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

GregP said:
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.
Click to expand...

The load a B-17 could carry was different for different versions, but, IIRC, could be as much as 17,600lb for the B-17G.

However, the B-17's bomb bay was restrictive, so it certainly couldn't carry that internally. They could only carry 2 x 2000lb bombs internally, though other bombs could be used as well.

I think for Berlin missions B-17s could carry 10 or 12 500lb bombs (5000 or 6000lb).

But you are correct, for longer missions the bomb load had to be reduced - not just because of the fuel load, but because extra fuel tankage could be carried in the bomb bay.
 

The 4000lb figure is often quoted but it is a bit misleading. Because of the restricted size of the bomb bay in the B-17 certain types of of bombs did not fit very well. D-17s quite often carried five 1000lb bombs to Berlin or ten 500lb bombs, however when carrying incendiary bombs the load fell to just over 3000lbs because the bulkier incendiary bombs didn't fit. One bomb group carrying 5000lb per plane and one bomb group carrying 3000lb of incendiaries equal 4000lbs average, but understates the B-17's capability by 20%


GregP said:
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.
Click to expand...

navel gun fire is good for closer to 15 miles. New Jersey has a max range of 41,604 yds=23.63 statute miles ( (Campbell's "Navel Weapons of World War II) and if you keep the ship a few miles off shore (40-50 ft of water) and out of range of some die hard shore gun, you are under 20 miles even for the New Jersey.
 

Any battlewagon captain who let his ship get close enough to land to be in 40-50 ft of water would soon be in command of a rowing boat. A monitor no problem its designed for that, Battleships usually liked a lot more elbow room and clear water under the keel.
 
I've personally shot an 8-inch cannon 27 miles at the proving ground in Yuma, Arizona, U.S.A. while working for Motorola. We developed the proximity fuze for the 8-inch and 6-inch rounds.

And while I was in Viet Nam, we called for Naval gunfire as required from further inland than you suggest above.

Still, the message is the same. Naval gunfiore is effective, but only for a small band inland from water deep enough for the gun platform.
 

But in the context of the defensive positions for D-day, naval gunnery was well within range.
 
Obviously the beach is always in rangge of Naval gunfire. But, naval officers have no visual on the pillboxes near the beach, and they missed most of them. The Skyraiders can hit a very small target accurately with napalm ... and that is the basis for my contention that they would affect the invasion by removing the pillboxes from long-winded defenses. Even if tghe Germans ducked to avoid the flames, the Allies would have a chance to advance and lob grenades into the pillbox slits.

What is you contention, Wayne? Do you think hordes of Skyradiers would NOT affect D-Day? With their accurate ordnance delivery, how is that a possible outcome?
 
I know during the invasion of Iwo, the US Navy ships were firing point blank right into targets on Suribachi. I know it's a bit different, but the directing of the assets is what makes the biggest difference. If you have someone to spot the rounds, or the strike aircraft, your results will be much better.
 
Over Normandy Spitfires/Seafires and later Grasshoppers and Austers were used to direct naval gun fire. And on D-Day at least RN naval gunfire was accurate achieving even hits through gun casemate embrasures.

Juha
 
Last edited:
I see. Then we really didn't have 10,000 casulaties with 2,500 dead? Sorry, I just don't believe naval gunfire was that good.

If so, the reinforced positions would have fallen MUCH sooner than they did on D-Day.

My contention is that a bunch of Skyraiders armed with napalm could have reduced the casualties. They certainly would not have added to the casualties.
 

Not sure Greg.

The Allies certainly had aircraft to do the same job, but did they?

Was the Skyraider's accuracy present from the beginning, or was it due to development over 20-30 years in the aircraft and technique, and sighting methods?

How long would a Skyraider last on D-day with the 2200hp mid-early 1944 version of the R-3350 which was, at that stage, still a fire waiting to happen?
 

Well, I noted that RN fire support was accurate, saying nothing on USN. Lossrates on Commonwealth beaces were 4,5%, 5,8% and 4,1%, not light but not extraordinary heavy. Naval fire support for the Commonwealth beaches was by RN. On US sectors it was mostly USN affair, but there was also one British monitor and 4 light cruisers plus one French light cruiser giving hand IIRC. There were many reasons why Omaha was so bloody, some originated from US Army, some from Heer, some from USAAF and some from USN. I agree that Helldivers, Avengers and Hellcats would have been better planes than B-26s for the last air attacks against targets on Omaha and that USN rocket launching landing crafts missed their targets but on the other hand some USN destroyers gave good fire support to the troops on the Omaha.

Juha
 
I admit to not understanding the discussion re the Skyraider. I would rather expect any aircraft first issued in 1947/8 to have advantages in 1944. Think of the difference a number of 109G's would have made in the BOB, the Me 262 in 1941, the P51 over Pearl Harbour.
 
Skyriders would've fallen as an easy prey for the Ta-183, or the Wasserfall AA missiles. The 10,5cm Flak with proximity fused ammo would've got them, too. All of that LW stuff was 2 days from entering service when the ww2 abruptly ended.
 
"... I would rather expect any aircraft first issued in 1947/8 to have advantages in 1944. "

I know, Glider, seems counter intuitive, but there's the aircraft (the platform) and there's the 'system' (technology, training, science, etc. etc.) that supports the platform. I think the Germans struggled to support the Me-262 ... it was an advantage for them certainly, but no where what it might have been if the metallurgy was better, or the land-approach not so vulnerable.

There would have been huge teething problems with the Spad, in 1943, in the ETO, INHO.

MM
 
tomo pauk said:
Skyriders would've fallen as an easy prey for the Ta-183, or the Wasserfall AA missiles. The 10,5cm Flak with proximity fused ammo would've got them, too. All of that LW stuff was 2 days from entering service when the ww2 abruptly ended.
Click to expand...

I think the Skyriders meet similar, if not worse oposition in Vietnam. Not my area, anyone can talk about this?
 
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
10
Views
330
GregP
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