R-2800
Senior Airman
I agree with Aggie08 it was just so much power all in just one aircraft. And some B-25 strafers still carried parrafrag bombs to so that added even more.
Best strafing aircraft in WWII???
- Thread starter filnorm
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
Post WWII, the A-26 had 8x 50.s in nose plus 6x 50's in wings plus 2 each in dorsal and ventral turrets. I was pretty sure that the WWII hard nose version also had 6-50's in the wings to add to your package Renrich... plus a 4000+ pound bomb load.
That is a lot of strafing firepower even compared with AC130..
starling
Airman 1st Class
do not forget the soviets often added canoons and rockets to the pe-2 and tu-2.starling.
remember also that these b25,s were all operating under complete air superiority,not like typhoons,p47.and mossies in 43.starling.
remember also that these b25,s were all operating under complete air superiority,not like typhoons,p47.and mossies in 43.starling.
KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
1st: Fw-190 F: Not as impressive in cannon armament maybe, but well armored against ground attacks and can take the fight to the enemy when attacked by fighters.
P-47 comes in 2nd but doesn't have the extra protection the Fw has plus it's rather sluggish at treetop altitude.
B-25 is my 3rd together with Hs-129 and IL-2. Sure B-25 has many guns, but it also has rather poor visibily to front-low. Also all threee would've required fighter protection if operating without air supremacy.
P-47 comes in 2nd but doesn't have the extra protection the Fw has plus it's rather sluggish at treetop altitude.
B-25 is my 3rd together with Hs-129 and IL-2. Sure B-25 has many guns, but it also has rather poor visibily to front-low. Also all threee would've required fighter protection if operating without air supremacy.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The 190 could carry a pod of 2x MG 151/20 under each wing.
The P-38 was a pretty good strafer too.
And on the B-25's armament:
With the 8x nose guns, 4x fixed fuselage guns, and 2x in the top turret gunner it could bring 14x .50's to bare, however as it mentions the 4x under fusalage guns were often removed due to structural issues.
The A-20 should also be considered, faster and more agile than the B-25 and also very good strafing armament:
Six forward-firing 0.50 Colt-Browning machine guns in the nose with 350 rpg. Two 0.50-inch machine gun in dorsal power turret with 400 rpg. One 0.50-inch machine gun in the ventral tunnel position with 400 rounds.
It also could hold 4x 20mm guns in the nose along with 2x .50's but the 20mm's carried only 60 rpg.
The P-38 was a pretty good strafer too.
And on the B-25's armament:
With the 8x nose guns, 4x fixed fuselage guns, and 2x in the top turret gunner it could bring 14x .50's to bare, however as it mentions the 4x under fusalage guns were often removed due to structural issues.
The A-20 should also be considered, faster and more agile than the B-25 and also very good strafing armament:
Six forward-firing 0.50 Colt-Browning machine guns in the nose with 350 rpg. Two 0.50-inch machine gun in dorsal power turret with 400 rpg. One 0.50-inch machine gun in the ventral tunnel position with 400 rounds.
It also could hold 4x 20mm guns in the nose along with 2x .50's but the 20mm's carried only 60 rpg.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
If I'm strafing groundpounders or soft skinned vehicles the 12 303's in the Hurricane XII is certainly nothing to sneeze at
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Yep, but how much ammo did they carry?
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
but who could get around quicker for second pass
Flyboy2
Senior Airman
I'm going to have to agree with the B-25 people out their. I actually read something about a B-25 chasing down two A6M Zero's and waxing them with its forward firing weaponry. Does anybody know if that was common because that would suck to be on the recieving end of a B-25 strafing varient!
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
No, seriously, what was the Hurricane's amunition capacity?
And a P-47 could get around pretty fast, and more for an F4U or P-38.
The P-47 could hold 425 rpg, F4U 400 rpg, and P-38 500 rpg and 150 rpg for 20 mm.
And don't forget the Hurricane Mk.IIC for strafing (lightly) armored targets.
(which had something like 80 rpg)
And the Typhoon and Tempest were good there too. (150 rpg)
Haztoys
Senior Airman
I'm going to say B-25...Theres film out there of them going at it on a island in the PTO... I have it on a old video...Theres nose and side shots of planes in a group....
....I've looked at a lot of gun film ...And that one keeps staying in my mind...
Typhoon on fight I would say...
....I've looked at a lot of gun film ...And that one keeps staying in my mind...Typhoon on fight I would say...
I would not seperate strafing and ground attack missions.
The B-25's - besides the B-25H - had only 0.50.s caliber (varying between 8-14 0.50,s), which to me sounds a bit too much like overkill for soft targets and not very useful to support ground attack against hard targets. So if number of guns determines the best strafer then there would be no chance for any other a/c from ww2 to take that title.
But in order to be a good strafer the a/c and its crew also need to be effectively protected, as such I think the usefulness of a B-25 was only given under the pretext of air supremacy. For this reason I can only vote for the Hs129 whose tactical layout was later adapted into the A10. Who could afford in the long run to place a 3/6 man crew in an a/c to perform as a strafer or ground attack a/c? Probably only the USA.
The Hs 129B-1/R2 –R3 (as D.A.I.G. mentioned) were well armored and featured a weapon array (it could also be fitted with rockets) that besides strafing could also inflict potential damage to hard targets. The engines were weak, but more of the 129's would have done their job nevertheless.
So to me the best strafer and ground attack a/c was a Hs129.
Regards
Kruska
The B-25's - besides the B-25H - had only 0.50.s caliber (varying between 8-14 0.50,s), which to me sounds a bit too much like overkill for soft targets and not very useful to support ground attack against hard targets. So if number of guns determines the best strafer then there would be no chance for any other a/c from ww2 to take that title.
But in order to be a good strafer the a/c and its crew also need to be effectively protected, as such I think the usefulness of a B-25 was only given under the pretext of air supremacy. For this reason I can only vote for the Hs129 whose tactical layout was later adapted into the A10. Who could afford in the long run to place a 3/6 man crew in an a/c to perform as a strafer or ground attack a/c? Probably only the USA.
The Hs 129B-1/R2 –R3 (as D.A.I.G. mentioned) were well armored and featured a weapon array (it could also be fitted with rockets) that besides strafing could also inflict potential damage to hard targets. The engines were weak, but more of the 129's would have done their job nevertheless.
So to me the best strafer and ground attack a/c was a Hs129.
Regards
Kruska
KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
I somewhat doubt that Hs-129 and B-25 really differ in the aspect of air superiority. Both operated at rather similar altitudes and air-speeds so both could be intercepted rather easily. Sure the B-25 was more costy when downed, but it also had a certain chance of fighting off an enemy interceptor. The Hs-129 was doomed if attacked by fighters.
An Fw-190 F (imo) could do most of what a Hs-129 could, if maybe not with its accuracy. Armed with Panzerblitz rockets there was basically no ground target hard or soft that was beyond its capabilities. It was also a lot faster in and out of the action and could defend itself reasonably well against interceptors. On top of that it was built upon an existing airframe which helps logistics and production a lot (afterall they were often assembled from recycled A-version Focke-Wulfs).
An Fw-190 F (imo) could do most of what a Hs-129 could, if maybe not with its accuracy. Armed with Panzerblitz rockets there was basically no ground target hard or soft that was beyond its capabilities. It was also a lot faster in and out of the action and could defend itself reasonably well against interceptors. On top of that it was built upon an existing airframe which helps logistics and production a lot (afterall they were often assembled from recycled A-version Focke-Wulfs).
What I think decides is the most importent factor of what is the best plane to strafe on grountarget here is not the RPM (Round per second). it's how mutc the mass of projectiler it trows on the target, like 4x20mm Hispanocannon here gives 272kg per min. and does anyone know how mutc kinetisk energi each plane give on target per min?
Kruska,
Everything I've read concerning the Hs-129 leads me to believe that it not only was not the best ground-strafer (or ground-attack, if you prefer...) but that it was not even an adequate one.
Pilots generally despised the Hs-129, and with good reason. The plane was underpowered (The Gnome/Rhone engines were both extremely unreliable, and very susceptible to battle damage), handling was sluggish, and the pilot's visibilty was miserable. Its record in the N African theater was poor, and while on the Easter Front the Henschel had some success as a dedicated anti-tank weapon, as Soviet fighter and AA performance improved, the loss rate of Hs-129 missions soon reached 20%. It was a sitting duck. Even the old Ju-87was superior. It was more reliable, durable, handled better, had far superior visibility, and had the protective advantage of the rear-gunner.
I think much of the attraction to the Hs-129 lies in its aesthetics. It is an appeallingly neat little AC in appearance, but like the Martin-Baker MB.5, and the Arado 234, its's proof that the old maxim, "if it looks right...", is not an infallible rule-of-thumb.
As a dedicated surface-strafer, the B-25J was unmatched. Tough, reliable, pilot-friendly, and with the ability to inflict horrendous damage in a single pass, it has a well-earned claim to the title of 'Best Strafer'. And while it may have been initially more expensive to build and crew than the Hs-129, it's superior survivability probably made it more economical also.
JL
Everything I've read concerning the Hs-129 leads me to believe that it not only was not the best ground-strafer (or ground-attack, if you prefer...) but that it was not even an adequate one.
Pilots generally despised the Hs-129, and with good reason. The plane was underpowered (The Gnome/Rhone engines were both extremely unreliable, and very susceptible to battle damage), handling was sluggish, and the pilot's visibilty was miserable. Its record in the N African theater was poor, and while on the Easter Front the Henschel had some success as a dedicated anti-tank weapon, as Soviet fighter and AA performance improved, the loss rate of Hs-129 missions soon reached 20%. It was a sitting duck. Even the old Ju-87was superior. It was more reliable, durable, handled better, had far superior visibility, and had the protective advantage of the rear-gunner.
I think much of the attraction to the Hs-129 lies in its aesthetics. It is an appeallingly neat little AC in appearance, but like the Martin-Baker MB.5, and the Arado 234, its's proof that the old maxim, "if it looks right...", is not an infallible rule-of-thumb.
As a dedicated surface-strafer, the B-25J was unmatched. Tough, reliable, pilot-friendly, and with the ability to inflict horrendous damage in a single pass, it has a well-earned claim to the title of 'Best Strafer'. And while it may have been initially more expensive to build and crew than the Hs-129, it's superior survivability probably made it more economical also.
JL
Hello buzzard,
I agree on the engine as I already mentioned in my post, that the Ju-87 was superior is just an opinion that will be hard for you to proof
the protective advantage of a rear gunner I think was more a moral then a practical support.
And 20% loss for a ground attacker sounds realistic and reasonable taking the ongoing superiority of the Russians into account.
Maybe the advantage, small is hard to hit and cheap to build. to me it looks actually ugly.
As a non armored a/c, and just 0.5 cal. it could not have sucessfully operated in the groundattack role, especially not with missing air superiority. Making runs at truck and train convoys without having to fear attacking a/c, and AA fire yes. Effective covering AA fire from German ground troops was mostly non existent due to non existing AA guns. In books they show more Vierlingsflak and Moebelwagen pictures then the whole Wehrmacht ever had.
And the Fliegerfaust (WW2 Stinger) wasn't send to the troops yet. I believe that a B-25 could have operated in Russia not even close to a Hs129 under the same circumstances. I think people just like the B-25 because of its good looks and impressive display of small arms
Regards
Kruska
Code:
[quote="buzzard, post: 353564"]
Pilots generally despised the Hs-129, and with good reason. The plane was underpowered (The Gnome/Rhone engines were both extremely unreliable, and very susceptible to battle damage), handling was sluggish, and the pilot's visibilty was miserable. Its record in the N African theater was poor, and while on the Easter Front the Henschel had some success as a dedicated anti-tank weapon, as Soviet fighter and AA performance improved, the loss rate of Hs-129 missions soon reached 20%. It was a sitting duck. Even the old Ju-87was superior. It was more reliable, durable, handled better, had far superior visibility, and had the protective advantage of the rear-gunner.I agree on the engine as I already mentioned in my post, that the Ju-87 was superior is just an opinion that will be hard for you to proof
the protective advantage of a rear gunner I think was more a moral then a practical support.And 20% loss for a ground attacker sounds realistic and reasonable taking the ongoing superiority of the Russians into account.
Code:
I think much of the attraction to the Hs-129 lies in its aesthetics. It is an appeallingly neat little AC in appearance, but like the Martin-Baker MB.5, and the Arado 234, its's proof that the old maxim, "if it looks right...", is not an infallible rule-of-thumb.Maybe the advantage, small is hard to hit and cheap to build. to me it looks actually ugly.
Code:
As a dedicated surface-strafer, the B-25J was unmatched. Tough, reliable, pilot-friendly, and with the ability to inflict horrendous damage in a single pass, it has a well-earned claim to the title of 'Best Strafer'. And while it may have been initially more expensive to build and crew than the Hs-129, it's superior survivability probably made it more economical also.As a non armored a/c, and just 0.5 cal. it could not have sucessfully operated in the groundattack role, especially not with missing air superiority. Making runs at truck and train convoys without having to fear attacking a/c, and AA fire yes. Effective covering AA fire from German ground troops was mostly non existent due to non existing AA guns. In books they show more Vierlingsflak and Moebelwagen pictures then the whole Wehrmacht ever had.
And the Fliegerfaust (WW2 Stinger) wasn't send to the troops yet. I believe that a B-25 could have operated in Russia not even close to a Hs129 under the same circumstances. I think people just like the B-25 because of its good looks and impressive display of small arms
Regards
Kruska
Kruska,
The Ju-87 has a far better combat record on the Eastern Front than the Hs-129, even allowing for the disparity in production numbers. As for the B-25J, I think a flight of B-25s would fare better in the face of a Soviet fighter attack, than would an equivalent number of Henschels. The Hs-129, with their abysmal rear-visibilty, and sluggish handling, were meat on the table for Soviet fighters. Tho' the pilot was well protected, the plane itself was easily put out of action. The Mitchells have the benefit of lots of eyes, gunners, and very durable, if un-armored, airframes and engines.
Seeing as the question posed relates to strafing specifically, rather than ground-attack in general, I'm confining my argument to that topic.
While shooting up tanks is more surely glamorous than strafing soft targets, the destruction of logistical targets is every bit as vital to warfighting. What use is a tank without fuel and ammo? And what makes heavy cannon-fire inherently superior in every combat situation? A deluge of .50 cal machine gun bullets is more than adequate to the task of destroying trucks, horses, troops, marine transport, small naval vessels, parked aircraft, etc. A flight of B-25Js could, and did, cause a huge amount of mayhem.
However, the most crushing blow against your argument for the Hs-129 is delivered the Luftwaffe itself... If the Hs-129 was truly the pre-eminent strafer (or ground-attack) AC of the war, then why, in the face the Soviet armored juggernaut, did they halt production of this wunderweapon in the summer of '44? I know they didn't always show the best judgement, but this would seem to be a real no-brainer, if the Hs-129 was really that good...
As for looks, I was never that struck on the Mitchell myself. I much prefer the A-26, Mosquito, Beaufighter, and the Pe-2
JL
JL
The Ju-87 has a far better combat record on the Eastern Front than the Hs-129, even allowing for the disparity in production numbers. As for the B-25J, I think a flight of B-25s would fare better in the face of a Soviet fighter attack, than would an equivalent number of Henschels. The Hs-129, with their abysmal rear-visibilty, and sluggish handling, were meat on the table for Soviet fighters. Tho' the pilot was well protected, the plane itself was easily put out of action. The Mitchells have the benefit of lots of eyes, gunners, and very durable, if un-armored, airframes and engines.
Seeing as the question posed relates to strafing specifically, rather than ground-attack in general, I'm confining my argument to that topic.
While shooting up tanks is more surely glamorous than strafing soft targets, the destruction of logistical targets is every bit as vital to warfighting. What use is a tank without fuel and ammo? And what makes heavy cannon-fire inherently superior in every combat situation? A deluge of .50 cal machine gun bullets is more than adequate to the task of destroying trucks, horses, troops, marine transport, small naval vessels, parked aircraft, etc. A flight of B-25Js could, and did, cause a huge amount of mayhem.
However, the most crushing blow against your argument for the Hs-129 is delivered the Luftwaffe itself... If the Hs-129 was truly the pre-eminent strafer (or ground-attack) AC of the war, then why, in the face the Soviet armored juggernaut, did they halt production of this wunderweapon in the summer of '44? I know they didn't always show the best judgement, but this would seem to be a real no-brainer, if the Hs-129 was really that good...
As for looks, I was never that struck on the Mitchell myself. I much prefer the A-26, Mosquito, Beaufighter, and the Pe-2
JL
JL
Glider
Captain
As a ground staffer then the Mossie or the Beaufighter take some beating. The USN did some tests comparing the .50 HMG with the 20mm an estimated that one 20mm was equal to 3 x .50 M2 HMG.
So the Mossie with 4 x 20, 4 x LMG plus 2 x 500lb bombs carried internally plus 8 x Rockets, each of which was far more powerful than a 75mm shell has tremendous firepower. This plus its range, speed and ability to operate in contested airspace is a serious suggestion.
The only down side I can suggest is the in line engines which make it open to damage.
The Beau with 4 x 20 plus 4 x HMG (or 6 x LMG) plus bombs is also something you wouldn't want to be in front of. It could of course carry rockets although the MG's were left off. Performance wasn't as good as the Mossie but was sufficient for most fronts and the radials improved its ability to take damage.
Personally I would take either of these over the B25. They are both smaller, faster, more agile, at least as much firepower (equal to 12 - 16 HMG) plus rockets (equal to a salvo of 24 75mm shells), plus bombs and have a better chance of operating in hostile airspace.
They are also cheaper and have a smaller crew.
So the Mossie with 4 x 20, 4 x LMG plus 2 x 500lb bombs carried internally plus 8 x Rockets, each of which was far more powerful than a 75mm shell has tremendous firepower. This plus its range, speed and ability to operate in contested airspace is a serious suggestion.
The only down side I can suggest is the in line engines which make it open to damage.
The Beau with 4 x 20 plus 4 x HMG (or 6 x LMG) plus bombs is also something you wouldn't want to be in front of. It could of course carry rockets although the MG's were left off. Performance wasn't as good as the Mossie but was sufficient for most fronts and the radials improved its ability to take damage.
Personally I would take either of these over the B25. They are both smaller, faster, more agile, at least as much firepower (equal to 12 - 16 HMG) plus rockets (equal to a salvo of 24 75mm shells), plus bombs and have a better chance of operating in hostile airspace.
They are also cheaper and have a smaller crew.
Hello buzzard,
The only Hs129 that was reportedly difficult to fly was only the 75mm version. Despite certain comments the Hs129 was quite popular amongst the pilots and as such also very successful. Hauptmann Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer destroyed more than 70 tanks by June 44. What makes you think that only the pilot was protected? During its service the a/c was even upgraded on its "frontal" and body armor.
The Stuka has a better overall record due to the numbers in existence before the Hs129 entered service in larger numbers which did not enter service before middle, end of 1942.
Ju-87 about 6500 build and Hs129 about 900 build
That destruction of logistics is vital was never disputed by me or neglected, I am however sticking to my opinion that a B-25 could not have operated even close in Russia to an Hs129 due to it not being armored and lacking anti tank capability.
You are however correct that the thread title is strafing.
In 1944 all non fighter projects were put on halt also the Ju 87 not just the Hs129 due to the "Notjägerprogramm "
And yes the A-26 looks smashing, but in Russia I would have still preferred the ugly Hs129 under the existing circumstances.
Regards
Kruska
The only Hs129 that was reportedly difficult to fly was only the 75mm version. Despite certain comments the Hs129 was quite popular amongst the pilots and as such also very successful. Hauptmann Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer destroyed more than 70 tanks by June 44. What makes you think that only the pilot was protected? During its service the a/c was even upgraded on its "frontal" and body armor.
The Stuka has a better overall record due to the numbers in existence before the Hs129 entered service in larger numbers which did not enter service before middle, end of 1942.
Ju-87 about 6500 build and Hs129 about 900 build
That destruction of logistics is vital was never disputed by me or neglected, I am however sticking to my opinion that a B-25 could not have operated even close in Russia to an Hs129 due to it not being armored and lacking anti tank capability.
You are however correct that the thread title is strafing.
In 1944 all non fighter projects were put on halt also the Ju 87 not just the Hs129 due to the "Notjägerprogramm "
And yes the A-26 looks smashing, but in Russia I would have still preferred the ugly Hs129 under the existing circumstances.
Regards
Kruska
