The British had used rockets from their airplanes, but they were not powerful enough to take out a German tank).

"Our rockets were the first ‘high velocity' in use," he said, "they could penetrate 4 feet of reinforced concrete (and 3-inch armor) at 1,000 feet."

The rockets were developed by Cal Tech scientists. Park said they were manufactured in the Los Angeles area. The plant was turning out 100 a day, delivered directly to the front lines on Army C-54 transport planes.

Fifteen airplanes in the 406th were initially equipped with the new U.S. rockets (half of the P-47s were eventually fitted with the weapons).

Once the pilots learned how to maneuver their planes into a proper position to accurately hit the target, they took off from England and flew to France a few weeks after the Normandy landing looking for tanks out in front of American troops to test out their new weapons. Park spotted his target, set his aircraft, and launched a rocket taking out a pair of tanks that were rumbling along in the countryside. With that shot, Park became the first pilot ever to take out an enemy tank with a rocket fired from the wing of an airplane.

The Rocket contained a Navy 5-inch shell in a 6-foot tube that was filled with rocket propellant. Firing the weapon was a little more difficult than dive bombing, according to the former P-47 pilot.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 1, 2005)

I didn't know a 5" American shell was more powerful than a 6" British shell.

This is worth reading, http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html


----------



## trackend (Apr 1, 2005)

It seems that a lot of what is written varies considerably David
This item I found seems to contradict the item you posted regarding how effective the RP used by the British was.


> The relatively cluttered launch rails used by the RP usually reduced the speed of the carrier aircraft by a good fraction, but the rockets were effective enough to make the reduction in performance worthwhile. The Typhoon was so devastating in attacks on German armor with the 60-pounder that it became known as "Rockoon".


Another artical refers to 7th august during the Mortain battle http://www.normandiememoire.com/NM60Anglais/2_histo4/histo4_p08_gb.htm 
all these following sites seem to confirm the Tiffy as one of the best tank whackers around
http://www.ngb.army.mil/gallery/heritage/mortain.asp
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/hawker-typhoon-1b.htm
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Typhoon.html

So bearing this in mind as I have said before I go with the veterans whom I have spoken too that told me they saw Tiffys slaughter even the heaviest of German Tanks.
Im not saying the US didnt have powerful rockets but they tended to favour bombs. 
Sqaudrons of Typhoons on the cab rank system proved their ground support role with claims of between 120 and 150 tank kills during the D-Day campaign.

These are some figures for the Type of rockets used by the Tiffy ect
*RP Aircraft ground attack rocket*
Rocket Motor Tube
3¼" diameter 55¼" long
Total weight of 21.3kg (47 lb) w/ 25 lb AP head
11 lb cruciform stick of cordite - the main propellant charge.
Maximum Velocity of 480 m/sec (1,575 ft/sec)
60 lb Shell, HE/SAP 
60 lb Shell, HE/GP, Hollow Charge 
18 lb Shell, HE 
25 lb Shot, AP 
25 lb Head, Solid, A/S (Anti-Submarine) 
60 lb Shell, Practice, concrete head (Training only) 
12 lb Head, Practice, (Training only)

One last thing I cant forget my favourite plane. A Stringbag became the first aircraft to claim a U-boat kill using rockets (A/S) 23rd may 1943 off the Irish coast so just because the warhead is not large does not mean its not effective, even if it is launched from a 100 knot plane.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 1, 2005)

from the link I posted

"Neither is the Mortain attack an example of unusually low efficiency for the allied air forces. It is interesting to see the causes for losses of Panther tanks. Three British studies of captured Panther tanks (or wrecks of Panther tanks), two of them during Normandy and one during the Ardennes battle gave the following results"

"Evidently two of the main causes for losing Panthers were abandonment and destruction by the crews. These two categories accounted for nearly half the Panthers lost and during the period in August they constituted 80 % of all the Panthers lost. Air power only accounted for about 6 % of all the lost Panthers investigated. Those investigations showed above also included other types of tanks. Of 40 Tigers only one was hit by air weapons, of 121 Pz.Kpf.Wg. IV nine were hit by air weapons. Evidently allied air power was not really capable of destroying large numbers of German tanks"


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 1, 2005)

That Stringbag was piloted by Sub Lieutenant Harry Horrocks of 819 Squadron from HMS Archer, apparently the rockets were designed to be fired short of the target as they curved upwards to hit underneath the waterline


----------



## trackend (Apr 1, 2005)

I never knew that KK I stand corrected (all that bleeding typing for nothing) It just seems strange that there's so many acounts from numorous sources including eye witness that are different from your findings any ideas why.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 1, 2005)

trackend said:


> I never knew that KK I stand corrected (all that bleeding typing for nothing) It just seems strange that there's so many acounts from numorous sources including eye witness that are different from your findings any ideas why.



Not my findings. 

One I can think of quickly is that at 300+mph when one sees an explosion, the conclusion would be the target as destroyed. hard to tell what was done when you are a mile or more away from the target.

Did you read the link?


----------



## Udet (Apr 1, 2005)

Gemhorse:

Most late fighters of WWII would be deadly straffing troop concentrations, not only the P-47.

Hitting targets with air-to-ground rockets was a task a million times more difficult than the many of you apparently recognize.

Less than 3% of all the rockets launched either from RAF or USAAF fighters ever hit the mark.

Read the articles of Niklas Zetterling, you may find it interesting; also it well help you learn both the RAF and USAAF failed big time in destroying German armored formations advancing to the frontlines in the Normandy campaign.

Other than very relevant delays caused to panzer units trying to reach critical points of the front, the damage allied fighter-bombers did to German tanks was minimum.

Finally, i have seen about a dozen of German guncamera shots, showing Typhoons equipped with rails under the wings to place the rockets, getting chewed and swallowed. RAF ground attacking planes fitted in such manner saw its manouverability impaired, and became easier preys for German interceptors.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 1, 2005)

Trackend, 

The article you posted directly below only mentions "allied fighter bombers."

http://www.normandiememoire.com/NM60Anglais/2_histo4/histo4_p08_gb.htm 

The three articles you posted directly below make no mention of the effectiveness of British rockets.

http://www.ngb.army.mil/gallery/heritage/mortain.asp
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/hawker-typhoon-1b.htm
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Typhoon.html

I don't know where that quote you posted about the "Rockoon" came from or what it is supposed to convey. Is it supposed to reflect the awesome power of the Typhoon's rockets of is it just a cutesy name for the Typhoon as a rocket launching platform?

I have no doubt that the Typhoon was a good tank buster. That fact can be established without the use of rockets. (A 500 lb. bomb will take out a tank.)

I am only questioning the effectiveness (presuming a hit) of British vs. American rockets, and hence their contribution to the Typhoon vs. Thunderbolt as the better ground attack plane. 

There must be data out there from tests concerning the destructive force of these rockets that will put this issue to rest.


----------



## trackend (Apr 1, 2005)

I didn't mean they where your findings personally KK  and yes I read it
Here's two of the items from those links David
The Typhoon IB, affectionately known as the "Tiffy", distinguished itself particularly in the Battle of Normandy, where it decimated a large concentration of armor ahead of Avranches, disposing of 137 tanks, and opening the way for the liberation of France and Belgium.I have to agree KK the statistics dont match.
From the beginning of 1944 the build up of 2nd Tactical Air Force resulted in more and more Typhoon squadrons being formed and by D-Day there were no fewer than twenty-six equipped with the type. The Typhoon reached the height of its fame operating as a tank destroyer. again as you point out KK

It does seem to me that if these rockets where so crap as these authors are saying why produce 3000 odd aircraft and fit a large number of them with the things surly some one would have cottoned on and said or done something after the first few hundred if they had been so ineffective.

And as I say I have spoken to some veterans one of whom said he was trapped outside of a woods he believed somewhere near Beuville but wasnt to sure not long after D-Day by three tanks with infantry support one was a Tiger the position was attacked by Tiffys when they left the tanks had been destroyed, and he mean't destroyed.
Now I'm not going to infer that this fella is lying but the statistics that are shown in that link do intimate that unless of course the records aren't as accurate as they believe them to be war does have a lot of grey areas and not every casualty is accounted for as it is total deaths for WW2 vary considrably depending from where the information is gathered (even official sources) in saying that I'm sure most of what they say is fairly on the mark.
Although I haven,t read this yet (perhaps one or you blokes has already) I have a feeling it may show a different view to the discussion 
The day of the typhoon by John Golley
_This account of rocket Typhoon operations over Normandy in the weeks immediately following the D-Day. It is written by a former ground attack pilot who flew 73 missions with 245 Squadron over Northern France in 1944-45._


----------



## Erich (Apr 1, 2005)

I think we also have to seriously think if any P-47 or Tiffy pilot was able to cirlce back, land and observe his kill(s) as confirmed........have to say that didn't happen.

Ju 87 D-5 the best


----------



## Udet (Apr 1, 2005)

Hello teddy bears:

Got to tell you, no Typhoon squadron ever came even close to anything that would resemble decimating a panzer division. Ever.

Someone typed here that even "an entire German division surrendered to a P-47 squadron" (!). Too much allied mythology. Sorry but the argument is laughable. And I can assure you I can trace the German OB (this includes infantry and armored divisions; Heer and SS) for the Normandy campaign, and such a thing did never ever took place.

Niklas Zetterling reports were based on ALLIED analysis of German panzers destroyed through Normandy, and it was themselves who realized that air-to-ground rockets were extremely unaccurate to aim, and that their pilots had gone mad filing claims of panzers destroyed.

Furthermore, it would surprise you to know, it was the aerial attackers who took the biggest casualies, when they were greeted by flak batteries and ground fire from panzergrenadieren of the panzer divisions across Normandy. So instead of panzers, more Allied ground attack planes died during such attacks.

The greatest effect of those massed air-to-ground attacks conducted by RAF and USAAF were to seriously delay the arrival of Germa armored units to the front.

That they hit some panzers with rockets, sure: but it was a very rare event.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 1, 2005)

Well, now I'm frankly not sure what to make of this issue. If indeed as you have said,

"_Furthermore, it would surprise you to know, it was the aerial attackers who took the biggest casualies, when they were greeted by flak batteries and ground fire from panzergrenadieren of the panzer divisions across Normandy. So instead of panzers, more Allied ground attack planes died during such attacks_."

then I would still prefer the Thunderbolt as the Typhoon had a liquid cooled engine with a chin mounted radiator just begging to be hit by anything the Germans threw up at it.

However, your assertion that more allied ground attack planes perished in such attacks than Panzers is a pill too hard and odd to swallow. Do you have any reliable source that supports this claim? 

This "teddy bear" says you are clearly engaging in revisionist history if for no other reason that the weight of recorded history as written and widely acknowledged runs contrary to what you say. 

Please elaborate further on this issue.


----------



## trackend (Apr 2, 2005)

Isn't almost everything on this sight to an extent revisionist history Dave as I don't know many guys on here who served in WW2 and even then comments made by service personnel can at best be second hand if they did not participate in the actual action. 
For example I luv the swordfish but Ive never seen one in combat and I wasn't at Taranto or when they attacked the Bismark so all my info is from books etc as far as this thread goes I am trying to learn from it.
By taking a different tack it seems to have brought out more comments I can only say what my limited knowledge runs too that's why most of my replies have a question embedded in them 


> I Never knew that KK I stand corrected (all that bleeding typing for nothing) It just seems strange that there's so many account's from numerous sources including eye witness that are different from your findings any ideas why?.


Whats your take on it Dave? ( there you go another question  )
Having said that we could end up with a situation where each comment has to be backed by documented evidence which speaking for myself would make for a boring site as all we would be doing was to correlate written data into one place on each subject and it would be quicker to post something like, *Subject Typhoon *and everyone just posts what documentation they have relating to Typhoons, wouldn't that be a bit boring?
Speaking for myself I enjoy the personnel views of all you guys even if I don't always concur and it would be a shame to loose that.  
Ive finished waffling now, carry on chaps.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 2, 2005)

Trackend:

Surely you understand that an assertion that more fighter-bombers were lost than tanks would not just be "revisionist history to an extent" but a wholesale rewrite. Could it be true? I doubt it but I can not say for sure. That's why I asked Udet, "Do you have any reliable source that supports this claim?" and "Please elaborate further on this issue."

How is it that I have committed some foul because I have serious reservations about Udet's claim that more fighter-bombers than tanks were destroyed in combat betwen the two? I would think that most everyone interested in this topic would like to know what evidence Udet is relying on and I for one happen to enjoy the back and forth peppered with supporting evidence.

Finally, many of my replies have questions within them too for the same reasons yours do.


----------



## Udet (Apr 2, 2005)

The only revisionist ones in the neighborhood are the allies (victors).

On several issues of WWII, those who had put the truth head over heels had been the victorious guys, and not the defeated ones, much less this creature known as Udet.

I already cited my fundamental source to substantiate the fact ground-attack missions conducted by the RAF and USAAF over Normandy were even more dangerous for the aerial attackers than they were to the panzers themselves: Niklas Zetterling.

Please bother to do a web search and I do think you might find information on Mr. Zetterling´s researches.

Same source also analysed non-guided rockets fired from allied fighters were as unaccurate as a drunk driver trying to get his car out of the parking lot, and that a minimun number of panzers and self-propelled artillery got ever hit by that specific weapon.


Finally, the 2 main Luftwaffe units in France during 1944, were JG 2 and JG 26: (i) search for the claims lists of both Geschwaderen. Write the number down. (ii) search for loss lists of RAF fighter squadrons opearing over Normandy. Write it down.

You might find the exercise real helpful.


----------



## trackend (Apr 2, 2005)

No I didn't understand Dave I know this may shock you but not everybody gets the same education in this world. You are quite right. As I say I am not a very well educated man I have zero educational qualifications I never went beyond secondary school age (15) and having looked up the literal meaning of the word I am definitely incorrect, I took it to mean the same as reviewing what information is available on a subject not altering it. Does that make any sort of sense ?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 2, 2005)

Udet:

That "exercise" did not substantiate your claim that, *"Furthermore, it would surprise you to know, it was the aerial attackers who took the biggest casualies, when they were greeted by flak batteries and ground fire from panzergrenadieren of the panzer divisions across Normandy. So instead of panzers, more Allied ground attack planes died during such attacks."*

I am now convinced that the allied air to ground attacks were not nearly as effective as the published reports I had read but that is not the claim you are asserting above.

Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps I have missed something in your prescribed search and write exercise. 

Or, perhaps your claim is not supported by the evidence it is anchored in. At present, the latter appears to be the case.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 2, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Udet:
> 
> That "exercise" did not substantiate your claim that, *"Furthermore, it would surprise you to know, it was the aerial attackers who took the biggest casualies, when they were greeted by flak batteries and ground fire from panzergrenadieren of the panzer divisions across Normandy. So instead of panzers, more Allied ground attack planes died during such attacks."*
> 
> ...



David, one has to ask why did the Germans camoflage and move their vehicles at night if Allied a2g was not effective? The lines of destroyed support vehicles, as opposed to AFVs, that lined the roads of France support that the Allied a2g was effective. The number of abadonned AFVs (see the report I linked to) further support the effectivness as supplies of ammo and fuel were not reaching the AFVs.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 2, 2005)

Trackend,

I am under the impression that you feel that I have attacked you and that this attack involved denigrating you for your education or lack thereof. I am at a loss as to how any such impression could have been conveyed. (Have I misunderstood your post?)

At any rate, you asked, "Does that make any sort of sense?"

Frankly, no.


Krazikanuk,

Interesting. There could be other reasons for the camoflage and night movement though. I'm curious if I missed something that supports Udet's assertion.


----------



## trackend (Apr 2, 2005)

OK Dave I will put it simply when you say Surely you understand that comes over as sarcasm in other words I understand so you should too. its probably to do with the pond so I shall leave it at that as it is not really relevant to this topic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 2, 2005)

I see your point now. I guess that on this side of the pond it doesn't have the same acidity. However, I apologize just the same.


----------



## trackend (Apr 2, 2005)

Forget it Dave its nothing. anyway about these bleeding typhoons


----------



## Udet (Apr 2, 2005)

Indeed.

German armored and mechanized columns in Normandy became true masters in the art of camouflage and in coordinating themselves with scouts which would spot enemy planes approaching.

In daylight, when they had to move, they would usually get full advantage of tree lines, small forests and thickets or of anything that would be utilized to immediately bank off the road and hide whenever enemy aircraft were spotted.

From some accounts, German mechanized units became such masters of hidng from air attack, a long line of vehicles on a given road, would bank away and "dissapear" from air view in an extremely short period of time.

Many times, indeed, they moved during the night.

But when they got caught by enemy planes, they greeted the aerial attackers with all guns blazing: from personal weapons to flak batteries attached to the units spitted lead.

The point is, the Germans did not become masters of camouflage and of hiding in Normandy because they would had any kind of "sound awareness" non-guided rockets would destroy them.

They would not wait to discover either if rockets were accurate or even what kind of weapons the planes were fitted with: those allied jabos could straf them with their guns/cannons, and straffing my dear gentlemen, was far more accurate than non-guided rockets.

So that they used heavy camouflage and that they hid was not the consequence of "accurate" air attack. It was rather the simple logic of war of seeking cover when under attack.

Panzer units were forced to implement such measures and still the allied pilots claimed wildly.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 2, 2005)

David,

Interesting. There could be other reasons for the camoflage and night movement though. I'm curious if I missed something that supports Udet's assertion.[/quote]

The major reason was the continual attacks on anything moving on the roads behind the German lines.

Naturally they would have camo in ambush positions when on the line but the leaves on the tree branchs don't stay green very long so the travel camo would have to be replaced.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 2, 2005)

I just meant that movement at night, for instance, can have other advantages as well. Movement under cloak of night can literally keep the enemy "in the dark" as to force strength and direction of movement.

You said, "The major reason was the continual attacks on anything moving on the roads behind the German lines."

That was always my understanding as well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

well we were flying constantly over the normady area, even at night, whatever the enemy did we were gonna see them and find out what they're doing..........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 4, 2005)

Lanc,

At night, a pilot can only discern that which available light from the moon and stars will provide and weather will allow which often isn't a hell of a lot.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2005)

yes however due to lights being used any form of movement could have been seen, although i do know it was hard...............


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2005)

back on toipic 8) 

Ju 87D-5


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 4, 2005)

The Topic was:

Which country fielded the best single engined ground attack plane* (that saw at least 6 months of significant combat before the end of the war) and what was that plane? 

*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder. 
----------

You are nominating a Stuka?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2005)

yes he is, the D-5 if i know erich as well as i do..........


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2005)

go check the listings of Stuka units just operating on the Ost front.....yes the D-5


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 4, 2005)

So, in your learned opinion, no better aircraft used in a ground attack role saw at least 6 mos. of combat service during the entire war?


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2005)

geez man how many times do I have to post it..... ?

you obviously want a very detailed explanation. nearly all of you have said a fighter going over to the ground attack role. The Ju 87D's were destined to be front line ground attack units with SG units until some replacement by Fw 190F's. The Ju 87's fitted with a montage of bombs, anti-personell bomblets and the D-5 armed with two 2cm firing M and AP{ rounds enough to do quite a bit of heavy damge to any existing MT column west or ost front. the Ju 87D-3 and D-5 had the proven record. although an old design with revmaped wing and engine it stills erved a needed purpose and was not the easiest thing to to takae down especially in the night roles. Something the Tiffy and Jug were not suited for.....

Klar ? maybe not.........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 4, 2005)

Are you sure you're not responding to a thread about which single engined aircraft would make the best mail delivery plane?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

he has a point thouhgh, combat record and how it matched up to it's contemparies has a large part to play in deciding the "finest"...........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 5, 2005)

The Topic was:

Which country fielded the best single engined ground attack plane* (that saw at least 6 months of significant combat before the end of the war) and what was that plane?

*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder.


----------



## Erich (Apr 5, 2005)

your on drugs right ?  

what isn't clear to you in my statements.... ? Your favourite runs from Normandie onward while mine is from the spring of 1943 till wars end with a farther reaching track record, offering it's services on boths sides of the conflict, west and ost. many more missions than the jug and the tiffy until the Stuka was run into the ground and left off the tarmac or grass strip rotting. The allied fighter bombers never flew at night but the Stuka Ju 87D's did whcih is another plus going for it...............

and this is hard to understand....geez man


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

Erich is making very good points here..........


----------



## Udet (Apr 5, 2005)

Erich is very correct, making a more straight approach to the matter.

Stukas have a record that to a very important extent is PROVED in the ground attack role.

It appears to me some of you do not give any weight to my comments on this thread regarding the failure of the RAF and USAAF fighter squadrons deployed as ground attack planes to destroy German panzer and mechanized columns over Normandy.

You also discard my comment allied pilots over Normandy went mad filing claims of alleged destroyed panzers due to their rockets and bombs. Panzers did not even exist in the German OB for that particular campaign.

You rather resorted to chitchatting/chin-wagging and other silly remarkings.

You asked for a source and i gave it: NIKLAS ZETTERLING, which happens to be a noted researcher, but it seems you did not even bother to consult any books, nor to conduct a web search -i was told some of Mr. Zetterling´s articles on Normandy are available on the net, something i do not know for i hate PC reading-.

Other than the big delays, or even the non-arrival of some German units to the frontlines, the RAF and USAAF planes failed while the Stuka, in the east, proved to be a far more efficient and accurate platform to hit enemy armor.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 5, 2005)

Let's try one more time.

The Topic was: 

Which country fielded the best single engined ground attack plane* (that saw at least 6 months of significant combat before the end of the war) and what was that plane? 

*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder. 
----------

The topic is not interested in which aircraft gave more significant service as a result of a "farther reaching track record" or by whether an aircraft flew "many more missions than the jug and the tiffy."

Why and under what circumstances would a Stuka be a better ground pounder than a P-47? I understand trhat the Stuka's record was quite exaggerated as well. Especially against the Russians. It did not have pinpoint accuracy as a dive bomber. That's a myth. Additionally, we are not just talking about killing tanks. 

Let's say you are a commander. You want to inflict the greatest amount of damage on enemy troops, vehicles, armor and fortified positions for supplies. You can choose waves of attacks by equal numbers of either Stukas or Thunderbolts. You would choose Stukas? 

Alternatively, if you were an enemy commander wishing to advance your troops, vehicles, armor and supplies, would you rather be harassed by Stukas or Thunderbolts?

To quote a noted member of this forum, "*and this is hard to understand....geez man"*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

no now you're talking which is the best, as in the original question, however in the threat title you are asking for the finest, it's one or the other as there are differnces between the best and finest..............


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 5, 2005)

Huh? The first post clearly explained and clarified the question. The title is just that, a catchy title. The best. The finest. The most excellent. The very most fabulous. The most awesome.


----------



## Udet (Apr 5, 2005)

I cite:

"but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder."

Best ground pounder? The Stuka.

It did not only gained at least 6 months of siginificant combat, but the whole 6 years of the war.

Putting the "ground puonding" issue aside for one moment: You doubt the accuracy of the Stukas? A myth? Devote then some of your time to consult the records of the Royal Navy and ask them for their opinion of Stuka diving on their vessels, especially in the mediterranean.

The Thunderbolt and the Typhoon, fitted with bombs, attacking naval targets would have made an interesting view.

Back to ground attack, I can assure you the Stuka destroyed BY FAR, more enemy war material (tanks, artillery, communication lines, etc.) than the Typhoon or the Jug ever came close to achieve.

Myths? I can assure you the allied guys have the most prolific of the mythologies. It is the kind of mythology that has dragged you down.

You have not read that much on the eastern front to verify the destructive capabilities of the Stuka, and that is a major issue. 

If you ever get to read more on the subject you might learn the Stukas delivered hell from above to the massive infantry and tank armies of the soviet union, and that Stuka support was essential for the striking victories of the Wehrmacht in the east.

The Typhoons and Jugs over Normandy did not came anywhere close, EVER, to achieve what the Stukas did in the east. If you have any reasonable doubts on this, please ask further.

About your silly remarks on Erich, I can assure you his words are his words and you can expect quite an impact from them.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 5, 2005)

Yeah, it's really hard to hit a ship when you're dive bombing. That proves its accuracy  Try hitting the area covered by a tank.

"_The Thunderbolt and the Typhoon, fitted with bombs, attacking naval targets would have made an interesting view._"

I imagine that the Typhoon and Thunderbolt would have done just fine. Especially with rockets.

"_I can assure you the Stuka destroyed BY FAR, more enemy war material (tanks, artillery, communication lines, etc.) than the Typhoon or the Jug ever came close to achieve._" 

There you go anchoring your assertions in the irrelevant again. Please note (*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder.)

Why don't you just answer the question I posed because it gets to the heart of the matter without resort to historical significance and the like:

*Let's say you are a commander. You want to inflict the greatest amount of damage on enemy troops, vehicles, armor and fortified positions for supplies. You can choose waves of attacks by equal numbers of either Stukas or Thunderbolts. You would choose Stukas? 

Alternatively, if you were an enemy commander wishing to advance your troops, vehicles, armor and supplies, would you rather be harassed by Stukas or Thunderbolts?*


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 5, 2005)

At least Thunderbolts and Typhoons can defend themselves against enemy fighters


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 5, 2005)

That's another thing. Try using the vaunted Stuka in an enviroment of less than complete and absolute air superiority.

It's also a big, slow target with a liquid cooled engine. Try using it in a environment with even moderate ground to air defenses.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Bronzewhaler82 (An old member of the site) said it best about the Stuka:

"The Stuka was a fabulous aircraft, unless one of the following was in the area:
1) Enemy Fighters.
2) Anti Aircraft Fire.
3) A Foot Soldier with a Rifle.
4) A General with a Handgun.
5) A Child with a Peashooter.
6) An Old Man on the street with a Dirty Look on his Face."


----------



## Erich (Apr 5, 2005)

re-read my post. I said D-5 not a Bvariant. In any case any thunderbolt or tiffy in an area of non air superiority may give a better acct of itself in the fighter role than a stuka although the Stukas did shoot down some fighters. Again I point out the fighter bombers and not ground attack a/c that you so dearly love were designednot for attacking ground targets primarily. the Stuka varinats were. you mention that the Ost front stukas were not so successful .........eh ? you have the Freiburg archival records of the SG to prove that correct ? 

I have friends in the JUg 9th AF fighter groups with all sorts of wild claims that they made agasint GErman Panzer formations in Normandie......you can easily get my drift and I think we have covered all of this quite well as to the actual effectiveness of the Allies in knocking out German armor there.............bah !

I do not wish to get into an heated argument but in the ETO the Stuka D-7 was wildly used agasint US and Bristish ground targets with much success. The D-7 was armored......ooooooooooh surprise had excellent amrs with the 2cm and the effective rounds to tear most anything up and I realize the jug and the tiffy did as well agasint MT............I can alos plainly see we aren't going to agree for debates sake either....


----------



## Udet (Apr 5, 2005)

"There you go anchoring your assertions in the irrelevant again. Please note (*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder.)"

Bronzewhaler82 (An old member of the site) said it best about the Stuka: 

"The Stuka was a fabulous aircraft, unless one of the following was in the area: 
1) Enemy Fighters. 
2) Anti Aircraft Fire. 
3) A Foot Soldier with a Rifle. 
4) A General with a Handgun. 
5) A Child with a Peashooter. 
6) An Old Man on the street with a Dirty Look on his Face." 


Aren´t these two quotes worth the inscription on a golden plate?

You really need some WW2 lessons. You ought to read more. I mean it, alllied propaganda stuffed individuals are boring.

You shouldn´t apply for playing a game you do not know how to play.

Read and research more; don´t come back to me until you are a bit more prepared to do so. So far your knowledge, if any, is wanting.

I have no further use of these guys.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 5, 2005)

Speaking of Golden Plate inscriptions:

_You shouldn´t apply for playing a game you do not know how to play. 

Read and research more; don´t come back to me until you are a bit more prepared to do so. So far your knowledge, if any, is wanting. _  

What a condescending ass.  

By the later stages of the war, the Stuka was obsolete. By all means, please educate us all and answer the following:

*Let's say you are a commander. You want to inflict the greatest amount of damage on enemy troops, vehicles, armor and fortified positions for supplies. You can choose waves of attacks by equal numbers of either Stukas or Thunderbolts. Which do you choose and why?

Alternatively, if you were an enemy commander wishing to advance your troops, vehicles, armor and supplies, would you rather be harassed by Stukas or Thunderbolts? *

On another note, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your earlier claim that, "Furthermore, it would surprise you to know, it was the aerial attackers who took the biggest casualies, when they were greeted by flak batteries and ground fire from panzergrenadieren of the panzer divisions across Normandy. So instead of panzers, more Allied ground attack planes died during such attacks." 

You still haven't explained how it is that you know that more allied fighter-bombers than tanks got the short end of the stick in attacks by those aircraft on German armor. And here's a hint of logic for you. Merely proving that not many German tanks were taken out by allied airpower does not prove your assertion. You do see that don't you?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 6, 2005)

Here's something of interest. 

From Antony Beevor, "The Spanish Civil War" (New York: Peter Bedrick Books, 1982) at page 22.

The Luftwaffe training wing, the Lehrgeschwader, conducted extensive high-altitude bombing exercises at Greifswald with disappointing results. Bombing from an altitude of 13,000 feet, experienced crews with no opposing ground fire in He111 and Do17 level bombers placed only 2 percent of their bombs inside a circle with radius of 330 feet. At 6,500 feet, their average increased to between 12-25 percent. *The Ju87 dive bomber proceeded to put 25 percent of its bombs in a circle with a radius of only 185 feet.*

That's quite accurate. Plenty accurate to get tank crews to abandon their vehicles. When used as the spearhead of an armored assualt, one can see how easily an enemy's armor could be shocked into paralysis making them easy kills for advancing German tanks.

As a defensive tool, an enemy armor advance can be similarly broken up and disoriented.

The above data was most certainly not obtained with a D-5. On the D-5 variant, the dive brakes were deleted since it was used almost exclusively in the *schlacht* role. It often flew at night only because it was such easy prey for air to air as well as ground to air threats.


----------



## Erich (Apr 6, 2005)

David, the D-5 as with all Ju 87's was a slow bird but during late 43 till wars end during day ops the SG units provided high cover with Fw 190A's and F's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

> You really need some WW2 lessons. You ought to read more. I mean it, alllied propaganda stuffed individuals are boring.
> 
> You shouldn´t apply for playing a game you do not know how to play.
> 
> ...



look Udet, if that IS your real name, we're all hear to learn, you atitude is not helping, if you think someone is wrong then by all means say you think they're wrong, however you do not make comments like this ok?? we're a pretty laid back forum however people with atitudes like this are rarely tollerated and why's that?? because as a general rule people don't like getting spoken to like that............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

Udet said:


> "There you go anchoring your assertions in the irrelevant again. Please note (*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder.)"
> 
> Bronzewhaler82 (An old member of the site) said it best about the Stuka:
> 
> ...




Hey man, it was a joke...you actually belive that I think a stuka could be shot down by a kid with a peashooter?   Lighten up!


----------



## trackend (Apr 6, 2005)

I'm not so sure Cheesy. 
Lucky shot with a pea shooter.
Pea enters pitot tube.
Air speed indicator fails to register resulting in full throttle Landing back at base.
Runway over shoot whizzo prang fineto


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

Yes, but thats a long shot


----------



## trackend (Apr 6, 2005)

Not really Cheesy You must have heard of the great pea massacre of 1944 when ten stukas where bought down by the famous Birds Eye Battery of Bognor


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

Yes but they were Olympic quality peashooters, which is quite understandable. But children...?


----------



## trackend (Apr 6, 2005)

You are quite correct I apologies and humbly beg forgiveness oh mighty Gorgonzola feet of Turin


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

Forgiveness accepted


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)




----------



## Udet (Apr 6, 2005)

Lanc:

Hhehehe.

It is understood. Do not fret at all. I am a laid back boy myself.


The point is i am not here to attempt changing nor influencing anybodys way of seeing the war.

I still have to learn a lot, but what i´ve learned so far is quite solid and no evidence to shatter my current overall vision of the war has came across my path.

I find it totally amusing to discover how full of manipulations and lies many allied depicted issues are. That is about it.


Legend has it hell is located downwards; yet, if there are any guys refusing to believe Stukas helped enemy soldiers believing hell is not located down but upwardly, and not just that, hell could rain upon their heads it is not my business.

Obsolete? 
I will never understand why they insisit in calling it obsolete.
Simply because the conditions for its deployment in the west had ceased to exist in view of the numerical superiority of the enemy, does not imply it was obsolete.

Then the B-17 could be tagged as obsolete. For as long as it flew unescorted the German interceptors had a feast with them.

So would the IL-2.


----------



## trackend (Apr 6, 2005)

Udet in the thread regarding moral objections to the war you said I was talking crap and had discovered a functioning brain you have now removed this statement along with the remark asserting that there where no black aces in WW2 how do you reconcile this with


> but what i´ve learned so far is quite solid and no evidence to shatter my current overall vision of the war has came across my path.


 I can only assume that your assertion that I was talking crap and there where no Black Aces is quite solid so the Tuskegee airmen of the 332nd fighter group conversely must not have existed.


----------



## Udet (Apr 6, 2005)

Trackend:

Hmmm, on topic and off topic issues mingled here.


First off: you are totally WRONG. I did never say you were talking crap. That was rather directed to RG_Lunatic who came up with silly issues such as "denial" and "neo-nazis".

What i did tell was that you had clearly understood the sense of my comment on that particular thread (and that unlike RG, you have a functional brain) i was strictly referring to the racism issue; you got my idea there: the USA has no right to accuse Germany of being racists when many inhabitants of the USA were still having the byzantine debate on whether blacks could have the same rights white people had. That in the late 1950´s, WELL AFTER WORLD WAR TWO).


As to this black gentleman wearing USAAF uniform: why do you think i deleted my posting...something i possibly recalled?

Do you think that photo implies, on any degree, a modification, adjustment or revamping of my posture that ON MILITARY ISSUES the allies have lied and manipulated like hell?

That they won the war only due to "superior weapons", "superior technology" and "superior tactics", putting the numerical superiority element as a mere secondary issue?

Stuka obsolete. Can´t you just detect it here?

Without fighter cover the B-17 and B-24 are obsolete as well. Losses were so high, prohibitive on many battles, there came the moment when the guys of the 8th Air Force began wondering if the bombing runs could continue. 

Not even the Germans faced this dilemma during the Battle of Britain.
While their losses were being high, they were within the acceptable range: they did not cancell their massive operations over England due to frightful losses. It was rather the final decision to abandon/postpone Seelowe that stopped German operations.

If you have any doubts on this, watch the performance of the Luftwaffe elsewhere after the Battle of Britain was called off. They swallowed their opponents here and there.


So what can you detect here?

Not only the Stuka demanded certain conditions for a most adequate performance: the B-17 and B-24 as heavy bombers, could behave as spoiled rich girls and demanded their own.

In an environment of no air superiority and/or when adequate fighter cover was lacking, the USAAF heavies got digested by the German inteceptors.


A Stuka equipped for tank busting missions, and a Typhoon fitted with rockets for equal purpose? The Stuka hits the mark first. The typhoon, very unlikely.

The typhoon was a very good plane. The problem were rather the non-guided rockets.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 6, 2005)

Udet:

How accurate were Rockets launched from Typhoons and Thunderbolts?

I have listed a source that indicates that early Stukas were capable of putting 25 percent of their bombs in a circle with a radius of only 185 feet.

I am starting to suspect that this sort of accuracy was more effective at getting enemy tank crews to abandon their vehicles making them lame ducks for German tanks and artillery. Where else have we seen abandoned tanks destroyed by ground forces credited to air power? Just a thought.

Lastly, from one laid back boy to another, if you really feel that, "Hhehehe. It is understood. Do not fret at all. I am a laid back boy myself." then maybe you can address an apology to me. I like others, found your comments directed at me rather offensive.


----------



## Udet (Apr 7, 2005)

Davidicus:

Ok, this laid back boy issues a sincere apology. 

Cheddar Cheese and Davidicus, if you re-read what i posted here i did not ever say the Stuka -as a dive bomber- could place its bombload right into the upper hatch of tank moving, say, at 30 km/hr; however, it was very capable to place them real close to the moving targets. That was the task. Close enough to cripple or to cause important damage to tanks moving close to each other; furthermore, the shockwave of the explosion of the bombs could simply knock out the tank crews unconscious. 

Say you are the driver of a T-34 and that a Stuka sends its regards from above releasing a 250 kg bomb. Let´s think the bomb does not hit your tank; it rather hits the ground and explodes roughly 30 meters away from you. What could happen to you and your comrades inside?

There i did not mention the cases when the bombs indeed hit the tanks or when they exploded a mere fistful of meters away from it, when you would have a cleanly destroyed tank and/or a killed crew.

Again, if there is a myth on the devastating power of the Stukas it was an allied invention. I see no myths in the world of the Stuka.

25% of its bombs only? Within a radius of 185 feet?
Seems too low. While I do not have any numbers at hand, I am confident it had a higher accuracy rate. Dive bombing was proved to be far more accurate than rather releasing the bombs on an horizontal flight. There is no debate on this.

With dive angles ranging from 60 to 90 degrees, the superb pilots trained for dive bombing, fulfilling their combat orders was not difficult. The opinion of a veteran has it that "when you had finally entered the required angle, the bombload was delivered as if by hand".

You could not make the B-17, B-24 or the Lanc a dive bomber to ensure the rough 7 or 8 tons of bombs carried would all hit the mark.

Dive bombing implied the aircraft designed for such role would be either small or medium size. The bombload was of course smaller than those of the four engine bombers. 

That is certainly one of the reasons they made a plane for the sole specific role of dive bombing: to ensure the limited bombload would hit the mark on far higher rate. 

What would then be the purpose of dive bombers?

You must understand the Stuka was developed for that very specific role, and later on was adapted for tank busting fitted with more powerful cannons. (There i can assure you it was more accurate than the rocket armed typhoons).

The Panzers and the Stukas made a symbiosis. With its rough non retractable undercarriage, the Stuka could keep up with the fast advance of armored columns and it could land on terrains where most planes would have perished, to be immediately refueled and rearmed and to get back in the air for another scream.


As I have said on this thread, the conditions for proper usage of the Stuka had ceased to exist by 1944 in the west. The Germans were not fools and ceased to deploy it in the west where a very numerous and capable enemy was being engaged.

The eastern front still offered some conditions for the Stuka and it was there where it saw service until the end: why? The enemy in the air, if as well numerous, was one of a lower quality.

That the soviets made good fighters by the end is true; what they never had in significant numbers was the properly trained pilots to get the very best out of them.

Actually losses of Stukas in the east were due more to AA/ground fire than to interceptors.


----------

