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

Summer of '44...hmmmmm. How experienced were these bomber pilots? I just read in Galland's autobiography that about that time he was working up pilot reserves for 262 and pulling pilots from Eastern Front to Western (requiring a new training program for the different tactics in that theatre). Many jabo pilots at that time really didn't know what they were doing and didn't have the experience.
 
Hello Njaco
I know, but on the other hand pro CAS people many times tended to forget that some soldiers were fighting on the ground, not just looking on the wonderful job CAS planes were doing. There have been some articles in aviation magazines claiming that CAS a/c alone stopped the German Mortain counter attack totally forgetting that there was one US infantry division supported by 2 A/T battalions fighting hard to stop the Germans.

Juha
 

German actions of course didn't have any effect on FAF and Finns had high regard on the skills and motivation of the pilots of the Kampfverband Kuhlmay. The Jabo staffel came from Lappland, they had experience on ground attacks but they had not used the massive AA protection the Soviet armies had during their major offensive operations, so they had first heavy losses before adjusting to situation and chaged to less risky attack profiles.

Juha
 
Last edited:
I think a lack of Soviet data on aerial induced armour losses in '44, says more about the cold war mentality of the Soviet armoured proponants its armoured doctorines;
The 1st Gulfwar in my eyes, with the ensuing mass destruction of Soviet supplied 'Mongol' tanks (cheaper reduced tech Soviet armour for export) from alliance aerial ground armour, and how easily they were destroyed and damaged, even if manned my by non-Soviet trained soldiers, helped speed up the fracturing and the fall of the CCCP.
This strengthed those Generals etc close to Yeltsins 'camp', for his coming coup d'etat against Gorbachevs more sheduled ideas of progressive political change-over, be they viewed right or wrong now; I personally think that the alcoholic Yeltsin did much harm to CCCP/CIS verses what MG had propossed, but then, that milk was spilt a long time ago from that situation.

What I mean is, the Soviets understood armour pretty well, and in so understanding, possibly didn't bother to record or ignored some things, for the morale of its forces - they had both many tank vs tank, A/C vs tank battles in WWII, being on both offencive and defencive sides. Also to maintain 'Patriotic'ness for its divisions, with the ever prospect of WWIII in Centeral European Plains, why let info out/survive that could give its tankers liquid underware if and when WWIII happened - which it didn't parcé, as it was expected too.

Either that, or such data has yet to be... translated, found, de-classified etc, or is lost within the archieves perhaps.
 
Last edited:

Writing was on the wall much earlier than the time when the 1st Hellfire or Maverick hit the Iraqi T-55/-62/-72.

BTW, think that here is some (non-intentioned) misleading. Conventional Soviet war machine was featuring PVO and Frontal airforces, 'onion-layered' SAM defences (both towed and SP, from 200 km monsters to MANPADS using data from C3I system), radar-directed AAA, and then we have tanks, mechanized infantry artillery, SP AT missile platforms, attack heliopters, air-dropped assets etc. Soviets knew all too well that Cold war tanks are easy targets for Cold war air forces helicopters, that can use anything from napalm, cluster bombs, all kinds of guns missiles. The concept of combined arms was there, both in theory and practice.
Now we have Iraq, facing the cutting edge Western armed forces, tailored to defeat Soviet conventional forces in Fulda gap. Was it really a contest? With air defenses non-existent after month long air campaign, the Iraqi tanks would've been easily killed by napalm, cluster bombs shells, let alone with Paveways other guided weaponry. The Western tanks, in aggregate far better armed armored, with true night view sights, have no problems taking out any tank that withstood the air attacks.
So the huge losses to the tanks vs. planes/choppers were no surprise, even to the most staunch supporter of the armor.
The 'Mongol tank' is somewhat of a red herring. The export customers would buy the T-55/62/72 line of tanks, mass produced designs that lacked sophistication (even in Soviet use) when compared with 'upper class' of Soviet tanks, the T-64/80 line. Soviets did employed gun-launched missiles for the 'mass' tanks, but that's probably the only significant difference.
 
I understand your point there Tomo and that it is better made more believable than what I arrived at.

I think most of my last line is maybe closer to the topic lack of data
"...or such data has yet to be... translated, found, de-classified etc, or is lost within the archieves perhaps."
Click to expand...
 
Indeed, we could use some Soviet-era data; the stuff fro their archives already debumked many misconceptions held about the Eastern front (P-39 as the tank buster being one of the most repeated, even in the most acclaimed books).

Time and again I'm finding myself thinking about taking lessons in Russian; eg. the book 'Domestic artillery' by Shirokorad is just too juicy to pass on. It has only 1188 pages (1188, that's right)
 
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...

No we don't,we have a lot of German claims. As far as I know the Germans never attempted any kind of scientific analysis of armour destroyed from the air claims against actual armour destroyed like the Western Allies.
The whole point of the post D-Day allied system was that it actually tried to match claims to armour destroyed from the air and found a 99:1 discrepancy.It is important to know how good your tank busting aircraft are doing.It is vital intelligence,hence the effort put in to ascertaining what exactly was going on. Read the book I mentioned,the reports are there.
I am discussing armoured vehicles and tanks. Allied CAS was more than annoying. It was devastating against soft skinned vehicles and effectively prevented the concentration or movement of German formations in daylight,as long as the aircraft could fly.
Cheers
Steve
 
The Douglas AD-1 Skyraider was a VERY GOOD fighter bomber. It could hold its own or better as a fighter when empty and could carry 4000 pounds or more of ordnance. The speed was 322 mph or so and, when light, it could climb over 4,000 feet per minute. It could climb over 2,500 feet per minute when loaded with ordnance. With four 20 mm cannons, it was formidable. Not fast, but definitely could make any attacker feel the hurt.

However, the R-3350 wasn't really developed into a reliable pwoerplant until late in the war. After WWII, the R-3350 was quite relaible. During WWII it was OK to questionable. However, had it been available in WWII, I have no doubt it would have been a top-notch asset. In Vietnam, I saw just two of them put an entire company of enemy into full flight to get away. They stayed around for over an hour and the bad guys gave up and left when they found out that anyone who fired at us was killed quickly or made to flee a long way. When the two ran low on fuel and ammo and departed, 4 more showed up and the enemy ran before they even had to fire once. Imagine several flights of, say, 4 to 8 each supporting an assault in WWII! If they had been over Normandy, it would have gone MUCH easier.
 

Really? How so?

Was it so superior to the fighter bombers that were on hand for Normandy?
 
Yes Wuzak, the AD-1 was far superior to the fighter bombers then on hand:

1. In ordanance load.
2. In maneuverability. I have seen a light one outmaneuver all other warbirds at an airshow (perhaps rehearsed? Can't say).
3. Power. Definitely out climbs any WWII fighter bomber. It climbs with a Bearcat when lightly loaded.
4. Armament. With four 20mm cannons, it packed an equal or greater punch than most. Greater than most. Of course, I can't say anything about ordnance introduced later than WWII, but it would have been a great asset in WWII ... IF it were there ... And I know it wasn't.

This is why I really don't like "what ifs" ... you can't really demonstrate your point except in words. On the other hand, if you stick to what REALLY happened, we already KNOW the answers since both the battles and the war are over and done.

Cheers.
 

Well, the Allies did have the Typhoon and Thunderbolt for fighter/bomber duties. While neither could carry as large a load as the AD-1 maybe thet's because it wasn't thought necessary. The Typhoon could match the AD-1 for gun power, and many would argue that the 8 .50s of the Thunderbolt could too.

You also had the Mosquito FBa and the Invader.

Just wondering what the superior firepower of the AD-1 could have been used for to expidite D-Day. Much of the issues for the landing parties was due to the fortifications - which had survived shelling from the Navy.
 
The AD-1 has wonderful cross-type speed brakes and is VERY accurate in its ordnance delivery.

If I were running the aerial show on D-Day, and if I had AD-1's avialable, I'd pepper the pillboxes with napalm, 20 mm fire, and iron bombs. My bet the napalm would prove to be the winner and would result in MORE naplam. Fire has a way of making people run, doesn't it?

Of course, we'll never really know will we?
 
The effectiveness of German aerial tank busting efforts are perhaps best valued by their ability to halt an attack long enough to allow an response by their own armour. The idea being to harass tanks that had broken through and were running riot behind the lines. If the tanks accompanying infantry can be detached or destroyed they become vulnerable to man portable AT weapons. The Ju 87G tank busting Stuka performed the same role as the oft decried US tank destroyer. Perhaps they mainly scored mobility kills and only field repairable ones at that but a few hours of time can give a lancer time to dig in, prepare AT defences, escape or receive reinforcements. In that context a mobility kill is still a kill.
 

Weren't naval gun barrages quite accurate, considering the target wasn't moving and was relatively close?

Not sure if napalm was used in bombs much at the time of Normandy.
 
wuzak said:
Weren't naval gun barrages quite accurate, considering the target wasn't moving and was relatively close?.
Click to expand...

Naval guns were about 0.6% dispersion at full range of about 20km, perhaps 0.4% for a well designed round and gun like Bismarks 38cm guns. This doesn't include the effects of aiming errors.

There is a naval saying that good gunnery gives you straddles only God gives you hits. Once you are straddling that is the best that can be done.

Naval gunnery computers, like the Bismarks C/38 were quite capable of tracking a target, measuring is velocity and synthesising (synthetic is a proper naval term) its course and producing a perfect firing solution taking into account their own course, wind, correolis effect and manouvering however it was still neccessary to spot shell splash. Bismark achieved a straddle in its first salvo against Nelson in the final fight and it looked like another repeat of the destruction of Hood however she then lost her aim. It is thought that defective or absent inputs from the rudder position sensor were the cause of this since the rudders were obviously disabled (one had been unjammed). One reason Hood was almost certainly doomed against Bismark was that her older dryse table (computer) calculated in polar co-ordinates and thus made simplifying assumptions that were very costly in terms of accuracy given her angle of approach. Bismark like PoW did their calculations in cartesian form.

Land targets wouldn't be hard.
 
Last edited:
GregP , you're way off on what a AD-1 could lift, it could lift 8,000 pounds of ordinance, totally it could lift more than it's empty weight. Or maybe you're thinking in kilos, and talking in pounds.
It weighted 11-12,000 empty, and max take off weight was 24-25,000 pounds. Wasnt aware it could climb 4,000 fpm, but with no wing load, and light on fuel, I guess it's possible. We called them A1's or Spads in the other sevices.
 
Last edited:

The Typhoon was well protected against rifle calibre weapons apart from the obvious exception of the radiator and was still a difficult target to hit. The main danger to these aircraft were the dedicated anti aircraft weapons.

The point I was trying to make is had the allied armies needed to have dedicated anti tank aircraft, then they had the weapons available. In the desert and Far East the Hurricane IID when faced with tanks did an effective job with the 40mm. Their performance didn't seem to get in the way, for the commander the problem was the lack of targets.

In practice the theoretical advantage of the Hurricane IVD having more weapon options was outweighed by the training needed to be effective. A similar problem was encountered with the Typhoon with its bombs and (in theory) rocket option. In practice it was one or the other for a squadron, not both
 

Attachments

  • Hurricane IID use of web.jpg
    51.2 KB · Views: 105
Last edited:
Yes the Skyraider COULD carry 8,000 pounds of ordnance. But most carried about 4,000 pounds plus some fuel tanks for extended loiter and other stores. Hey, the B-17 COULD carry over 12,000 pounds of ordnance. But if you wanted fuel to get to Berlin and back plus ammo plus crew, you were carrying 4,000 pounds of bombs. So that figure is most often quoted.

The Skyraider had a lot of hard points and all could be singletons, MERs, or TERs. I once saw one configured with ALL TERs, and all were full! I would not have wanted to attract his attention for any reason, were I an enemy! Anyway, the Skyraider was more valuable when he could loiter, so almost all carried two or four drop tanks plus ordnance plus missiles.

Naval gunfire was good to about 25 miles inland or so. Past there, you were using aircraft, artillery, or man-portable arms unless you happened top have the New Jersey offshore. It was good for 30 - 35 miles inland.
 
Last edited:
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
315
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