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

[davebender]

I disagree.

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

 

[Jenisch]

I disagree.

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

Why the Stuka and not the Hs 129?

 

[davebender]

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

 

[Jenisch]

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

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

BTW:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg

 

[davebender]

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

 

[Jenisch]

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

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

 

[slaterat]

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

Slaterat

 

[Shortround6]

I am still trying to follow this thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

The Tempest never had the range either.

 

[Juha]

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

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

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

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

Juha

 

[Jenisch]

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

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

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

 

[tomo pauk]

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

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

(above France, that is)

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

 

[davebender]

I agree.

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

 

[davebender]

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

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

 

[stona]

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

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

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

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

Cheers
Steve

 

[Jenisch]

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

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

 

[stona]

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

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

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

Cheers
Steve

 

[Jenisch]

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

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

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

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

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

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

 

[Jenisch]

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