wuzak
Captain
In both instances the Skyraiders would be operating with air superiority.
Not sure if Skyraiders operated in the same areas as the majority of flak/SAM sitese were, or if they were within reach of the North Vietnamese air force.
A Western 'Sturmovik': great asset or waste of resouces?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In both instances the Skyraiders would be operating with air superiority.
Not sure if Skyraiders operated in the same areas as the majority of flak/SAM sitese were, or if they were within reach of the North Vietnamese air force.
GregP
Major
The Skyraider is a rugged fighter-bomber that doesn't need local air superiority. All it would need is an escort of lightly-loaded Skyraiders. It would certainly out-turn most of the opposition, hits as well as any, and if easy to throw around in ACM. I think it would out-climb most of the opposition. In a dive it can accelerate or use huge cross-type speed brakes to get behind and shoot. It would be able to fight longer than any of the likely opponents.
Once the bomb-laden planes unloaded, the enemy would really be in trouble since the'd be facing more light Skyraiders with all the ammo still in the wings. It's like getting reinforcements immediately after the attack.
In Viet Nam, NOBODY wanted to get a gaggle of Skyraiders angry with them; there was simply too much ordnance flying around. They faded into the plants (I won't say "trees") or rice paddies (swamps) and stayed put when the Skyraiders showed up. My bet is if they built a new Skyraider today, we'd buy it and it would kick some butt anywhere in the world. Even the MiG jets tended to stay away becasue the Skyraiders could turn on a proverbialdime and nail them as they swept in.
Once the bomb-laden planes unloaded, the enemy would really be in trouble since the'd be facing more light Skyraiders with all the ammo still in the wings. It's like getting reinforcements immediately after the attack.
In Viet Nam, NOBODY wanted to get a gaggle of Skyraiders angry with them; there was simply too much ordnance flying around. They faded into the plants (I won't say "trees") or rice paddies (swamps) and stayed put when the Skyraiders showed up. My bet is if they built a new Skyraider today, we'd buy it and it would kick some butt anywhere in the world. Even the MiG jets tended to stay away becasue the Skyraiders could turn on a proverbialdime and nail them as they swept in.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Not bad at all! Thanks for making my point. The MiG's left the Skyraiders alone for the most part. We were in Vietnam for a LONG time with air operations going on the entire time.
Go Skyraiders!
Go Skyraiders!
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
A Western Sturmovik is useful only if it is clearly better at engaging armour/hardened targets than the existing aircraft in the arsenals of the Western Allies. In this thread, I haven't seen any statistics that either provide evidence for or against the thesis that a Sturmovik-style aircraft would be beneficial for the West.
What's needed is an examination of how effective Sturmovik aircraft really were - the Il-2 in Russian hands and the Hs-129 in German hands. You'd need to compared this with dive bombers, fighter bombers and other G/A style aircraft.
The Hurricane IID was probably the closest thing to a dedicated anti-tank aircraft deployed, but it was judged too vulnerable to German ground fire to survive over the fields of France. How vulnerable is too vulnerable? Was sort of loss rates would be considered acceptable or unacceptable?
The Western allies also generally ignored dive bombers for tactical support, at least in the ETO. Dive bombers performed with notable success in the MTO and Southeast Asia, but were virtually absent from the Western European sphere of operations. Fighter bombers were considered more survivable than dive bombers and slow(er) moving G/A aircraft, but was the survivability bought at the price of effectiveness?
What's needed is an examination of how effective Sturmovik aircraft really were - the Il-2 in Russian hands and the Hs-129 in German hands. You'd need to compared this with dive bombers, fighter bombers and other G/A style aircraft.
The Hurricane IID was probably the closest thing to a dedicated anti-tank aircraft deployed, but it was judged too vulnerable to German ground fire to survive over the fields of France. How vulnerable is too vulnerable? Was sort of loss rates would be considered acceptable or unacceptable?
The Western allies also generally ignored dive bombers for tactical support, at least in the ETO. Dive bombers performed with notable success in the MTO and Southeast Asia, but were virtually absent from the Western European sphere of operations. Fighter bombers were considered more survivable than dive bombers and slow(er) moving G/A aircraft, but was the survivability bought at the price of effectiveness?
And Liberators, Bostons, Blenheims didn't they need "local" superiority to operate? Il-2 was unwieldly than what? Typhoons, P-47's? Explain-it.
What are "huge" losses for you, 1%, 15%; 30%?
And not the Stuart or the Grant? You think you would have better survived in a Crusader in June, 1941 against panzers?
Why not Efimov, 288 missions, 58 aerial fights and 7 victories against german fighters? His far from being the only one.
Who's more manoeuvrable in turning circles at low alt, The Il-2, the Typhoon or the P-47?
Regards
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... Why not Efimov, 288 missions, 58 aerial fights and 7 victories against german fighters? "
Sorry, Altea, never heard of the man. Sounds interesting. Can you provide more detail on Efimov, please ...?
MM
Sorry, Altea, never heard of the man. Sounds interesting. Can you provide more detail on Efimov, please ...?
MM
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #129
Maybe it's a misunderstanding that this thread is about the tank buster for the W. Allies air forces - it is not. It is about the well armored ground attack plane that would be able to withstand ground fire far better than the fighter planes pressed into that role. If the plane can be used as a tank buster, even better. There is really no problem that a design features dive brakes.
As for the bolded part - from 1943 on, the main threat for the GA planes in the MTO/ETO was Flak arm of the LW (plus whatever can fire upwards from KM Heer), not the fighter arm. Was the effectiveness harmed by the historical approach (fighters bombed-up for GA work)? No one can say a 100% correct answer, but IMO the 'proper' GA planes were better tools for that job.
I rate Hurri IID really high; the custom tailored plane for 1943 and on should be able to sport both 40mm and bombs/rockets in the same time.
Shortround6
Major General
What make good CAS aircraft for a particular air force also depend on the support they can get. The IL-2 was easy to fly (at least the early versions) and gave the pilots a chance to become more experienced. Russian airfield construction was none too good and logistics in many cases was also below western standards.
Western forces had more construction equipment at their disposal for more rapid construction of front line airfields and perhaps larger ones that could handle faster planes. More trucks meant that fuel could be moved easier for twin engined planes or 2000hp fighters. Bombs could be moved easier and so on.
The Russians would have had a hard time deploying Western style fighter bombers in 1942-43 in terms of supporting them and providing pilots for them. The IL-2 worked for them and as I have said before, their fighters were much less effective in the CAS role, not saying they were not used but six Russian 82mm rockets do not come close to eight 3 in rockets in target effect. The RS-82 rocket weighing about 15 lbs compared to the 82 lbs of the 3in rocket fitted with an HE warhead.
Western fighters could carry gun and bomb loads closer to what the IL-2 carried meaning that the only real advantage would be in the armored aircrafts survivability. Now you have to decide if the survivability of the armor out weighs the longer exposure time on the attack runs.
Western forces had more construction equipment at their disposal for more rapid construction of front line airfields and perhaps larger ones that could handle faster planes. More trucks meant that fuel could be moved easier for twin engined planes or 2000hp fighters. Bombs could be moved easier and so on.
The Russians would have had a hard time deploying Western style fighter bombers in 1942-43 in terms of supporting them and providing pilots for them. The IL-2 worked for them and as I have said before, their fighters were much less effective in the CAS role, not saying they were not used but six Russian 82mm rockets do not come close to eight 3 in rockets in target effect. The RS-82 rocket weighing about 15 lbs compared to the 82 lbs of the 3in rocket fitted with an HE warhead.
Western fighters could carry gun and bomb loads closer to what the IL-2 carried meaning that the only real advantage would be in the armored aircrafts survivability. Now you have to decide if the survivability of the armor out weighs the longer exposure time on the attack runs.
Efimov or Yefimov is not the problem. Here a link with some erronated data:
Aleksandr Iefimov - Wikipédia
The full interview in AVIONS 163
http://www.avions-bateaux.com/produit/avions/1168
The problem is that your post is irelevant and not making sense at all.
-So you compare Il-2 losses to what?
- You compare Il-2 manoeuvrability to what?
- Il-2 efficiency at battlefield to what?
- What is the difference between a pigeon?
Let him speak now, for himself, in spring and summer of 1942 an Il-2 was lost all 20 (~30 in fact*) combat missions:
" IF you ask me the reason of such a losses, i would say that it was due to the lack of training ans low morale of the pilots. They came in the front with only 8 to 10 flying hours, were not trained to dogfights, had bad handling level andno self-confidence. They were opposed to Luftwaffe vets with amizing experience and firing very well."
Well what can we expect, if even a Luftwaffe rookie had about 350 flying hours, that time?
Should it be the opposite, i doubt that Luft pilots (at least those surviving to the 109 take-offs and landings) would have been able to shoot anything...
Situation changed in the second part of the war, fresh pilots had then at least 20-26 hours of flight in reserve regiments, and were forbidden to join the front, without group combat training, by 2, patrols or squandrons...
So, loss rate of the stormovik stabilised at about 80-90 (in fact 110-120*) combat sorties.
* Soviets were not counting failed assault missions in pilot log-books, only those that reached and "destroyed" primary or secondary target...
BTW, if Wawell attacked in June 1941 with peasant's 200 T-34 and KV tanks instead of the marvels of western technology as cruiser tanks and mathildas, supported by IL-2 and Pe-2 instead of 15th's Squadron Battles of supported by the SAAF Gauntlets, the fate the battle would be no doubt.
What kind of other plane would you use to support Wavell's attack in 1941?
Last edited:
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Calm down, Altea. Lets not have this thread turn into a mess.
A specialised ground attack aircraft such as the Sturmovik or Stuka can do an excellent Job if opperated within certain restrictions:
1 An escort must be provided.
2 The aircraft must not be opperate deep behined enemy lines so that it is not exposed to attrition in its penetration but only over the top of the front lines ie as mobile artillery. In this role I rate the Stuka highly because apart from its abillity to dive bomb accuratly when used as an AT aircraft its steadiness allowed an accurate aim not possible with most fighters.
It is harder to rate the Sturmovik.
The Germans incidently solved the problem of synchronised firing of 30mm guns through the propellor ark and long barreled high velocity Mk 103 guns were to be mounted in the wing roots to fire through the propellor ark of the Ta 152. Both the Ta 152H and the shorter spanned Ta 152C were to receive this. Not only would they make a powerfull bomber destroyer able to engage the bombers at the limits of the range of their defensive weapons but these guns would have an potent anti-tank capabillity; the Mk 103 managed over 140mm with tungsten cored amunition and about the same with uranium (which was used as a tungsten substitute by the Germans). This would make the Tank a poten anti-armour aircraft completely on a par with any allied fighter.
In general the RAF nor USAAF never produced an dedicated ground support aircraft (the vultee vengence came close) and made do with fighters adapted to this role. It is possible that some of the poor accuracy attributed to allied rocket firing AT aircraft was down to the fact that aircraft were poor platforms for aiming such weapons. Although the Stuka became outmoded as the war moved on it can be argued that the Luftwaffe had such and aircraft in the early war years while the USAAF, RAF did not. (they might have borrowed a Navy aircraft)
1 An escort must be provided.
2 The aircraft must not be opperate deep behined enemy lines so that it is not exposed to attrition in its penetration but only over the top of the front lines ie as mobile artillery. In this role I rate the Stuka highly because apart from its abillity to dive bomb accuratly when used as an AT aircraft its steadiness allowed an accurate aim not possible with most fighters.
It is harder to rate the Sturmovik.
The Germans incidently solved the problem of synchronised firing of 30mm guns through the propellor ark and long barreled high velocity Mk 103 guns were to be mounted in the wing roots to fire through the propellor ark of the Ta 152. Both the Ta 152H and the shorter spanned Ta 152C were to receive this. Not only would they make a powerfull bomber destroyer able to engage the bombers at the limits of the range of their defensive weapons but these guns would have an potent anti-tank capabillity; the Mk 103 managed over 140mm with tungsten cored amunition and about the same with uranium (which was used as a tungsten substitute by the Germans). This would make the Tank a poten anti-armour aircraft completely on a par with any allied fighter.
In general the RAF nor USAAF never produced an dedicated ground support aircraft (the vultee vengence came close) and made do with fighters adapted to this role. It is possible that some of the poor accuracy attributed to allied rocket firing AT aircraft was down to the fact that aircraft were poor platforms for aiming such weapons. Although the Stuka became outmoded as the war moved on it can be argued that the Luftwaffe had such and aircraft in the early war years while the USAAF, RAF did not. (they might have borrowed a Navy aircraft)
GregP
Major
Pinsongs,
Douglas Aircraft tried to make a turboprop Skyraider. Look up the Douglas Skyshark. It had a Westinghouse T-40 in it of some 5,000 HP (supposed to be 6,500 HP but never made it ...). The Achilles heel was the gearbox. Douglas tried to field it with contra-props and the gearboxes were simply not up to 5,000 HP at the time.
I think it is certainly possible since the Tupolev Bear bomber runs contraprops of 14,500 HP each and has no problems other than melting teh cowlings occasionally.
If it had been a success, I don't think the Skyshark as proposed would have been the end result anyway since you couldn'd see out the back! It would have had to be fitted with a bubble canopy yo be viable ... but I like the idea very much.
Even today, an armed Douglas Skyraider could not be dismissed easily by any ground forces. Of course, today the Skyraider would have to sneak up using nap-of-the-earth terrain masking to avoid the shoulder-fired ground-to-air missiles, but they'd manage to sneak up on enough, given modern surveillence and gps gear. Altogether a very interesting scenario, particulalrly since the U.S.A. is considering buy Embraer ALX attack planes that, while very good, are much less capable than a Skyraider.
Douglas Aircraft tried to make a turboprop Skyraider. Look up the Douglas Skyshark. It had a Westinghouse T-40 in it of some 5,000 HP (supposed to be 6,500 HP but never made it ...). The Achilles heel was the gearbox. Douglas tried to field it with contra-props and the gearboxes were simply not up to 5,000 HP at the time.
I think it is certainly possible since the Tupolev Bear bomber runs contraprops of 14,500 HP each and has no problems other than melting teh cowlings occasionally.
If it had been a success, I don't think the Skyshark as proposed would have been the end result anyway since you couldn'd see out the back! It would have had to be fitted with a bubble canopy yo be viable ... but I like the idea very much.
Even today, an armed Douglas Skyraider could not be dismissed easily by any ground forces. Of course, today the Skyraider would have to sneak up using nap-of-the-earth terrain masking to avoid the shoulder-fired ground-to-air missiles, but they'd manage to sneak up on enough, given modern surveillence and gps gear. Altogether a very interesting scenario, particulalrly since the U.S.A. is considering buy Embraer ALX attack planes that, while very good, are much less capable than a Skyraider.
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
".... Everything is relative"
I agree, Altea, except for life itself, truth and maybe love.
I will read the links you kindly provided.
My "source" for the comment about Typhoons losses was (among other sources, such as Pierre Closterman) based on long conversations with the Senior Sargent of my RCAF Squadron back in the 1961-62 days as a reservist Airframe Tech. He was a crusty fellow who served in the RAF as a servicing "Commando" on Typhoons from just after Normandy till war's end. These guys supported the Typhoons operating from steel plank runways in forward areas. As the war moved closer to Germany and into increasingly industrial areas the Typhoons encountered flak (and flak towers) in an environment that was not quite what the Sturmoviks ran into in the east (the Baltics being a possible exception).
All ground support activity requires air superiority, regardless of AC type, I have never disputed that.
MM
I agree, Altea, except for life itself, truth and maybe love.
I will read the links you kindly provided.
My "source" for the comment about Typhoons losses was (among other sources, such as Pierre Closterman) based on long conversations with the Senior Sargent of my RCAF Squadron back in the 1961-62 days as a reservist Airframe Tech. He was a crusty fellow who served in the RAF as a servicing "Commando" on Typhoons from just after Normandy till war's end. These guys supported the Typhoons operating from steel plank runways in forward areas. As the war moved closer to Germany and into increasingly industrial areas the Typhoons encountered flak (and flak towers) in an environment that was not quite what the Sturmoviks ran into in the east (the Baltics being a possible exception).
All ground support activity requires air superiority, regardless of AC type, I have never disputed that.
MM
Attachments
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... il est crédité de 7 victoires homologuées, dont 2 individuelles et 5 en coopération, obtenues au cours de 222 missions de guerre. Mais c'est surtout pour son tableau de chasse de destructions au sol qu'il doit sa renommée:
126 chars
85 avions
30 locomotives
193 pièces d'artillerie
43 canons de DCA..." ** [Wikpedia en Francais]
Sounds impressive, Altea.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Any supporting evidence for A) the 140 mm penetration figure and B) use of uranium cored 30 x 184 mm ammunition by Germany?
To get the 140 mm penetration figure, the MK 103 would have to match the penetration of the BK 3.7 with tungsten cored Hartkernmunition. That is, get the same penetration as a larger, faster, heavier round with 2/3rds more muzzle energy. Seems unlikely to me.
I've asked this question on Tony Williams forum. Maybe i'll get an answer there.
140mm penetration at 90 degrees equals about 50mm penetration at 45 degrees allowing for a slope effect factor of 2.4.
I think this will be enough for anything but frontal armour on any allied or soviet tank, Pershing or IS2 ESP considering the high fire rate.
