A 'proper' tank-buster A/C for 1939-40?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hi
They may have been "onto something" with the Breguet 693, sadly according to 'The Forgotten Air Force - French Air Doctrine in the 1930s' by Anthony Christopher Cain, page 126:

"Specially trained ground attack aviation groups equipped with newer Breguet 693 aircraft fared no better, with fifty-eight aircraft shot down and another forty-two damaged by antiaircraft fire during the course of the campaign."

Success or failure for ground attack aircraft can depend less on the type or its armament but more on the air and ground situation they are used in.

Mike
 

Without air superiority, CAS/BAI is dicey at best ... forgive my belaboring the obvious.
 
Note my comment:
GrauGeist said:
the timing of the German invasion and their lack of experience with this type of warfare saw the 693's career cut short
Click to expand...
The crews simply did not have enough time to develop an effective doctrine against ground elements before France capitulated.

Most of the Bre.693 losses were either on the ground or were shot down by AA.

In the final stages of their deployment, they had just developed a "hedge-hopping" tactic to mitigate losses to AA, by the way.

Very few were lost to German fighters.
 
They tried it with MS406s on a few occasions as well. Loading their Hispanos up with AP ammo and having them shuffling around the deck trying to kill tanks.

It was deemed unprofitable, to put it mildly.
 
Greyman said:
They tried it with MS406s on a few occasions as well. Loading their Hispanos up with AP ammo and having them shuffling around the deck trying to kill tanks.

It was deemed unprofitable, to put it mildly.
Click to expand...
Where we can read more about that?
 
It seems to have been a combination of things. Some of which point to things not having been thought out to begin with but the same could be said for all air forces of the time. Germans CAS was far from perfect in 1940.

The Bre.693 looks cool, sort of. But it is using two engines (small) and two men to carry the same gun armament as the MS 406 fighter. Cost/benefit ratio does not look good. It does carry eight 50kg bombs inside. Great for streamlining but it can't carry large bombs so bridge busting is out. Internal racks are going to distribute bombs in a liner fashion, great for attacking troops on roads or even spread out in positions if the alignment can be seen. It is not a dive bomber, they started using diving attacks but these were shallow dives.
Unfortunately the French did not have a good spy network and the French high command thought that since they didn't have much in the way of light AA (smaller than 75mm) nobody else did either. Proved false real quickly in May 1940. Which lead to the Bre.693 squadrons trying to figure things out day to day in combat. Bombing from even a few thousand feet meant they were not using the guns and since they didn't have bomb sights or bomb sights that worked for level bombing (British bomb sights didn't work below 3,000ft) results were not great. Back to hedge hopping as the low shallow dives gave the AA gunners too much time. But hedge hopping also gives little time to aim bombs/guns in the attack pass.
By this time the Bre.693 squadrons/groups had suffered large losses and the late attacks were by small numbers of planes. Perhaps larger numbers crossing the target area in the same period of time would have diluted the AA fire? Small formations allow the defenders to concentrate their fire.
Something many air forces made a mistake on is asking for high speed at 12,000-15,000ft which is of interest for getting to target areas, especially target areas well into enemy territory. but high speed at 12-15,000ft in 1939-40 often means single speed superchargers that don't offer high power at 0-3,000ft where the actual ground attacks take-place. If you are going to use hedge hopping attacks you want engines that give the max power available at hedge hopping heights. One reason (not the only one) that Battles didn't do well for ground attack. The "famous" 257mph at 15,000ft (and 250mph at 20,000ft) was only 210mph at sea level. 220-225mph may not have made much difference but anything may help? Improved climb may have also helped. Not actually climb but the increased power allows for more turning and small/rapid changes in height without bleeding off speed as much.
If you don't think your enemy has much in the way of effective light AA you don't put in much in the way of armor or fuel tank protection.
 
Greyman said:
They tried it with MS406s on a few occasions as well. Loading their Hispanos up with AP ammo and having them shuffling around the deck trying to kill tanks.

It was deemed unprofitable, to put it mildly.
Click to expand...
Hmm, cost of a MS. 406 vs the cost of a 25mm AT gun and tow 'arrangement' (men, horses, small tractors).
60 rounds of HE might have been effective for taking out troops and light vehicle than 60rounds of AP?

Problem for the French is that they didn't have enough fighters to escort recon planes (finding out where the Germans actually were), escort artillery spotting aircraft, escort actually bombers, attack planes, fighters to act as interceptors to stop the Germans from doing all three missions.
Even if the MS.406s managed to kill a few tanks and not get shot down, what else was NOT getting done?
 
It may be.
Germans were also introducing the Flak 38 and they had a number of 37mm AA guns.
Wiki claims around 8000 flak 30s built, how much cross over there was between the Flak 30 and the Flak 38 Production I don't know.
Germans were also relying on the MG 34 7.9mm machine gun in a number of AA mounts, the AA role was one reason for the 900rpm cycle rate.
It may not have been that good but if the Germans have twice as many 7.9mm AA guns as the French or British have similar guns it just pushes the balance a little further.
 
Shortround6 said:
Germans were also introducing the Flak 38 and they had a number of 37mm AA guns.
Wiki claims around 8000 flak 30s built, how much cross over there was between the Flak 30 and the Flak 38 Production I don't know.
Click to expand...
A number of 37mm Flak in service in 1940 was probably greater than what the 'West' was able to muster of all of the modern 37-40mm AA pieces? By the end of 1939, 1021 of the 37mm Flak was supposed to be in the German (Luftwaffe) service.
The switchover between the Flak 30 and 38 seems to be during the Autumn of 1940, eg. October of 1940 saw almost 200 of the Flak 30 produced, as well as almost 240 of the Flak 30, but also the almost a hundred of 4-barreled Flak (although this might be just individual weapons, 4 required for a complete weapon - doh).

Luftwaffe was in charge wrt. the Flak initially, but the production of some of the Flak was given to the Army. October of 1940 saw 1600 of the 2cm Flak weapons under the Army's control, while, by the end of the previous year, they were supposed to have 1200.

The number of 8000+ is probably just for the Flak 30, Wiki says 40000+ of the Flak 38 were produced.
 
GrauGeist said:
The Potez 631 did just that:
It was armed with two 20mm cannon and four 7.5mm MGs for ground attack.

Unfortunately, many 631s were destroyed on the ground before ever getting a chance to enter combat.
Click to expand...

Not to harp on the point but air superiority matters, and in this case too. Fighters busy battling for superiority at 15,000' are fighters not strafing airfields. It's sort of the other side of the coin with respect to Doolittle's decision to unleash his fighters in the winter of 1944, no? By destroying Luftwaffe air superiority, that made the devastating strafing attacks possible.

The best combat plane in the world is, on the ground, another target, nothing more. Strip away its cover and go to town.
 

Would the Beaufighter fit the bill?

Development started in 1938, first flight was mid 1939 and it entered service in mid 1940.

Is that too late?

The Mosquito FB.XVIII used an adapted version of the Ordnance QF 6-pounder for anti-shipping.

Could they have used a version of the QF 2-pounder naval gun for anti-tank work? The naval version of the QF-2 was for anti-aircraft, and teh S-gun used teh same round.

The naval version also had a belt feed system for 14 rounds, whereas the anti-tank version was breach loaded.
 
Hi
Below is an extract from a translated German Air Historical Branch document dated 1 December 1944, relating to the development of the German ground attack arm. This part includes the coverage of their loss of air superiority during the war and various changes in the operational use of the arm:






The whole document was an appendix in the RAF 'Air Support' Air Publication 3235, published by the Air Ministry in 1955.

Mike
 
Interesting document, thank you!
I noticed this:
"Bombing attacks on tanks were very unsatisfactory, which led to the creation of special formations - tank busters". (1st page).
Obsession with the "tank-busting" concept in December 1944...
OK, it was understandable, since Germans could not measure the effectiveness of anti-tank operations during their retreat. Obviously, they did not see the Soviet reports, like the one about the 1st Belarussian Front armour losses in 1944.
(The link to the document is dead, but there is a summary in the forum post):
"According to the table out of 2235 tanks and SPguns lost from March to December 1944, only 5 were lost to panzerfausts, 31 to air bombs, 15 to aircraft cannons, 42 to mines. The most part of the it others were destroyed by guns (including tank and SP guns). As the text of the report says according to a sample study about 90% of all heavy and 77% of all medium tanks losses were caused by 75-88-mm guns"
So, German aircraft cannons = 15 of 2235 tanks, or 0.7% of all Soviet armour losses in that sample. Bombs performed twice better, actually.
What is the reason for clinging to a concept that is not proven? Glamour and publicity of pilots like Rudel with his claimed "500+" tank kills, the influence of the Luftwaffe and RLM persons (probably already waned at the end of 1944), naive hopes about another wonder weapon? Lack of respect and trust for own artillery experts? Poor reporting?
 
wuzak said:
Would the Beaufighter fit the bill?
Development started in 1938, first flight was mid 1939 and it entered service in mid 1940.
Is that too late?
Click to expand...

For the needs of the Alies in 1940, it is probably too late. If it can be brought into production and service earlier (kill the Lerwick on the drawing board to help out with the engines available?), it should've worked. Speed and maneuverability are good even if not top-notch, aircraft was known to be a sturdy machine, lift-carrying ability is great.
French have had good experiences with the 300 mph US bombers in 1940, so Beau should not fare worse than these.

Alternative to it might've been the Gloster F9/37: can do well with smaller engines since it was smaller and lighter - series-produced Taurus engines were low-altitude types anyway - it is still of generous size so the big & heavy guns will fit without a lot of problems. Some extra effort will be needed to bring it to the service use by the Spring of 1940, though.

wuzak said:
Could they have used a version of the QF 2-pounder naval gun for anti-tank work?
Click to expand...

Suggested many times in not just this forum.
 
A Beaufighter was trialled with a pair of 40mm guns of different types. From Wiki

"The fourth prototype, R2055, had its regular armament replaced by a pair of 40 mm guns for attacking ground targets, a Vickers S gun mounted on the starboard fuselage and a Rolls-Royce BH gun mounted on the port fuselage; these trials also led to the Vickers gun being installed on an anti-tank Hawker Hurricane IID.[13]"​
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Fast bombers alternatives for 1939-40
13 14 15
Replies
294
Views
13K
GrauGeist
A
RMS Lusitania May 1915 redux, but SS Manhattan Sept 1939
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Polish outfitting & positioning of their armed forces, 1935-39(40?)
2 3
Replies
42
Views
5K
bf109xxl
A
Planning a IJN strike against the Sembawang Naval Base
Replies
18
Views
2K
EwenS
E
Tank & AFV armament alternatives, 1935-45
6 7 8
Replies
156
Views
22K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register