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

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

davebender said:
1 January 1945.
Operation Bodenplatte employed about 1,000 German aircraft.It's readily apparent the Luftwaffe wasn't terminally damaged as of this date.
Click to expand...

Yes it was. This isn't the place for that discussion. By this time the Jagdwaffe was offering no resistance at all to most USAAF raids. No fuel,not enough pilots.
Bodenplatte was a final,ill advised and innefective nail in its coffin.
The Luftwaffe had to jump through all sorts of logistical hoops just to mount that raid (that's all it amounted to). Some of the men flying that day had let valour get the better part of discretion. Many were barely trained as fighter pilots,very few were trained at all in ground attack or strafing. Can you imagine an allied attack like that in 1945?
Buy Don Caldwell's latest book. There are some nice tables showing just what the RLV units were capable of as they were gradually minced in the last two years of the war. There are also tables of 8th AF strengths and limited information on the 15 AF by way of contrast.
Cheers
Steve
 
Last edited:
davebender said:
1 January 1945.
Operation Bodenplatte employed about 1,000 German aircraft.
It's readily apparent the Luftwaffe wasn't terminally damaged as of this date.
Click to expand...

Terminally damaged doesn't mean totally incapable of striking back.
It does mean that the Luftwaffe was never going to win the air war or even have control of the air over Germany for more than very brief periods of time. Too small time periods to make any appreciable difference in the outcome of the war.
 
Hi, SR6,

The number of barrels of the Western fighters was indeed greater than of the Soviet ones; the susceptibility to the Flak was their problem.
We know too well that Soviets, even with 1800 HP engines available from mid war, were still pursuing with Sturmovik type.

As for the material to build stuff, we might decide that 2 'Sturmoviks' are better than 1 A-20 (we have B-25 in production), and decide to pursue that avenue; maybe even not bother with A-26. Or, that B-26 is too tricky, deciding to have 2 'Sturmoviks' for one of those. Or, decide that single stage Griffon (maybe Sabre?) is great asset for the armored, Fulmar/Battle-sized assault plane. Spit can have it's Merlins and two stage Griffons. The Hercules can be 1st or 2nd choice for the Brits.
We might decide that a V-3420 is offering good performance, and build those instead of V-1710s (or along with those? Allison was claiming that in 1944 was able to build 10000 more V-1710s than required, so 5000 extra engines are there).
So we can cancel, for example, 1000 A-20s, 1000 B-26s, 1500 in-line engined fighters and have 5000 'Sturmoviks'.

The Soviets didn't have a lot of choice. Until the M-82 engine came along the M-35/38 was the only game in town and only a few airframes were available to do the job. It may not have been ideal either and choices were made with it too.
Click to expand...

I can readily agree that Soviets had somewhat less of the choices, engine-wise, but I'm not following you there completely - care to elaborate a bit?
 
if you want 5,000 western Sturmovik aircraft what 5000 western fighters (with engines bigger than Allisons) are you willing to give up?
Click to expand...
We don't need to give up fighter aircraft.

The U.S. Army Air Corps didn't care for the A-20 light bomber. So the A-20C will be the last version produced. Not building 3,200 A-20G and A-20H light bombers gives us over six thousand 1,600hp radial engines. Just about the right size for a single engine CAS aircraft.
 
And were did all those A-20s go that the US didn't want?

Why many of them went to the Soviet Union who obviously didn't need them because they had the Sturmovik.

The US had Sturmovik aircraft if they wanted them. Single seat up armored Grumman TDPs, Vultee Vengence (1500 built), Curtiss SBC etc.

Somebody already had the idea:



Vengence had up to six .50 cal guns and the SBC a pair of 20mms. Ditch some of the bomb load and fuel and add armor. But it doesn't bring a new gun or weapon that can't be carried by existing planes. It doesn't allow for long range strikes and it requires more aircraft to deliver a similar quantity of bombs. The heavily armored attack aircraft is a special purpose aircraft, especially for the west who's normal fighters carried a much heavier war load than the Soviet fighters did.
 
When discussing the effectivness of the IL2 or similar in RAF or USAAF I think its worth thinking about the area. The RAF and USAAF used the Typhoon and P47 as the equivalent. Compared to the IL2 there is no doubt that the IL2 could take more damage but equally I have little doubt that the IL2 was easier to hit.

We will never know but a personal guess would be that losses to AA fire would be similar with the fewer hits on the Typhoon and P47, being cancelled out by the better ability of the IL 2 to take damage. Taking this a stage further the IL2 units would have more damaged aircraft which wouldn't have done them any good re readyness rates. Also the P47 and Typhoon were less dependent on fighter cover.

So overall I don't see the idea of having Il2 aircraft on the Western Front would add to the effectiveness of the RAF or USAAF
 
Glider said:
So overall I don't see the idea of having Il2 aircraft on the Western Front would add to the effectiveness of the RAF or USAAF
Click to expand...

Except that the RAF and USAAF ersatz ground attack aircraft were woefully inneffective at destroying armour

Cheers
Steve
 
Partly true but only partly. There were some important points on this.

a) The RAF and USAAF didn't ace huge numbers of German Tanks on a regular basis.
b) The Ground the Russian Airforce fought over tended to be open with few places for tanks to hide.
c) IN the 40mm cannon the RAF had an anti tank weapon at least as good as any other airforce.

The reason why they didn't deploy it was because the number of targets were not sufficient. I know these were tested on the Tempest and probably but I am not certain about the Typhoon so had the need developed, the weapons were there. The development of the 40mm continued for instance these were tested with the little john adapter which significantly improved their penetration, even if they were not deployed.
 
The Army considered the claims by the RAF to be "fantastic". It was only after the German counter-attack at Mortain that a report by 2 ORS showed just how fantastic they were,and that the USAAF was just as bad. Needless to say 2ndTAF rejected poor old Major Pike's report.
After the German Ardennes offensive another joint report concluded.



That's 99% overclaiming!
Get hold of a copy of "Air Power at the Battlefront-Allied Close Air Support 1943-1945" by Ian Gooderson for the whole sorry story.

Cheers
Steve
 
I think you may find a similar story in the east. The 23mm guns don't showup for quite a while and Soviet rockets were, if anything, less effective than the Western rockets. The small Bomb cassettes may have been better if available. The morale effects of the attacks may have been as important as the material effects.

Of the 32,000 IL-2s how many had guns heavier than the 23mm?
 
IMO one of the greatest myths of the ww2 is that planes make for good tank busters. Worthy of a separate thread, actually.

With a dedicated single-engine, well armored ground attack plane (two seater, but single seater will do) for the late war Western airofrces, I'm trying to come up with a design that would be far better able to survive hits from LMG to 20mm Flak range, carrying diverse armament to pounce different targets.
A concrete example might be a plane of P-39 layout, with an armored bathtub for pilot, engine radiators (maybe for cannon ammo), with 37-40mm cannon* firing through the prop, LMGs/HMGs, etc.
Another plane might be something akin the Saab 21, a pusher with Griffon/Sabre/V-3420, pilot at the front (maybe even the fan-cooled radial), cannon MG ammo in between, guns under pilot. Both planes carrying rockets under wings, plus maybe bomb(s) under hull. Maybe dive brakes?
I'd really like to see other people's 'paper planes'

*The HE shells having proirity, so the US M4 Vickers 'S' class would be just fine.
 
Last edited:
The IL2 had another advantage in common with all good CAS aircraft - low wing loading which provides superior slow speed maneuverability at low altitude. That's what allows a CAS aircraft to hit targets rather then just scattering bombs and bullets about the countryside. A P-47 with its high wing loading can never match the weapons delivery accuracy of the IL2 or Ju-87.
 

That is true if we think of AA as a few thousend 12,7-20mm guns over the front. However there were millions of rifles, machineguns and submachineguns out there firing at aircraft, too.. of course: chances by one rifleman to shoot down aircraft was extremely small, but with a million rifles firing, one will find its mark eventually. The point of Il-2 armor was not to protect against 20 mm and such - those rounds were far too powerful - but to protect against always available last resort AA defence. The Il-2 was immune to this threat, the P-47 or Typhoon with their minimum armor was not. So Il-2 could stay over the danger zone reliably.

Makeshift fighter bombers also do not make ideal strafers. Fighters are optimzed in handling for high speed, effective fire needs good low speed handling. It allows much better accuracy, and much more firing time. An Il-2 was perfectly happy at 200 km/h, for a fighter-bomber its flying near the stall..
 
Last edited:
Juha said:
Was it, have you info on actual Soviet tank losses to Ju 87 attacks? Pilots' claims were only claims. Ju 87Gs and Hs 129Bs destroyed Soviet tanks, but how many?

Juha
Click to expand...

8 July 1943
The Russian attack began in the morning, moving west in an attempt to cut the Begorod-Oboian highway. Along the woods north of Belgorod, Gruppenkommandeur Hptm. Bruno Meyer, flying a Hs 129B of IV./SG 9, spotted moving Russian tanks and large concentrations of troops in the attack on the German flank. Meyer radioed to base that he saw at least 40 tanks and, "....dense blocks of infantry, like a martial picture from the middle ages." and ordered the rest of his Gruppe up from Mikoyanovka to assault the Russian attack. The Luftwaffe immediately scrambled 4 squadrons, a total of 64 Hs 129s, to Meyer's coordinates. Using high-velocity 30mm cannons, the planes swept the forset, pumping shells into the rears of the tanks. Within a few minutes, half a dozen tanks were destroyed and burning. Fw 190 fighters joined the fray, strafing infantry and bombing wherever the Soviets were clustered. Follow up attacks by squadrons led by Major Matuschek, Oblt. Oswald, Oblt. Dornemann and Lt. Orth along with attacks on the infantry by Major Druschel's Fw 190 jabos, soon destroyed the Russian brigade and they retreated into the woods. The Soviet armoured assault had been blunted solely through air power.


I'm also surprised that people forget that the Germans retreated WEST from the Falaise pocket because the Allied jabos were only just annoying.
 
Hitting accuracy seems extremely good - 30-40% at least.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccOXrfBZoLE
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iskzI1TZuqM

IMHO the how many is not as interesting as "when and where". Ju 87G and Hs 129B could reliably destroy tanks. The point of these units was not so much generally destroying tanks, but hunting for them where they broke through and pouring behind frontline where there was no defence against them. They were the same concept as Panzerjaeger like Nashorn on ground.. getting AT weapon quickly where it is needed. A Stuka/Hs 129B could meet these threats quickly within many hundred km radius.. even destroying or even immobilizing a dozen in a critical time and place could effectively make sure the rest had no chance to exploit the breakthrough. They could tip the balance in a critical situation quickly.

The number destroyed doesnt really show this.. sometimes knocking out just 6 out of 8 tanks that broke behind the lines means a lot more to the military situation than destroying 50 in the factory assambly line. Its immidiate felt on front, and front will not collapse because loss of rear organisation..
 
Hello Njaco
hat's only what LW says, IIRC there was no Soviet report that exactly matched, again IIRC correctly nearest thing was a Tank Brigade which cancel its attack because of LW attacks and German A/T fire (A/T guns of some units from 2.SSPzGrD) and lost 9 tanks on that day to a/c and A/T guns.

Juha
 
No problem. I just question why people seem bent on disparaging the effort of ground-attack aircraft - especially when it worked fairly well. It seems to me that no matter whether it was only 5 tanks or 500, there are many instances where armoured attacks were stopped, blunted or reversed because of ground attack aircraft. "To Win the Winter Sky" by Danny Parker about the Ardennes campaign is filled with examples of Allied destruction of German armour by Tempests and Typhoons and others. It feels like you can't see the forest because there are too many trees sometimes.
 
Now according to Soviet data not one of their tanks was destroyed by a/c during Summer 44 campaign in Karelian Isthmus in spite of numerous Ju 87D and Fw 190F attacks against them by the LW and numerous FAF level bombing and dive bombing attacks in which Ju 88As used up to 1000kg bombs just before their effect against tanks.

Juha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
9
Views
316
ThomasP
T
M
Rikko - asset or resource waste?
Replies
12
Views
1K
tomo pauk
Hs-129 use on the Western Front/MTO?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Andrew Arthy
A
S
Adherent or Mafia?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register