# The best low-flying attack aircraft of WW2.



## I-16_SpB (Mar 19, 2005)

Ofcourse, it`s russian Il-2 "flying tank"  [/img]


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

Naw - the IL10 was most certainly better


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 20, 2005)

Mossie MkXVIII or the Tempest


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

Actuall - I like the F7F Tigercat 







It never saw combat (other than possibly attacking japanese subs) but they were stationed at Guam and flying patrols before the war ended. They were being saved for the assault on Japan but were actually ready for combat in the Spring of '45.

1 x 2000 lbs bomb on the center station, 2 x 1000 lbs bombs on the inner wing stations, 8 x 5" HVAR's on the outboard wing stations, 4 x 20mm (200 rpg) in the wing roots and 4 x .50 BMG's (300 rpg) in the nose, and almost 400 lbs of armor in a 400 mph package (5.2 mins to 20K too!) is pretty hard to beat!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

mossie i'd say..............

or hell even the lanc


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

The Il -2 did it´s job for most of the war. It took terrible losses, but I´m sure it did succeed in knocking out more axis military equipment and personal than any other plane.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 20, 2005)

torn between Two: - Typhoon, Tempest


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 21, 2005)

*A-26B Invader*






Eight .50 cal's in the nose.
Six .50 cal's in the wings.
Two .50 cal's in the upper turret locked forward. (The plane in the picture has had its dorsal and ventral turrets removed.)
THAT"S SIXTEEN FIFTY CALIBER MACHINE GUNS ON TARGET!

PLUS

Rockets or 2,000lbs. of bombs mounted under the wings.

PLUS

4,000lbs of bombs carried internally.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

How about the Stuka or the Mitchell... They were hard to take down... The Michell had a hard shell, was manuvrable enough...It was the choice in the surprise atack against japan...
The Stuka, though quite slow, it was considered terrifing by the english... The sound it made during a dive sent chills up human spines...


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 21, 2005)

The Stuka was a good weapon providing it had the advantage of air superiority however, the RAF blew the hell out of the stuka during the battle of britain, which is why it was hastily withdrawn from the battle after only a short time. The Hawker typhoon tempest were quite a handfull, And if either went against a stuka, then its bye, bye Stuka!!


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

Indeed...It would ahve been weak... But in the circumstances of a surprise attack(such as the Blitzkrieg) the Stuka has been used effectively and it's small size in comparison to regular bombers had made it perfect for small hidden aerodroms, being easily conceild beneath camuflage... It could operate from small landing strips close to the front...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

but is no match for decent fighter opposition.........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

Or indeed any fighter opposition, PZL-P11s were hacking them out of the sky in 1939


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

true...........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but is no match for decent fighter opposition.........



Which is why my vote is for the F7F tigercat, which was a match for enemy fighters and by far the superior groundpounder.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2005)

And also was the first carrier fighter with tricycle undercarraige I believe.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 21, 2005)

Out of those that actually saw combat I would say the Invader; well armed with a good load. Of them all the F7F Tigercat seems (statistically) to be the best and a good package, so I would properly saw the Tigercat.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 21, 2005)

I thought the Tigercat had a 2,000lb bomb load capacity and not 4,000lbs. I also seem to recall that it had a really slow cruise speed too. (Something like 225mph) Perhaps I'm mistaken.

The only combat Tigercats ever saw were as water tankers for fire suppression by the forestry service many, many years ago (unlike the A-26 which saw active combat in WWII, Korea and Vietnam in addition to current use as a water tanker today)


What ... me biased towards the A-26?


----------



## delcyros (Mar 21, 2005)

But both only saw limited use in the closing months of WW 2 (the A-26 saw a little more). The P-47 would be a better choice in my eyes, it proved to be very reliable and it succed in its role (as the Il-2).


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

The Tigercat say some service in Korea, the jet nighfighters were too fast to get the Po-2 biplanes known as bedcheck charlie's (they were sent over with their engine out of tune so it woke everyone up). Therefore they brought in the Tigercats to make mincemeat of them


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 21, 2005)

P-38, P-47, B-25, A26 even the Tigercat and F4U are all good choices as are the Typhoon/Tempest.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 21, 2005)

You are completely right, mosquitoman, but Korea is not ww2 and the Po-2 biplane (I remember 2 times such a biplane was towing my glider in the air back in the middle 90´s) was obsolete food for any prop driven plane. Shooting down a Po-2 doesn´t underline its low flying abilities or not? I stay with either P-47 oe Il-2. Both are not techically the best choice, but they did a good deal to axis forces...


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 21, 2005)

I stand corrected Mosquitoman.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

delcyros, I was just pointing out that the Tigercat did see active service in a major war- outlining what it did, nothing else


----------



## delcyros (Mar 21, 2005)

I got it. No need to argue. -


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 21, 2005)

I don't think he was arguing. Now, tell him that the Mosquito sucked or that the English have bad teeth and you'll see an argument.


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 21, 2005)

As far as the ETO goes, although I would usually vote 'Mosquito' in a blink of the eyes, D-Day could not have proceeded if it wasn't for the huge sacrifice made by RAF Typhoons to clearing the French coast of German guns, aircraft, V1's, radar, shipping etc., in such a way as not to alert the Germans to the exact Invasion areas...

Out of all of RAF Fighter Command Squadrons, the Typhoons suffered substantial losses in comparison, but their contribution was huge, the Invasion would have been indefinately delayed, but for their part carried-out on schedule...

This is an aspect of WWII that not many folk realise, as it's one thing to bomb from height defended targets, but to dive from 5,000 ft to ground-level with the flak barrage these chaps faced, to aim and fire RP'S and cannon, took real balls....especially when you're flying a 7 ton beast that really was a handful to fly....

They were also a Fighter, and Britain was in a spot when the Fw-190's first appeared, and the 'Tiffy's', then the world's fastest fighter, tackled them whilst the Spitfire Mk.IX was coming-on stream to relieve the Mk.V's, this at a time when the Typhoon was sorting-out it's own teething-troubles....

I can understand choices like F7F's, A-26's, B-25's and Il-2's.... they were good scraps, but for historical fact, the 2nd TAF Wings of Typhoons performed a great feat clearing the Channel of the vast German defensive belt, in preparation for D-Day, and keeping the Invasion Forces moving forward after their initial landings with their ''cab-rank'' call-up and destroy tactics, and the only comparable situation to that of the Typhoons, may have been the B-25 and A-20 attacks, through the fierce flak defences of Rabaul and the other well-defended Pacific Islands...

I have a vested interest in the Typhoons, as one of my ancestors was killed shooting-up a giant German Radar site around Cap de La Hague / Joburg [just like the one in ''Saving Private Ryan''], a month before D-Day, and they were very well defended with multiple 20mm's, 37mm's and 40mm AA batteries, let alone the bigger guns.......

John Golley was a famous pilot who with RAF 245 Sqn., another 2nd TAF Typhoon Sqn. who wrote a book called ''Day of the Typhoon'' [Patrick Stephens, 1986], that outlined Typhoon pilot's work, and 'the day' as book title refers to, is the day in mid August 1944, when they caught the 6th SS Panzer Division occupying six miles of road in daylight, and attacked facing 88mm guns and more than a hundred 20mm's....by late afternoon they had decimated the Division....but this is one book that gives some idea of their fight sacrifice.......

For my money [and family blood], the Typhoon was the fastest, deadliest ground-attack fighter, in the right place and at the right time of WWII.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I thought the Tigercat had a 2,000lb bomb load capacity and not 4,000lbs. I also seem to recall that it had a really slow cruise speed too. (Something like 225mph) Perhaps I'm mistaken.



The pilots handbook shows configuration 7 as a single 2000 lbs bomb under the fuselage and a 1000 lbs bomb on each inner wing pylon. While no loading condition with 4 bombs and rockets is given, the weight addition is rather minimal. Maxium range cruise speed is very slow (180 mph), but this is at 60% NRP, so it could probably cruise faster at the expense of some range. R-2800's are R-2800's, so there is no reason it should not have been able to sustain at least 85% of NRP for extended periods.



DAVIDICUS said:


> The only combat Tigercats ever saw were as water tankers for fire suppression by the forestry service many, many years ago (unlike the A-26 which saw active combat in WWII, Korea and Vietnam in addition to current use as a water tanker today)



Actually, I have found that the F7F-3P did fly a few operational sorties (I assume these were photo recon) with the USMC in WWII. One was also used for combat trials by the 787 squadron, RAF, starting in Feb. 1945.

Also, F7F-3N's flew night interdiction missions and night target designation missions for B-29's in Korea.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Mar 22, 2005)

Gemhorse:

6th SS Panzer Division in mid august 1944?
Where?
You are referring to France (Typhoons only in the west).

If i recall correctly no 6th SS Panzer Divison did exist at all in the German order of battle in Normandy and France; furthermore, if i continue to recall correctly the SS had no 6th panzer divison elsewhere ever. 

There was a 6th SS Panzer Army, but it did not came to life until the Ardenes offensive of the winter of 1944; also it saw service near Budapest against the soviets in 1945.

Perhaps it was just a mistake in naming the panzer unit, still no German armored formation got decimated by any allied ground attack squadron.

It has been proved RAF and USAAF ground attack units overclaimed up to ten times the number of German tanks actually hit and destroyed by air attack.

Do not take me wrong, i do not put into doubt the service your relative gave to his country. That is not the point here.

I totally agree the Typhoon was a far more capable ground attack plane, along with the Fw190 F versions, since they could carry powerful armament to deliver to enemy ground positions, and once their cargo was delivered, they were very manouverable and fast to deal with enemy fighters as well.

The IL-2 after delivering its bombs or rockets had to take its nearly 1 ton of armor back to base, being a comfortable prey for enemy fighters or for flak batteries.

The IL-2 was an armored turkey capable of flying, the most overrated plane of the entire world war II. The catastrophic losses it took even during the victorious episodes of the soviet union in 1944 are clear testimony of the actual capabilties of that plane and of the pilots that flew it.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 22, 2005)

Captain Lunatic, 

Mosquitoman already set me straight regarding Korea.  

I see several references on the web (as I'm sure you have too) listing the cruise speed as 222mph. The A-26 used R-2800's as well and its cruise speed is universally listed at about 280mph. Can you shed some light on this?

As far as seeing combat in WWII:

_"Actually, I have found that the F7F-3P did fly a few operational sorties (I assume these were photo recon) with the USMC in WWII. One was also used for combat trials by the 787 squadron, RAF, starting in Feb. 1945."_

"Photo recon" and one used for "combat trials" by the RAF? Hell, F7F pilots flying water tanker duty to fight fires saw more combat than that.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 22, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Captain Lunatic,
> 
> Mosquitoman already set me straight regarding Korea.
> 
> I see several references on the web (as I'm sure you have too) listing the cruise speed as 222mph. The A-26 used R-2800's as well and its cruise speed is universally listed at about 280mph. Can you shed some light on this?



Well, it is kinda hard because operational cruising speeds are usually somewhat mission dependant. If the plane is to be flying close escort, the cruising speed often listed is what was necessary to pace the bombers. If it's flying ground attack, the cruising speed listed often reflects a plane loaded up with external ordinance. In the pilots handbook for the F7F, cruising speed is listed as about 180 mph for all loading conditions - which really makes no sense. Surely a fighter configuration, clean except for a single 300 lbs drop tank should cruise a lot faster than the bomber configuration carrying 4,000 lbs of bombs slung under the belly and wings???

In general, R-2800 powered planes seem to have had a cruising speed of around 270-280 mph, so it is pretty reasonable to assume that this would be true of the F7F as well. In fact, given its rather clean lines and laminar flow wings, you'd really expect it to have a faster cruising speed than the P-47D. The P-47N cruising speed was about 330 mph.



DAVIDICUS said:


> As far as seeing combat in WWII:
> 
> _"Actually, I have found that the F7F-3P did fly a few operational sorties (I assume these were photo recon) with the USMC in WWII. One was also used for combat trials by the 787 squadron, RAF, starting in Feb. 1945."_
> 
> "Photo recon" and one used for "combat trials" by the RAF? Hell, F7F pilots flying water tanker duty to fight fires saw more combat than that.



I didn't say it was much action, or that combat was actually engaged with the enemy (in WWII), though it is most likely it did with the Brits who were known to take one new plane out in a squadron for combat service trials with solid protection from established types. The point is it did fly operational sorties, and it flew combat sorties in Korea.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 24, 2005)

Hi there Udet, the article I've quoted from is actually from a Feb. 2001 copy of 'Aeroplane' magazine, as an obituary to John Golley, who died 16 Nov. 2003, and was written by Bill Gunston....
It does appear the incident referred to may have been to do with the Ardennes Offensive, but as I haven't as yet read the book he wrote, ''Day of the Typhoon', I can't at this point shed any further light on it...I'm not too up-to-speed on the Panzer Divisions, but took note of the article due to my ancestor's Typhoon involvement.....I do concur with you that the Fw-190 F's were also very competent at the low-flying attack role, a role that a lot of the powerful and manoevrable single-seat fighters were used for at some stage of their respective operational careers, Spits, Thunderbolts, Mustangs etc...but my feeling for the Typhoon is as stated, based on their service and losses in this role....The Fw-190 was a superlative aircraft in my opinion, and stands as the Luftwaffe equivalent to the Typhoon.......

Interesting discussion between Davidicus and RG on the F7F....I've got Capt. Eric Brown's assessment of this great aircraft on hand here, and although he doesn't comment on the ''cruise speed'', as RG commented in his last post, it's alot to do with the particular mission.....In the specs, Capt. Brown has 402 mph @ 15,000 ft. as ''combat speed'', where there is usually the cruise speed, and sights 439 mph @ 22,100 ft. as the max. speed...
What to me is surprising is this aircraft first test flew on 1st April 1940, was VERY fast for it's day, and had a rocket-like climb [4,460 ft/min in the specs], and after extensive tests and mods, by June 1941 the US Navy had two, dubbed XF7F-1 'Tigercat' by then, and underwent carrier trials, but the Navy decided they were 'too heavy and too hot' and the US Marines had a go....
The RN tested them at Farnborough, and the problem they had on carriers was the props could cut the arrester-wires when hard-braking on landing due to nose-wheel compression, and their single-engine handling.
Capt. Brown's summary was real interesting [for me] because he compared the F7F to the Sea Hornet, the then RN Carrier twin, and states the F7F was superior to the S.Hornet in deck landing mainly on the strength of good take-off characteristics, it's tricycle undercart arrangement, slightly better lateral control on approach and improved power-on stalling characteristics.....It was however inferior to the Hornet, in mainly because of it's critical CG restriction on effective elevator travel during the approach and it's dangerous baulked landing longitudinal trim change. Regretably, while the F7F's tri-undercart and power-boosted rudder were useful contributions to the general problem of landing on a carrier deck with a twin, on one engine it wasn't ! -Also, the F7F was only 4 knots slower than the Hornet....Hmmmmm......

The US Marine Corps first F7F Sqn., VMF[N]-533 was fated to reach Okinawa on 14 Aug. 1945, the day before the surrender, but carried out Occupation duties, but were active in Korea in ground-attack, nightfighting, combat air patrols, photo-recce and escort duties with B-29's, providing pre-strike anti-aircraft defence attacks......One F7F-3N flown by M/Sgt. Olsen T/Sgt. Frederick was credited with destroying an entire enemy convoy......

I really like the F7F and feel it was a real shame they never got it into WWII proper......


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 25, 2005)

Me too. It was a nimble twin engine fighter with increadible climb and unbelievable firepower. Can you imagine the same fire power as a Tempest plus a P-51B in one plane?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 25, 2005)

Yeah, the more I read, the more I'm surprised at the number of really fine aircraft that were designed, built, but not deployed....
It's great that there's still some F7F's around though, I've read of their exploits at Reno, but they are still a firm favourite in Warbird events....y'never know, with all the rebuilds going on, some of them will inevitably be re-produced, it's starting to happen, like Flugwerk with the Fw-190's, and Yaks too...You guys have such great resources over there to do this, it's set to become an industry within an industry.......

Gemhorse


----------



## Vahe Demirjian (Jan 17, 2020)

Judging from my experience reading about WW2 aircraft, the Ilyushin Il-2 was definitely the best-ever low-flying ground attack aircraft for a number of reasons:

1. It destroyed over 200 German tanks at the Battle of Kursk, helping to further turn the tide of war against the Germans on the Eastern Front.
2. Stalin called it as "vital to the Red Army as air and bread".


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 17, 2020)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> Judging from my experience reading about WW2 aircraft.........



LMAO

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 17, 2020)

That would be the P51-A Mustang.
It was lighter, more maneuverable, great range.
Could carry bombs and fight its way out of a battle.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 17, 2020)

The Lancaster made two attacks from precisely 60 ft early in its career, destroyed two dams then walked off the stage to let the supporting cast carry on the show.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 17, 2020)

The Lancaster had long MG barrels up front though so that would make it a good dive-bomber and not an air superiority fighter

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 17, 2020)

The Tigercat was used in the ground attack role in Korea. It just had very limited use in air combat. 


The Corsair became an excellent, dedicated ground attack aircraft post-WWII, although not as good as the AD


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 17, 2020)

cheddar cheese said:


> And also was the first carrier fighter with tricycle undercarraige I believe.


Were they’re any ground attack aircraft with tricycle undercarriage in WW2?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> That would be the P51-A Mustang.
> It was lighter, more maneuverable, great range.
> Could carry bombs and fight its way out of a battle.



Please stop...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 18, 2020)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> Judging from my experience reading about WW2 aircraft...


*Translated:*
"From what I've cut and pasted from Wikipedia, Reddit and War Thunder forums..."



Vahe Demirjian said:


> ...the Ilyushin Il-2 was definitely the best-ever low-flying ground attack aircraft for a number of reasons:
> 
> 1. It destroyed over 200 German tanks at the Battle of Kursk, helping to further turn the tide of war against the Germans on the Eastern Front.
> 2. Stalin called it as "vital to the Red Army as air and bread".


So which reason was more significant - the battle of Kursk or Uncle Joe's quote?

I know I won't get an answer, because it can't be CnP'd from Wiki or Reddit

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 18, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> LMAO


While we undoubtedly destroyed the Luftwaffe and industrial war machine, credit must go to the USSR destroying their armies, the Il-2 being essential for this task.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 18, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> While we undoubtedly destroyed the Luftwaffe and industrial war machine, credit must go to the USSR destroying their armies, the Il-2 being essential for this task.


My laugh wasn't about the Il2, it was his comment, "Judging from my experience reading about WW2 aircraft". Find his other comments and you will understand


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 18, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> While we undoubtedly destroyed the Luftwaffe and industrial war machine, credit must go to the USSR destroying their armies, the Il-2 being essential for this task.


What made the IL-2 so deadly? Did it, like the Stuka in 1939-40 find success due to friendly air superiority?


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 18, 2020)

"What if" section is down the road


----------



## rochie (Jan 18, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> "What if" section is down the road


Proliferation of what if threads has become as annoying as the that other dickhead !


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 18, 2020)

Some people don't get it and Alder was kind enough to give them their own space


----------



## Dimlee (Jan 18, 2020)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> Judging from my experience reading about WW2 aircraft, the Ilyushin Il-2 was definitely the best-ever low-flying ground attack aircraft for a number of reasons:
> 
> 1. It destroyed over 200 German tanks at the Battle of Kursk, helping to further turn the tide of war against the Germans on the Eastern Front.
> 2. Stalin called it as "vital to the Red Army as air and bread".



It was definitely one of the most numerous (in production) and it was (and is) one of the most glorified in war propaganda.
As for its combat effectiveness... there are other, more sober opinions.
1. No, Il-2 did not destroy 200+ tanks in that battle.
2. Yes, Stalin said that in one telegram sent to the director of one factory in 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 18, 2020)

Had they addressed the underpowered engines and controllability, the Henschel Hs 129 had potential. 








An armoured bathtub and heavy guns is a good place to start.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jan 19, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Some people don't get it and Alder was kind enough to give them their own space


dont have any issues with well thought out and thought provoking "what if" scenarios but most that have appeared lately are neither !


----------



## WARSPITER (Jan 25, 2020)

As an exceptional ground attack pairing I have always liked the Thunderbolt and Typhoon. Both packed a good punch and could put up a decent fight
against enemy fighters.

The work done by the two aircraft types from D day on was an important contribution. Plus they both look cool which helps.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 25, 2020)

What was the point of the disc turret on Boulton Paul P.92? Defence of course, but no other dedicated ground attack fighter was thus armed. What were they thinking? Better to put that disc on the bottom and fire at the ground, as was the aircraft’s role. Or skip it for greater payload and speed.






Boulton Paul P.92


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 25, 2020)

An aircraft that's engaged in ground attack will generally be in a shallow dive.

A good example of an upper turret being useful in that role, would be the B-25 or A-26 gunships that would have their upper turret aimed forward, often times bringing the total of .50 Mgs up to 14 or so on target.

The P-61 also used it's upper turret aimed forward when it was employed in ground attack missions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> An aircraft that's engaged in ground attack will generally be in a shallow dive.
> 
> A good example of an upper turret being useful in that role, would be the B-25 or A-26 gunships that would have their upper turret aimed forward, often times bringing the total of .50 Mgs up to 14 or so on target.
> 
> The P-61 also used it's upper turret aimed forward when it was employed in ground attack missions.


Good point. And very cool for the Black Widow.






I wonder if the P.92’s gun was intended to fire right forward. It would appear the props may interfere.


----------



## pgf_666 (Jan 27, 2020)

Hs-129B. Almost a Warthog with props. Period. End of sentence. Happily, the other guys didn't have a whole lot of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 27, 2020)

pgf_666 said:


> Hs-129B. Almost a Warthog with props. Period. End of sentence. Happily, the other guys didn't have a whole lot of them.


I like it as well. But the Hs-129 seems to be flawed in both low speed handling and engine performance. Fix those two and you have winner. Why did they build this aircraft around underpowered pre-war French engines? Was there nothing made in Germany that could power this bird? 

It's interesting to think of what the Germans might have come up with pre-Barbarossa had they understood or appreciated the scale and scope of the Soviet armour they were about to kick into action. But that's a topic for the What'If forum.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 27, 2020)

... the 4-cannon Hawker Hurricane, would, IMO, out-match the He-129 in effectiveness and surviveability ... even with inline engines.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2020)

pgf_666 said:


> Hs-129B. Almost a Warthog with props. Period. End of sentence. Happily, the other guys didn't have a whole lot of them.



Care to elaborate (besides the 'Period. End of sentence.' part - here, one would've gotten an 'F' in English language for that)?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 27, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Care to elaborate (besides the 'Period. End of sentence.' part - here, one would've gotten an 'F' in English language for that)?


You're being intentionally obtuse. The Hensel is a Warthog in the making, with its armoured bathtub and heavy forward armament.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> You're being intentionally obtuse. The Hensel is a Warthog in the making, with its armoured bathtub and heavy forward armament.



Hold your horses. I was referring to the whole post.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2020)

pgf_666 said:


> Hs-129B. Almost a Warthog with props. Period. End of sentence. Happily, the other guys didn't have a whole lot of them.





Admiral Beez said:


> I like it as well. But the Hs-129 seems to be flawed in both low speed handling and engine performance. Fix those two and you have winner. Why did they build this aircraft around underpowered pre-war French engines? Was there nothing made in Germany that could power this bird?




This has been gone over a few times, or more than a few.
Hs-129A





It used Argus inverted V-12 air cooled engines of 465hp for take-off, the French engines were a definite improvement. 
The German engines only weighed 315kg. You were rather limited was to what engines would fit without redesigning the whole airplane. 

See ;Argus As 410 - Wikipedia 
BTW the engine was supercharged. 

Only German engines that had a prayer of working were the BMW 132 or Bramo 323 9 cylinder radials. The were both heavier than the French engines (about 200lbs apiece) and of much greater diameter (over 54in compared to under 38 in for the French engines) 




Vision to the side on the Hs 129B, already bad, would have gone to dismal with a cowl line 8in (200mm) higher than what it had.


----------



## WARSPITER (Jan 28, 2020)

The Hs129 doesn't fit with being the best low flying ground attack aircraft of WWII as it had too many faults including the poor speed and inability
to defend itself.

The armour was a good thing but also a hindrance no matter what engines were fitted (as has been shown larger engines would have meant a large
redesign anyway - not viable in the time frame at all and could have made it worse - the ME 210 comes to mind). Pilots found the 75mm windscreen
handy when being shot at but hard to actually see through. 

When the 75mm gun was fitted the 129 was said to be virtually incapable of flight.

Also, the mathematics of numbers are against the 129 as there were less than 1000 built. Not really enough to justify it as a contender.

Some say it was the A10 Warthog of WWII but I think it was more like an aggressive Guinea Pig with a wooden leg. Yes it could bite you
but only if you stopped long enough to actually let it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 28, 2020)

The Hs129 may not have been produced in great numbers, buy that doesn't detract from the fact that it was an effective tool.

The "Flying Infrantryman" has the notoriety of being the first aircraft to ever change the tide of a ground battle and the BK7.5 equipped version was not the mainstay, but rather the BK5 and 30mm versions that wreaked havoc on Soviet ground forces.

Yes, it was slow and yes, it could NOT defend itself - it was NOT an Fw190f/g, it was a purpose-built ground attack aircraft - like the A-10, which would ALSO need air superiority to operate un-challenged.

But the Hs129 filled it's mission profile to a "T" and it is a very fortunate thing that there were only a limited number ever built.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 28, 2020)

Read this. Things will clear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 28, 2020)

Great book


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 28, 2020)

> Vision to the side on the Hs 129B, already bad, would have gone to dismal with a cowl line 8in (200mm) higher than what it had.


Should‘ve made them pushers, like on the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 28, 2020)

WARSPITER said:


> The Hs129 doesn't fit with being the best low flying ground attack aircraft of WWII as it had too many faults including the poor speed and inability
> to defend itself.



What dedicated ground attack aircraft in WW2 could defend itself?


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 28, 2020)

wuzak said:


> What dedicated ground attack aircraft in WW2 could defend itself?



A-36

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2020)

Only with bombs gone (mission kill) and enough warning.


----------



## WARSPITER (Jan 28, 2020)

A good ground attack aircraft was a combination that was capable of defending itself.

The HS129 was used as the Luftwaffe had relied on the dive bomber as it's ground attack card. The quick evolution of the tank caused a problem
with that and 30mm+ cannons became more important. There wasn't a lot of choice for aircraft for this purpose and what they had became 
vulnerable fairly quickly. The FW 190 was going to be the main aircraft for the task but the bomber offensive meant the allocation of the bulk of
these to bomber interception.

That is why the Thunderbolt and Typhoon were so much better as they had the fighter capability built in as well as good speed to target which
allowed more sorties on target in less time. The 190 would have been the best choice for the Luftwaffe for the same role for the same reasons
had enough been made available.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 29, 2020)

WARSPITER said:


> The 190 would have been the best choice for the Luftwaffe for the same role for the same reasons
> had enough been made available.


Looking at the 190's designer, the Focke-Wulf Fw 187 looks like it would have more potential in ground attack and self defence than the Hs 129. Did the 187 ever carry bombs?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 29, 2020)

The Fw187 wasn't designed to carry bombs and would have taken a hit to it's performance.

Take a look at it's empty versus gross weights to get an idea of it's limitations.


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 29, 2020)

wuzak said:


> What dedicated ground attack aircraft in WW2 could defend itself?


Typhoon.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 29, 2020)

Petlyakov Pe-2 in its ground attack dive bomber version. It wasnt heavily gunned like the IL-2 nor did it carry a big bombload like some other light twin engine bombers but it was fast 360mph according to wiki. It had a rear upper turret, a ventral mounting plus 2 other M/Gs to guard its tail and it seems to have been very robust with much higher survival rates than most other Soviet planes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2020)

Me likes Pe-2 very much, far more than I like Il-2. Unfortunately, English-language Wikipedia credits the Pe-2 for perhaps 30 mph more than what Soviets will say. Eg. data from Shavrov's bible puts Pe-2 (no-prototype bomber versions) at 320-335 mph at altitude, and under 290 mph at sea level - that's ~50 mph slower than early Typhoon, or ~70 mph slower than late models with better Sabres.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 29, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Me likes Pe-2 very much, far more than I like Il-2. Unfortunately, English-language Wikipedia credits the Pe-2 for perhaps 30 mph more than what Soviets will say. Eg. data from Shavrov's bible puts Pe-2 (no-prototype bomber versions) at 320-335 mph at altitude, and under 290 mph at sea level - that's ~50 mph slower than early Typhoon, or ~70 mph slower than late models with better Sabres.



Your right it looks like only the Pe-2K with 1700hp M82 engines and the very late Pe-2L/M with 1650hp Klimov 107s could go faster than about 320mph. Still it seems to have been very robust and survivable much better than the IL-2 which was a sluggish bullet magnet.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 29, 2020)

Thoughts on the Breda Ba.65? Stuka and naval strike aside, I don’t think the Axis made many other dedicated single engine ground attack aircraft.






Breda Ba.65


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 29, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> What was the point of the disc turret on Boulton Paul P.92? Defence of course, but no other dedicated ground attack fighter was thus armed. What were they thinking? Better to put that disc on the bottom and fire at the ground, as was the aircraft’s role. Or skip it for greater payload and speed.



I'm puzzled by this, Admiral, the BP P.92 wasn't designed as a ground attack aircraft, it was designed for a two-seat turret fighter spec, F.11/37 as a home defence fighter by day or night.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 29, 2020)

> Were they’re any ground attack aircraft with tricycle undercarriage in WW2?



Douglas A-20, it was a light bomber but was used to deadly effect in ground attack. You could argue the B-25 too.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2020)

"_I'm puzzled by this, Admiral, the BP P.92 wasn't designed as a ground attack aircraft, it was designed for a two-seat turret fighter spec, F.11/37 as a home defence fighter by day or night_." 

I think Admiral was fooled by part of the "covers everything" specification. They may have thrown in the phrase "ground support" in 1937 but since they didn't really know how they were going to do it or what weapons would actually work it seems a bit wishful thinking.
Probably sounded good to the Bean counters who figured they wouldn't have to buy old fashion artillery for the Army with all these modern planes capable of "ground support" available


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 29, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Douglas A-20, it was a light bomber but was used to deadly effect in ground attack. You could argue the B-25 too.


And the A-26 gunships


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 29, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> They may have thrown in the phrase "ground support" in 1937 but since they didn't really know how they were going to do it or what weapons would actually work it seems a bit wishful thinking.



The wording of the spec is pretty clear in its intent as a home defence turret fighter, but for the slight oddity in the armament section, and I quote "Provision is to be made for carrying one 250lb bomb internally." No other mention of such a role in the rest of the spec, focussing on its performance as an interceptor. Incidentally, Armstrong Whitworth, Bristol, Gloster and Hawker are known to have tendered to this spec, but the BP design was selected. Both the AW and Bristol make room in their designs for the carriage of light bombs.

This shouldn't be mistaken for an offensive role though, this was probably for defensive purposes, like in case of invasion and fitting bomb racks to Tiger Moths - the spec was for a high flying interceptor over home territory.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2020)

Perhaps Wiki is wrong (won't be the first time) but the entry for F.11/37 says "Twin-engine two-seat day & night fighter/ground support" but this is hardly the full text.

If you say the original document didn't have that two word section I will believe you and just point to this reference as possible source of confusion.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 29, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> but for the slight oddity in the armament section, and I quote "Provision is to be made for carrying one 250lb bomb internally."


That would have most likely been the smallest bomb-bay of any aircraft of the war!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 29, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> And the A-26 gunships


It's my belief that the A26, B25, B26, A20 would be far to vulnerable as a low flying attack aircraft against an enemy that had good AA defences. They are too, big, too unmanoeuvrable at low altitude and most of them were too slow. AA guns would have had a field day. It was very unusual to find these types used in this role in Europe, but they could get away with it against the Japanese.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> That would have most likely been the smallest bomb-bay of any aircraft of the war!


Might have to measure it up against the Avro Anson 
Anson might wider but shorter.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jan 29, 2020)

There is mention in the specification to operate with a "field force" - ground attack?
The bomb was meant to be a Bomber Breaker. 







(The British Fighter - Peter Lewis)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## muskeg13 (Jan 29, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Douglas A-20, it was a light bomber but was used to deadly effect in ground attack. You could argue the B-25 too.


Oh yes! Just look at the actions of the 5th Air Force, and the Battle of the Bismark Sea in particular. Battle of the Bismarck Sea - Wikipedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2020)

Graeme said:


> There is mention in the specification to operate with a "field force" - ground attack?
> The bomb was meant to be a Bomber Breaker.
> 
> View attachment 568122
> ...



Thank you. Again one can see points of considerable confusion. A "Field Force" might be take to mean a force in the field like an expeditionary force or force operating at some location other than the British isles? But actually having nothing to do supporting ground troops directly (taking part in the land battle). More like operating like an interceptor/bomber destroyer to defend the ground forces against attack from tee air. 
Also there may be a considerable difference in the size bombay needed for a single 250lb bomb and one that held 250lbs worth of bombs deemed suitable for dropping on enemy bomber formations.(Multiple bombs of 2-10lbs?)


----------



## Greyman (Jan 29, 2020)

The minimum speed spec indicates to me it's not meant for ground attack.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2020)

Greyman said:


> The minimum speed spec indicates to me it's not meant for ground attack.


 Got to support those mountain troops somehow 

Field Force in Tibet.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jan 30, 2020)

There are quite a few really good ground attack aircraft. But I think that there was only one that had a major contribution to WWII, Korea, and well into the Vietnam War. And that one is .....


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 30, 2020)

Glider said:


> It's my belief that the A26, B25, B26, A20 would be far to vulnerable as a low flying attack aircraft against an enemy that had good AA defences. They are too, big, too unmanoeuvrable at low altitude and most of them were too slow. AA guns would have had a field day. It was very unusual to find these types used in this role in Europe, but they could get away with it against the Japanese.


Not unusual at all.

The A-20, A-26 and B-25 were very active in the ETO and MTO assigned to the 8th, 9th and 12th Air Forces.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 30, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> I'm puzzled by this, Admiral, the BP P.92 wasn't designed as a ground attack aircraft, it was designed for a two-seat turret fighter spec, F.11/37 as a home defence fighter by day or night.


Per Wikipedia....for what that's worth:

_"The Boulton Paul P.92 was a British design by Boulton Paul for a two-seat turret-armed *fighter/ground attack aircraft* to meet Air Ministry Specification F.11/37."_


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 30, 2020)

davparlr said:


> There are quite a few really good ground attack aircraft. But I think that there was only one that had a major contribution to WWII, Korea, and well into the Vietnam War. And that one is .....


*Spad!*






First flown in March 1945, I'd qualify it as a WW2 design. It certainly would have been deployed in Operation Downfall.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jan 30, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> *Spad!*
> 
> 
> 
> First flown in March 1945, I'd qualify it as a WW2 design. It certainly would have been deployed in Operation Downfall.


Good call, but, as far I know, it never flew any combat missions WW2, so contributed nothing. Had it done so, it certainly should be in the ranks of one of the greatest.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 30, 2020)

davparlr said:


> There are quite a few really good ground attack aircraft. But I think that there was only one that had a major contribution to WWII, Korea, and well into the Vietnam War. And that one is .....


Hmm....Lavochkin La-7? Used in ground attack in WW2, Korean War, but not in Vietnam.

Interesting, two Spads shot down two La-7s over China, according to this book anyway.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 30, 2020)

The A/B-26 Invader

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jan 30, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The A/B-26 Invader

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 30, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Not unusual at all.
> 
> The A-20, A-26 and B-25 were very active in the ETO and MTO assigned to the 8th, 9th and 12th Air Forces.


Correct but not normally in the low level attack role in the ETO and MTO. There were of course exceptions but they normally operated as a traditional medium bomber and the A26 which had the best performance of them all generally operated at medium altitude. This was despite the crews being originally trained in low level work.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 30, 2020)

O


Glider said:


> Correct but not normally in the low level attack role in the ETO and MTO. There were of course exceptions but they normally operated as a traditional medium bomber and the A26 which had the best performance of them all generally operated at medium altitude. This was despite the crews being originally trained in low level work.


On the Eastern Front, the A-20 was their favourite torpedo bomber, and the B-25, their favourite long range bomber.


----------



## Gekko13 (Jan 30, 2020)

Consolidated PB4Y flew low altitude anti-sub and anti-shipping missions for 20 years.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 31, 2020)

P-39. 37mm cannon and good low altitude performance in all versions.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 31, 2020)

LMAO

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 31, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> LMAO


And why is that so funny? Most information (except recent) says that ground attack was all it was good for.


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 31, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> And why is that so funny? Most information (except recent) says that ground attack was all it was good for.


It's most successful use was as a battlefield air superiority fighter by the Soviets.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 31, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> It's most successful use was as a battlefield air superiority fighter by the Soviets.


I guess my humor was lost on you.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 31, 2020)




----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 31, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 568285​


Sorry to disappoint you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Jan 31, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Your right it looks like only the Pe-2K with 1700hp M82 engines and the very late Pe-2L/M with 1650hp Klimov 107s could go faster than about 320mph. Still it seems to have been very robust and survivable much better than the IL-2 which was a sluggish bullet magnet.



Pe-2 with M-105F engine was probably the best among mass-produced series. So, 500 km/h can be assumed as a real limit for this aircraft.
Pe-2 with M-82 was faster but built in the numbers too small to have an impact.
As for survivability... It was agile (for a bomber) and dived fast but could hardly fly on one engine and was difficult in landing even undamaged. The pilot's skill was probably the main factor of the survivability.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 31, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> Pe-2 with M-105F engine was probably the best among mass-produced series. So, 500 km/h can be assumed as a real limit for this aircraft.
> Pe-2 with M-82 was faster but built in the numbers too small to have an impact.
> As for survivability... It was agile (for a bomber) and dived fast but could hardly fly on one engine and was difficult in landing even undamaged. The pilot's skill was probably the main factor of the survivability.



Not many twin engine aircraft could survive losing an engine if it happened at low level. The torque reaction from the still running engine and the drag from the stopped propeller until the pilot or engineer could feather it would make the plane spin. I believe losing an engine on a Mosquito below about 4,000 feet was a real nasty thing partly because of the power of the engines I wouldnt be surprised if it was the same for any powerful twin.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> "Twin-engine two-seat day & night fighter/ground support"



Hm, that's interesting. I guess that is what the 'Field Force' possibly means, although I'm inclined to agree with your definition, SR. As mentioned, there is nothing else within the specification that states its role as a ground support aircraft. Here's the title and first paragraph:

"F.11/37 Twin-Engined Two-Seater Fighter (Replaces F.18/36) [a predecessor spec for a two-seat fighter, not proceeded with] Dated 26/5/37 File No.630893/RDA3 Issued to Boulton Paul
Requirements: Air Staff Operational requirement OR.50 requires a fighter capable of operating by day and night for home defence or with the Field Force. In order to obtain a striking power superior to the eight-gun machine-gun fighter, it will be necessary to provide four 20mm automatic guns. These guns are to be mounted in a power-operated turret."

Interestingly it was the Beaufighter (built to F.17/39) that eventually came out of Bristol researching F.11/37, which, as we know was a formidable ground attack aircraft, and not a terrible night fighter either, although the Beaufighter V turret fighter was a bit of a dead loss as it was slower than the Defiant it was intended on replacing as part of F.18/40.


----------



## mikemike (Feb 6, 2020)

The A20, A26 and B25 operated very successfully in the low-level attack role in the PTO. This seems to have fooled the USAAF into thinking the A26 with its high performance could be operated in the same way over Europe. As far as I know, the first combat sorties of the A26 in Europe ended with the loss of 12 of 12 aircraft sortied. Whatever its speed, an A26 at low level would have made a nicely big and comparatively un-agile target for those 20mm quads. The B25 and B26 operated in Europe at medium altitudes; most B25 in Europe had glass noses and anyway they were outnumbered by the B26, which wasn't really seen much in the PTO after 1942, but had a fairly low loss rate in the ETO.


----------

