# Best strafing aircraft in WWII???



## filnorm (Jul 25, 2007)

Dear all, I came across to the article by MGen. Richard B.H. Lewis (ret.) giving an overview of strafing in the history of warfare. He also wrote: _Among World War II strafing aircraft, few if any were more effective than the American B-25 Mitchell bomber. In the Pacific, it was used frequently on treetop-level missions against Japanese airfields and shipping, with great impact._
Source: http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2007/0707strafing.asp
What was in your opinion the best/most effective strafing aircraft in World War II?
Regards, Filip


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 25, 2007)

B-25, A-20 or A-26 probably.
Honrable mentions to Beaufighter and Mosquito


----------



## twoeagles (Jul 25, 2007)

It is hard to argue with a B-25 firing fourteen .50's forward and all activated
by the push of a button on the pilot's control.


----------



## filnorm (Jul 25, 2007)

There was a version of B-25 armed with a cannon so that the efectiveness even increased, isn't it?


----------



## Glider (Jul 25, 2007)

Beaufighter


----------



## ccheese (Jul 25, 2007)

My vote goes to the B-25. It's a shame we didn't have the C-47 and C-130
gunships in WW-II ! They were awesome in 'Nam".

Charles


----------



## Marcel (Jul 25, 2007)

filnorm said:


> There was a version of B-25 armed with a cannon so that the efectiveness even increased, isn't it?



Hmm, I think the B25 almost stalled when the 7.5 mm fired, something you don't want while strafing which always is at low altitude. Althoug a crashing airplane is of course very destructive 

Don't know if the guns really were effective in any role, but I'm sure some other members can tell something about that.


----------



## Cyrano (Jul 25, 2007)




----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 25, 2007)

B-25J. They used to say that it could saw a boxcar in half.  

Honorable mention to the P-47 with it's eight wing mounted 50s.


----------



## Erich (Jul 25, 2007)

I'll take the 8th AF P-51D for their wild work done on German AF during spring of 45. Some unbelievable record of ground kills for each group. Bill will have stats on the 355th fg records bar none


----------



## trackend (Jul 25, 2007)

Fire power wise I agree the B25J was a mighty beast and probably does deserve the title that amount of fire power against soft targets is pretty overwhelming, but I still think the Beaufighter was close behind as the dumpy nose gave superb forward vision and made for hedge hopping accurate runs at lower angles hence (how true I'm not sure) the "whispering death" nick name given by the Japanese. (not whistling death as for the Corsair)
Initially the mk1 with just the four 20mm under nose cannons suffered a pronounced dip when fired causing target drift but after various stages of development this problem was overcome and the addition of six wing mounted .303s increased the planes fire power.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 25, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Hmm, I think the B25 almost stalled when the 7.5 mm fired, something you don't want while strafing which always is at low altitude.
> 
> Don't know if the guns really were effective in any role, but I'm sure some other members can tell something about that.



The 75 mm cannon on the B25 was designed for anti-shipping in the pacific. In my mind, that is not strafing. Thats anti-shipping attack.

fourteen .50 cals.... now thats staffing!


----------



## Bernhart (Jul 25, 2007)

throw in 8 rockets on the beaufighter and that is alotof lead coming at you


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 25, 2007)

Bernhart said:


> throw in 8 rockets on the beaufighter and that is alotof lead coming at you



Perhaps we should decide what strafing is....
\
Strafing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Strafing (adaptation of German strafen, to punish, specifically from the World War I humorous adaptation of the German catchphrase "Gott strafe England"), is the practice of firing on a static, or mobile targets of opportunity on land, sea, or air from a flying platform. The term is usually applied to machine gun or cannon fire from a variety of aircraft such as fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, or unmanned aerial vehicles.

The thread is not about ground attack in general.. it is about strafing.

...


----------



## Negative Creep (Jul 25, 2007)

Would the better strafing aircraft be one that could destroy enemy targets, or one that could disrupt and disorientate them?


----------



## Marcel (Jul 25, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Perhaps we should decide what strafing is....
> \
> Strafing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


So firing a 75 mm from a B25 on either ship or vehicle is considered to be strafing according to your definition 

Does anybody know if the 75 mm was ever effective?


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 25, 2007)

Marcel said:


> So firing a 75 mm from a B25 on either ship or vehicle is considered to be strafing according to your definition
> 
> Does anybody know if the 75 mm was ever effective?



it was very effective against ships!

The rate of fire was so damn slow. Lobbing a couple shells is not strafing by my definition... 

B-25 Mitchell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


>> Due to its low rate of fire (approximately four shells could be fired in a single strafing run and relative ineffectiveness against ground targets, the 75mm cannon was sometimes removed from both G and H models and replaced with two additional .50-caliber machine guns as a field modification.[2] T
No other bomber of World War II carried as many guns. However, the first 555 B-25Js (the B-25J-1-NC production block) were delivered without the fuselage package guns, because it was discovered that muzzle blast from these guns was causing severe stress in the fuselage next to the muzzles; while later production runs returned these guns, they were often removed as a field modification for that same reason.[4] In all, 4,318 B-25Js were built.


----------



## Glider (Jul 26, 2007)

I admit that my understanding was that the 75mm wasn't very effective. Its rate of fire was so slow that only one or two shots could be fired in an attack run and few ships were ever sunk or even badly damaged after being hit by one or two 75mm shells. 
Rockets were considered more effective as each rocket was four to five times more effective that one shell plus of course a number of them were fired on each pass.

Another factor being the stress the shell put on the aircraft which was significant.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 26, 2007)

Dont get me wrong... I LOVE the B25J... effective or not, the idea of a Doolittle raider with a Sherman tank round makes me smile.

<pause for smile>

But for me, the mechanical rattle of hundreds or thousands of rounds of led rapidly spewed from a fast mover screaming on the deck while violently butchering flesh into crimson mist and transforming iron into twisted, scorched and shattered shards is the essence of strafing.


The occasional thud of a low velocity round, although fearsome, does not instill as much fear as a Beaufighter, Tempest or Thunderbolt..

What is the average rounds delivered during an "average" strafing for 20mm equipped warbirds? Some planes had a flatter angle of attack, thus more target time, but is there an average? ... 

Which is more effective? 1000 of .50 cal rounds or 300 20MM rounds? (or whatever the ratio is)


----------



## trackend (Jul 26, 2007)

The hispano 20mm was around 600 rounds per minute which is on a par with the .5, agreed with 14 .5's its a much higher rate of fire , the .5 is excellent and 600+ m/s is not bad the Hispano was 800+m/s so could take on tougher targets with a mix of hard and explosive rounds while the .303 took on the anti personel role IMO I think it was a could balance.


----------



## filnorm (Jul 26, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> The 75 mm cannon on the B25 was designed for anti-shipping in the pacific. In my mind, that is not strafing. Thats anti-shipping attack.



Well, if they used a mounted weapon (event though it was this caliber) it could be cosidered starfing (referring to the definition taken from Wikipedia)...
Regards, Filip


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 26, 2007)

filnorm said:


> Well, if they used a mounted weapon (event though it was this caliber) it could be cosidered starfing (referring to the definition taken from Wikipedia)...
> Regards, Filip



I dont disagree.. but i think rate of fire weighs heavily...
lobing a couple rounds is not enveloping a targrt in a rain of led


----------



## Glider (Jul 26, 2007)

Beaufighter 4 x 20mm each 10 rps + 6 x 303 each 20 rps = 160 rps
B25 14 x 0.5 each 13rps = 182 rps

Throw in the explosive content of the 20mm and there is nothing in it.

Has anyone realised how dumb this debate is. Does anyone fancy their chances in front of either of these aircraft?


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 26, 2007)

Glider said:


> Beaufighter 4 x 20mm each 10 rps + 6 x 303 each 20 rps = 160 rps
> B25 14 x 0.5 each 13rps = 182 rps
> 
> Throw in the explosive content of the 20mm and there is nothing in it.
> ...



Beaufighter is freakin awesome!... lots of rounds on target! In the strafing role..
i'd rather have 4 x 20 mm than one 75


----------



## Marcel (Jul 26, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> i'd rather have 4 x 20 mm than one 75



That's for sure. With a 75 mm you only have 1 shot a go


----------



## The Basket (Jul 26, 2007)

I remember one Hurricane pilot saying he fired his 303s against a German tank in the battle of france. The tank commander closed his hatch and tank carried on its way.

You only get an ooooh with Typhoon. And with this Hawker fighter, the rounds didn't bounce.


----------



## filnorm (Jul 26, 2007)

Does anyone have any detailed info on strafing missions of B-25Js in PTO (tagets, claims, units etc.)?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2007)

This is an interesting debate because it begs the question, most devastating or most effective.

The Pappy Gunn modified B-25s had a crucial impact on the Battle of Bismark Sea when the Japanese tried to move reinforcements to New Gunea and then made major contributions from that time forward in missions from sinking troop transports and freighters with water line stikes from 10-14 .50's plus skip bombing with 250 to 500 ponders - or laying parafrags.

But wouyld it have survived in ETO? As Erich mentioned the 355th had the best total of German a/c destroyed on the ground and pioneered strafing of German airfields - but lost 92+ to German flak - twice as many as lost battling German fighters.. Itwas strafing at 350-400mph in shallow dives, quick strikes - one group to shoot up flak batteries - the rest to hammer the a/c.

B-25s, Beaufighters, etc would not do well in these missions.. Tempest, P-47s and Mustangs did this well and Mustangs did the most on German airfields and deep transportation strikes but more vulnerable..

If I was making a living strafing, deep in heavily defended areas, it would be in a Jug - the key is range here coupled with heavy firepower and relative survivability against both flak and fighters.

The A-26 takes top honors of the twin engine attack bombers, I believe


----------



## Glider (Jul 26, 2007)

As ever a good point. The anti shipping wings of the RAF operated with some success against German naval forces off the coast of Europe and they were equipped with Beaufighters and Mossies. Normally the Rocket armed Beaus went for the AA escorts and the torpedo armed Beaus for the merchant vessels. 
Obviously they were not equipped with B25's so no comparison can be made.

Its interesting to speculate how well the larger and/or slower B25's, B26 and Bostons would have been in a similar role. The German fighters were a significant risk being close to the coast and normally escorted the convoys. They would I suggest have been a larger risk than in the Far East due to the distances involved.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2007)

Id have to go with the rugged P-47.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 27, 2007)

Single engined wise it would be between the P-47/Typhoon and in multi-engined it would be between the B-25 and the Beaufighter for me.


----------



## Wildcat (Jul 27, 2007)

Agreed with Gnomey. Also give mention to the P-40, which on all accounts was a stable gun platform, and gave stirling service in North Africa and the PTO.


----------



## Desert Fox (Jul 27, 2007)

I would say the P-47. The eight .50 calibre machine guns would do a lot of damage, on both infantry and vehicles.


----------



## trackend (Jul 28, 2007)

I've posted this before but no harm in another attachment obviously the sound track is a load of dubbed nonsense


----------



## Wildcat (Jul 28, 2007)

Talking about Beaufighters, here are some great shots of Japanese airmen caught with their pants down by an Aussie Beau in New Guinea.  plus a Beau test firing its cannons.
source - Australian War Memorial: One of the world's great museums


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2007)

I am not saying that the Hs 129 was the best aircraft (even though I think with better engines it could have been the best ground attack aircraft) but with its combination of great armour and very good armament it could be be a pretty devistating straffer as well.

*Hs 129B-1/R2:
Two 7.92mm MG 17 Machine Guns in nose.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in nose.
One 30mm Mk 101 cannon mounted under fuselage.

Hs 129B-1/R3:
Two 7.92mm MG 17 Machine Guns in nose.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in nose.
Four 7.92mm MG 17 Machine Guns in ventral box.

Hs 129B-2 Series:
Two 13mm MG 131 Machine Guns in nose.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in nose.
Various weapons were fitted inclusding 37mm BK 3.7 and 75mm BK 7.5. An interesting weapon was a battery of six 75mm smoothbore recoiless rifles that fired downawrds and to the rear. This system was fired by an automatic magnetic trigger that fired when the aircraft flew over metal objects. This system was reported to be quite successful.*

WRG - Luftwaffe Resource Group - Henschel Hs 129


----------



## Soren (Jul 31, 2007)

Agreed Adler.

My vote goes for the FW-190 though, 6x 20mm cannons + 2x 13mm guns is allot of firepower. The Me-410 B-6 Zerstörer packs a huge punch as-well with its 2x 13mm MG 131's, 2x 20mm MG 151/20's + 2x 30mm MK 103's !


----------



## model299 (Aug 1, 2007)

Wildcat said:


> Agreed with Gnomey. Also give mention to the P-40, which on all accounts was a stable gun platform, and gave sterling service in North Africa and the PTO.



The main drawback with any aircraft that uses liquid for cooling purposes is, of course, the radiator. One decent hole in it and an airman's whole day goes to hell in a hand basket. This gives air cooled planes a decided advantage.


----------



## Aggie08 (Aug 7, 2007)

The B-25 with the 75mm cannon sure seems impressive, but the gun needed one full-time crew member just to load and reload the thing. They tried putting a 105mm cannon on I think, but the test shot just about tore the nose off the plane. And the Spectre thought it was the first...

I think there was either an early model Typhoon or Tempest with 10 .303 caliber guns before they converted to the Hispano 20mm. Not quite as useful against vehicles perhaps, but against troops it couldn't be anything less than horrendously effective. How many rounds/second does that work out to?

The Tigercat, had it seen service in the war, would have been a strong candidate. Four 20mm cannons and four .50 caliber guns on a good stable platform with two air-cooled R-2800s.

But the top contestant would have the be the B-25. There's just no way to argue against that much oomph under one man's control.


----------



## renrich (Aug 7, 2007)

The Douglas A26 with the solid nose had 6-50 cal mgs plus 2 each in the dorsal and ventral turrets and with it's performance was a formidable strafer.


----------



## R-2800 (Aug 9, 2007)

I agree with Aggie08 it was just so much power all in just one aircraft. And some B-25 strafers still carried parrafrag bombs to so that added even more.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2007)

renrich said:


> The Douglas A26 with the solid nose had 6-50 cal mgs plus 2 each in the dorsal and ventral turrets and with it's performance was a formidable strafer.



Post WWII, the A-26 had 8x 50.s in nose plus 6x 50's in wings plus 2 each in dorsal and ventral turrets. I was pretty sure that the WWII hard nose version also had 6-50's in the wings to add to your package Renrich... plus a 4000+ pound bomb load.

That is a lot of strafing firepower even compared with AC130..


----------



## starling (May 9, 2008)

do not forget the soviets often added canoons and rockets to the pe-2 and tu-2.starling.

remember also that these b25,s were all operating under complete air superiority,not like typhoons,p47.and mossies in 43.starling.


----------



## Juha (May 9, 2008)

If one has air superiority Il-2 or Beaufighter, otherwise P-47.

Juha


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 9, 2008)

1st: Fw-190 F: Not as impressive in cannon armament maybe, but well armored against ground attacks and can take the fight to the enemy when attacked by fighters. 

P-47 comes in 2nd but doesn't have the extra protection the Fw has plus it's rather sluggish at treetop altitude.

B-25 is my 3rd together with Hs-129 and IL-2. Sure B-25 has many guns, but it also has rather poor visibily to front-low. Also all threee would've required fighter protection if operating without air supremacy.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

The 190 could carry a pod of 2x MG 151/20 under each wing.

The P-38 was a pretty good strafer too.

And on the B-25's armament:


> The final version of the Mitchell, the B-25J, looked much like the earlier B, C and D, having reverted to the longer nose. The less-than-successful 75 mm cannon was deleted on the J model. Instead, 800 of this version were built with a solid nose containing eight .50 machine guns, while other J-models featured the earlier "greenhouse" style nose containing the bombardier's position. Regardless of the nose style used, all J-models also included two .50 caliber guns in a "fuselage package" located directly under the pilot's station, and two more such guns in an identical package just under the co-pilot's compartment. The solid-nose B-25J variant carried an impressive total of 18 .50s: eight in the nose, four in under-cockpit packages, two in an upper turret, two in the waist, and a pair in the tail. No other bomber of World War II carried as many guns. However, the first 555 B-25Js (the B-25J-1-NC production block) were delivered without the fuselage package guns, because it was discovered muzzle blast from these guns was causing severe stress in the fuselage; while later production runs returned these guns, they were often removed as a field modification for the same reason.[4] In all, 4,318 B-25Js were built.



With the 8x nose guns, 4x fixed fuselage guns, and 2x in the top turret gunner it could bring 14x .50's to bare, however as it mentions the 4x under fusalage guns were often removed due to structural issues.


The A-20 should also be considered, faster and more agile than the B-25 and also very good strafing armament:
Six forward-firing 0.50 Colt-Browning machine guns in the nose with 350 rpg. Two 0.50-inch machine gun in dorsal power turret with 400 rpg. One 0.50-inch machine gun in the ventral tunnel position with 400 rounds.

It also could hold 4x 20mm guns in the nose along with 2x .50's but the 20mm's carried only 60 rpg.


----------



## pbfoot (May 9, 2008)

If I'm strafing groundpounders or soft skinned vehicles the 12 303's in the Hurricane XII is certainly nothing to sneeze at


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

Yep, but how much ammo did they carry?


----------



## pbfoot (May 9, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Yep, but how much ammo did they carry?


but who could get around quicker for second pass


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 9, 2008)

I'm going to have to agree with the B-25 people out their. I actually read something about a B-25 chasing down two A6M Zero's and waxing them with its forward firing weaponry. Does anybody know if that was common because that would suck to be on the recieving end of a B-25 strafing varient!


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> but who could get around quicker for second pass



No, seriously, what was the Hurricane's amunition capacity?


And a P-47 could get around pretty fast, and more for an F4U or P-38. 

The P-47 could hold 425 rpg, F4U 400 rpg, and P-38 500 rpg and 150 rpg for 20 mm.

And don't forget the Hurricane Mk.IIC for strafing (lightly) armored targets. 
(which had something like 80 rpg)

And the Typhoon and Tempest were good there too. (150 rpg)


----------



## Haztoys (May 9, 2008)

I'm going to say B-25...Theres film out there of them going at it on a island in the PTO... I have it on a old video...Theres nose and side shots of planes in a group....  ....I've looked at a lot of gun film ...And that one keeps staying in my mind...

Typhoon on fight I would say...


----------



## Kruska (May 10, 2008)

I would not seperate strafing and ground attack missions. 
The B-25’s - besides the B-25H - had only 0.50.s caliber (varying between 8-14 0.50,s), which to me sounds a bit too much like overkill for soft targets and not very useful to support ground attack against hard targets. So if number of guns determines the best strafer then there would be no chance for any other a/c from ww2 to take that title.

But in order to be a good strafer the a/c and its crew also need to be effectively protected, as such I think the usefulness of a B-25 was only given under the pretext of air supremacy. For this reason I can only vote for the Hs129 whose tactical layout was later adapted into the A10. Who could afford in the long run to place a 3/6 man crew in an a/c to perform as a strafer or ground attack a/c? Probably only the USA.

The Hs 129B-1/R2 –R3 (as D.A.I.G. mentioned) were well armored and featured a weapon array (it could also be fitted with rockets) that besides strafing could also inflict potential damage to hard targets. The engines were weak, but more of the 129’s would have done their job nevertheless. 

So to me the best strafer and ground attack a/c was a Hs129. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 10, 2008)

I somewhat doubt that Hs-129 and B-25 really differ in the aspect of air superiority. Both operated at rather similar altitudes and air-speeds so both could be intercepted rather easily. Sure the B-25 was more costy when downed, but it also had a certain chance of fighting off an enemy interceptor. The Hs-129 was doomed if attacked by fighters.

An Fw-190 F (imo) could do most of what a Hs-129 could, if maybe not with its accuracy. Armed with Panzerblitz rockets there was basically no ground target hard or soft that was beyond its capabilities. It was also a lot faster in and out of the action and could defend itself reasonably well against interceptors. On top of that it was built upon an existing airframe which helps logistics and production a lot (afterall they were often assembled from recycled A-version Focke-Wulfs).


----------



## Grampa (May 10, 2008)

What I think decides is the most importent factor of what is the best plane to strafe on grountarget here is not the RPM (Round per second). it's how mutc the mass of projectiler it trows on the target, like 4x20mm Hispanocannon here gives 272kg per min. and does anyone know how mutc kinetisk energi each plane give on target per min?


----------



## buzzard (May 10, 2008)

Kruska,

Everything I've read concerning the Hs-129 leads me to believe that it not only was not the best ground-strafer (or ground-attack, if you prefer...) but that it was not even an adequate one.

Pilots generally despised the Hs-129, and with good reason. The plane was underpowered (The Gnome/Rhone engines were both extremely unreliable, and very susceptible to battle damage), handling was sluggish, and the pilot's visibilty was miserable. Its record in the N African theater was poor, and while on the Easter Front the Henschel had some success as a dedicated anti-tank weapon, as Soviet fighter and AA performance improved, the loss rate of Hs-129 missions soon reached 20%. It was a sitting duck. Even the old Ju-87was superior. It was more reliable, durable, handled better, had far superior visibility, and had the protective advantage of the rear-gunner.

I think much of the attraction to the Hs-129 lies in its aesthetics. It is an appeallingly neat little AC in appearance, but like the Martin-Baker MB.5, and the Arado 234, its's proof that the old maxim, "if it looks right...", is not an infallible rule-of-thumb.

As a dedicated surface-strafer, the B-25J was unmatched. Tough, reliable, pilot-friendly, and with the ability to inflict horrendous damage in a single pass, it has a well-earned claim to the title of 'Best Strafer'. And while it may have been initially more expensive to build and crew than the Hs-129, it's superior survivability probably made it more economical also.

JL


----------



## Kruska (May 10, 2008)

Hello buzzard,


```
[quote="buzzard, post: 353564"]

Pilots generally despised the Hs-129, and with good reason. The plane was underpowered (The Gnome/Rhone engines were both extremely unreliable, and very susceptible to battle damage), handling was sluggish, and the pilot's visibilty was miserable. Its record in the N African theater was poor, and while on the Easter Front the Henschel had some success as a dedicated anti-tank weapon, as Soviet fighter and AA performance improved, the loss rate of Hs-129 missions soon reached  20%. It was a sitting duck. Even the old Ju-87was superior. It was more reliable, durable, handled better, had far superior visibility, and had the protective advantage of the rear-gunner.
```

I agree on the engine as I already mentioned in my post, that the Ju-87 was superior is just an opinion that will be hard for you to proof the protective advantage of a rear gunner I think was more a moral then a practical support.
And 20% loss for a ground attacker sounds realistic and reasonable taking the ongoing superiority of the Russians into account.


```
I think much of the attraction to the Hs-129 lies in its aesthetics. It is an appeallingly neat little AC in appearance, but like the Martin-Baker MB.5, and the Arado 234, its's proof that the old maxim, "if it looks right...", is not an infallible rule-of-thumb.
```

Maybe the advantage, small is hard to hit and cheap to build. to me it looks actually ugly.


```
As a dedicated surface-strafer, the B-25J was unmatched. Tough, reliable, pilot-friendly, and with the ability to inflict horrendous damage in a single pass, it has a well-earned claim to the title of 'Best Strafer'. And while it may have been initially more expensive to build and crew than the Hs-129, it's superior survivability probably made it more economical also.
```

As a non armored a/c, and just 0.5 cal. it could not have sucessfully operated in the groundattack role, especially not with missing air superiority. Making runs at truck and train convoys without having to fear attacking a/c, and AA fire yes. Effective covering AA fire from German ground troops was mostly non existent due to non existing AA guns. In books they show more Vierlingsflak and Moebelwagen pictures then the whole Wehrmacht ever had.

And the Fliegerfaust (WW2 Stinger) wasn't send to the troops yet. I believe that a B-25 could have operated in Russia not even close to a Hs129 under the same circumstances. I think people just like the B-25 because of its good looks and impressive display of small arms  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## buzzard (May 10, 2008)

Kruska,

The Ju-87 has a far better combat record on the Eastern Front than the Hs-129, even allowing for the disparity in production numbers. As for the B-25J, I think a flight of B-25s would fare better in the face of a Soviet fighter attack, than would an equivalent number of Henschels. The Hs-129, with their abysmal rear-visibilty, and sluggish handling, were meat on the table for Soviet fighters. Tho' the pilot was well protected, the plane itself was easily put out of action. The Mitchells have the benefit of lots of eyes, gunners, and very durable, if un-armored, airframes and engines. 

Seeing as the question posed relates to strafing specifically, rather than ground-attack in general, I'm confining my argument to that topic. 

While shooting up tanks is more surely glamorous than strafing soft targets, the destruction of logistical targets is every bit as vital to warfighting. What use is a tank without fuel and ammo? And what makes heavy cannon-fire inherently superior in every combat situation? A deluge of .50 cal machine gun bullets is more than adequate to the task of destroying trucks, horses, troops, marine transport, small naval vessels, parked aircraft, etc. A flight of B-25Js could, and did, cause a huge amount of mayhem. 

However, the most crushing blow against your argument for the Hs-129 is delivered the Luftwaffe itself... If the Hs-129 was truly the pre-eminent strafer (or ground-attack) AC of the war, then why, in the face the Soviet armored juggernaut, did they halt production of this wunderweapon in the summer of '44? I know they didn't always show the best judgement, but this would seem to be a real no-brainer, if the Hs-129 was really that good...

As for looks, I was never that struck on the Mitchell myself. I much prefer the A-26, Mosquito, Beaufighter, and the Pe-2 

JL

JL


----------



## Glider (May 10, 2008)

As a ground staffer then the Mossie or the Beaufighter take some beating. The USN did some tests comparing the .50 HMG with the 20mm an estimated that one 20mm was equal to 3 x .50 M2 HMG. 

So the Mossie with 4 x 20, 4 x LMG plus 2 x 500lb bombs carried internally plus 8 x Rockets, each of which was far more powerful than a 75mm shell has tremendous firepower. This plus its range, speed and ability to operate in contested airspace is a serious suggestion.
The only down side I can suggest is the in line engines which make it open to damage.

The Beau with 4 x 20 plus 4 x HMG (or 6 x LMG) plus bombs is also something you wouldn't want to be in front of. It could of course carry rockets although the MG's were left off. Performance wasn't as good as the Mossie but was sufficient for most fronts and the radials improved its ability to take damage.

Personally I would take either of these over the B25. They are both smaller, faster, more agile, at least as much firepower (equal to 12 - 16 HMG) plus rockets (equal to a salvo of 24 75mm shells), plus bombs and have a better chance of operating in hostile airspace. 
They are also cheaper and have a smaller crew.


----------



## Kruska (May 10, 2008)

Hello buzzard,

The only Hs129 that was reportedly difficult to fly was only the 75mm version. Despite certain comments the Hs129 was quite popular amongst the pilots and as such also very successful. Hauptmann Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer destroyed more than 70 tanks by June 44. What makes you think that only the pilot was protected? During its service the a/c was even upgraded on its “frontal” and body armor. 

The Stuka has a better overall record due to the numbers in existence before the Hs129 entered service in larger numbers which did not enter service before middle, end of 1942.
Ju-87 about 6500 build and Hs129 about 900 build

That destruction of logistics is vital was never disputed by me or neglected, I am however sticking to my opinion that a B-25 could not have operated even close in Russia to an Hs129 due to it not being armored and lacking anti tank capability.

You are however correct that the thread title is strafing.

In 1944 all non fighter projects were put on halt also the Ju 87 not just the Hs129 due to the “Notjägerprogramm “

And yes the A-26 looks smashing, but in Russia I would have still preferred the ugly Hs129 under the existing circumstances.  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 10, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Kruska,
> 
> The Ju-87 has a far better combat record on the Eastern Front than the Hs-129, even allowing for the disparity in production numbers.


buzzard

I don't know if comparing the two is really fair: Only a very limited number of Ju-87s were used as _Schlachtflugzeuge_, while the Hs-129 was used exclusively in this role. The Ju-87s were first and foremost dive-bombers, which I would assume is an overall "safer" occupation than direct, low-level ground support.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 10, 2008)

We've discussed that over in the tank buster thread.

Reasonable but still fairly low priority engines for the Hs 129 could have been:

Bramo 323 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BMW 132 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gnome-RhÃ´ne 14N - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not getting into liquid cooled engines, or captured engines. (Mercury, Pegasus, R-1820, R-1830, Russian designs)


----------



## Grampa (May 10, 2008)

Dident the Ju-87 got bigger combat record than Hs-129 because it whas in greater number? Is so then does anyone know the comparelse in average result between 87 and 129?


----------



## Kruska (May 11, 2008)

Grampa said:


> Dident the Ju-87 got bigger combat record than Hs-129 because it whas in greater number? Is so then does anyone know the comparelse in average result between 87 and 129?



Hello Grampa,

As buzzard already pointed out, this thread is about strafing. I brought in the Hs129 because I forwarded that to my opinion (maybe just mine  ) strafing and ground attack should not be separated or be treated separately.

Now a Ju87 was definitely not meant to be a strafer, but clearly as a dive bomber, therefore only a ground attack plane with a very limited strafing ability and as such it does not yield to any comparison with an Hs129 or whatever strafer.

To a B-25 on strafing, the Bf110 would be the opposite to match that task which it did, especially on the eastern front. It was however to costly and not well protected enough (initially it was intended to be a heavy fighter) to be used in the ground attack role as such, therefore the Hs129 was the only a/c that was clearly developed as a ground attack a/c and due to its weaponry was very effective in the role as a strafing a/c (e.g. Desert Campaign) and as a tank buster as well – the latter could not have been fulfilled by a B-25, or Beaufighter or Mossie (wood), or whatever due to insufficient protection regarding battlefield conditions during ground support missions and lack of heavy weapons needed to counter tanks from 1943 onwards.

Therefore I am merely stating that IMO the better a/c is the Hs129 – in contra to a B-25 which lacks a Tank destroying ability and – could not have successfully operated on the Eastern front, under the given conditions and was only able to operate on the western front due to massive air superiority.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## buzzard (May 11, 2008)

KK, 

My comments regarding the Ju-87 were not in advocacy of its performance as a strafer. It had to do with its relative survivability (against fighter attack)on the EF compared to the Hs-129. Both were used to destroy tanks...the Ju-87 primarily with bombs.(Anyone know what percentage of Rudel's tank kills were made with bombs vs cannons?)

Dive-bombing is far from safe. In fact, a specialized dive-bomber is extremely vulnerable when in the dive, and again in the pull-out. The slow, steady dive necessary for accuracy makes the bomber easy meat for fighters and AAA crews. And the crushing g-forces of the pull-out mean that any battle damage incurred during the dive can catastrophically overload the highly-stressed structure of the AC. The advent of radar-directed AAA spelled the end of the dedicated dive-bomber.


JL


----------



## buzzard (May 11, 2008)

Kruska,

I've never read any accounts by Hs-129 pilots, so all I have to go on are what has been written about the AC itself. Everything I've read comments upon the unfavorable handling characteristics of ALL Hs-129 variants. Some were worse than others, but none were very good. and I'm sure that some pilots did like the little beast, but that goes for almost every AC ever built.

The armor on the Hs-129, like that of the Il-2/10, was designed primarily as a defense against ground-fire, and unlike the armoured engine of the Stormovik, the twin engines of the Hs-129 were extremely vulnerable to battle damage...and twice as easy to hit.

I'm familiar with the 'Notjaegerprogramm', but I think you're still begging the question...Again, if the Hs-129 was such a superlative anti-tank weapon, why would the OKW have not demanded that it be excluded from the cut? I know that war against the Allied bombers was the first priority, but surely all those Russian tanks also had to be stopped if the Third Reich was to survive.

All things considered, the fans of the Mossie, Beau, Invader, etc have a stronger case against the B-25J than does the Hs-129. But then, I consider the anti-armor role a distinct category in itself. The kind of cannons necessary to reliably destroy armor are over-specialized for the task of strafing in general. At least until the A-10 came along...

JL

PS: Too bad there's nothing out there by the Soviet pilots that fought against the Hs-129. Anybody got any titles?


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 12, 2008)

But they are radial engines which are usually very rugged, and often operated with cylinders disabled, and in some cases entirely shot off, in addition to the lack of a vulnerable cooling system. (which the Il-2 had well protected, though the oil cooler was quite vulnerable)

Hovever the Gnome Rhone 14M was not very reliable or very tough (for a radial engine) in addition to it lacking the necessary power for the Hs 129. (though certainly better than the originally intended As 410 engines)


----------



## Kruska (May 12, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Kruska,
> 
> I'm familiar with the 'Notjaegerprogramm', but I think you're still begging the question...Again, if the Hs-129 was such a superlative anti-tank weapon, why would the OKW have not demanded that it be excluded from the cut? I know that war against the Allied bombers was the first priority, but surely all those Russian tanks also had to be stopped if the Third Reich was to survive.



Hello buzzard,

Begging? Me? You got to be kidding  . I am sure that dozens of aviation experts tried unsuccessfully to halt or reduce the Notjaegerprogram”, but as history taught us it didn’t change the upper’s decision or position.

Germany simply did not have the recourses to commit its development and production on all kind of weaponry needed and requested for. (during the entire war). Maybe the question should be turned around; why were the Germans still producing an obsolete Ju-87 in 43/44 instead of pressing 190’s or Hs129’s into service? 

Well they just simply didn’t have the engines, and as such had to rely on bounty such as the questionable Gnome Rhone 14N, which still was better than nothing.

Also let us not forget all the Wunderwaffen; Kingtigers, Maus, E-100’s that were good enough to halt the Soviet advance which only consisted of inferior Slavic rubbish and subhuman’s. (Not my opinion okay!!!) 


Regards
Kruska


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 12, 2008)

The 14M Gnome-RhÃ´ne 14M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (not the 14N Gnome-RhÃ´ne 14N - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was also much better than the originally used As 410 of ~480 hp. (which was totally unacceptable)

The 14N would have been good for the Hs 129. (or the BMW 132, or the Bramo 323)


----------



## Gemhorse (May 20, 2008)

Hi All,

-Interesting... ''punching-out armour in a strafing role, armoured to the teeth''... 

I feel the concentrated firepower of 4x20mm plus 4x.3o3 [with bombs/rockets] in FB.IV Mossies, [initially flying in concert with 'Tse-Tse's'], plus with Beaufighters also suitably armed and in-support, must seriously make the RAF Coastal Command's Strike Wings' real strong contenders for ''Best Strafers'' - Chewing into heavily-defended Enemy shipping, U-Boats and sometimes ground-targets...especially in the conditions they sometimes flew in; - serious naval coastal AA to deal with; - often attacked by defending fighters; - long return trips over freezing seas, sometimes wounded and with battle-damage... - I reckon those chaps had stainless-steel balls...

[that's my 10 cents worth]

Cheers!


----------

