Best strafing aircraft in WWII???

buzzard said:

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.

Click to expand...

buzzard

I don't know if comparing the two is really fair: Only a very limited number of Ju-87s were used as Schlachtflugzeuge, while the Hs-129 was used exclusively in this role. The Ju-87s were first and foremost dive-bombers, which I would assume is an overall "safer" occupation than direct, low-level ground support.

We've discussed that over in the tank buster thread.

Reasonable but still fairly low priority engines for the Hs 129 could have been:

Bramo 323 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BMW 132 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gnome-Rhône 14N - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not getting into liquid cooled engines, or captured engines. (Mercury, Pegasus, R-1820, R-1830, Russian designs)

Dident the Ju-87 got bigger combat record than Hs-129 because it whas in greater number? Is so then does anyone know the comparelse in average result between 87 and 129?

Grampa said:

Dident the Ju-87 got bigger combat record than Hs-129 because it whas in greater number? Is so then does anyone know the comparelse in average result between 87 and 129?

Click to expand...

Hello Grampa,

As buzzard already pointed out, this thread is about strafing. I brought in the Hs129 because I forwarded that to my opinion (maybe just mine ) strafing and ground attack should not be separated or be treated separately.

Now a Ju87 was definitely not meant to be a strafer, but clearly as a dive bomber, therefore only a ground attack plane with a very limited strafing ability and as such it does not yield to any comparison with an Hs129 or whatever strafer.

To a B-25 on strafing, the Bf110 would be the opposite to match that task which it did, especially on the eastern front. It was however to costly and not well protected enough (initially it was intended to be a heavy fighter) to be used in the ground attack role as such, therefore the Hs129 was the only a/c that was clearly developed as a ground attack a/c and due to its weaponry was very effective in the role as a strafing a/c (e.g. Desert Campaign) and as a tank buster as well – the latter could not have been fulfilled by a B-25, or Beaufighter or Mossie (wood), or whatever due to insufficient protection regarding battlefield conditions during ground support missions and lack of heavy weapons needed to counter tanks from 1943 onwards.

Therefore I am merely stating that IMO the better a/c is the Hs129 – in contra to a B-25 which lacks a Tank destroying ability and – could not have successfully operated on the Eastern front, under the given conditions and was only able to operate on the western front due to massive air superiority.

Regards
Kruska

KK,

My comments regarding the Ju-87 were not in advocacy of its performance as a strafer. It had to do with its relative survivability (against fighter attack)on the EF compared to the Hs-129. Both were used to destroy tanks...the Ju-87 primarily with bombs.(Anyone know what percentage of Rudel's tank kills were made with bombs vs cannons?)

Dive-bombing is far from safe. In fact, a specialized dive-bomber is extremely vulnerable when in the dive, and again in the pull-out. The slow, steady dive necessary for accuracy makes the bomber easy meat for fighters and AAA crews. And the crushing g-forces of the pull-out mean that any battle damage incurred during the dive can catastrophically overload the highly-stressed structure of the AC. The advent of radar-directed AAA spelled the end of the dedicated dive-bomber.


JL

Kruska,

I've never read any accounts by Hs-129 pilots, so all I have to go on are what has been written about the AC itself. Everything I've read comments upon the unfavorable handling characteristics of ALL Hs-129 variants. Some were worse than others, but none were very good. and I'm sure that some pilots did like the little beast, but that goes for almost every AC ever built.

The armor on the Hs-129, like that of the Il-2/10, was designed primarily as a defense against ground-fire, and unlike the armoured engine of the Stormovik, the twin engines of the Hs-129 were extremely vulnerable to battle damage...and twice as easy to hit.

I'm familiar with the 'Notjaegerprogramm', but I think you're still begging the question...Again, if the Hs-129 was such a superlative anti-tank weapon, why would the OKW have not demanded that it be excluded from the cut? I know that war against the Allied bombers was the first priority, but surely all those Russian tanks also had to be stopped if the Third Reich was to survive.

All things considered, the fans of the Mossie, Beau, Invader, etc have a stronger case against the B-25J than does the Hs-129. But then, I consider the anti-armor role a distinct category in itself. The kind of cannons necessary to reliably destroy armor are over-specialized for the task of strafing in general. At least until the A-10 came along...

JL

PS: Too bad there's nothing out there by the Soviet pilots that fought against the Hs-129. Anybody got any titles?

But they are radial engines which are usually very rugged, and often operated with cylinders disabled, and in some cases entirely shot off, in addition to the lack of a vulnerable cooling system. (which the Il-2 had well protected, though the oil cooler was quite vulnerable)

Hovever the Gnome Rhone 14M was not very reliable or very tough (for a radial engine) in addition to it lacking the necessary power for the Hs 129. (though certainly better than the originally intended As 410 engines)

buzzard said:

Kruska,

I'm familiar with the 'Notjaegerprogramm', but I think you're still begging the question...Again, if the Hs-129 was such a superlative anti-tank weapon, why would the OKW have not demanded that it be excluded from the cut? I know that war against the Allied bombers was the first priority, but surely all those Russian tanks also had to be stopped if the Third Reich was to survive.

Click to expand...

Hello buzzard,

Begging? Me? You got to be kidding . I am sure that dozens of aviation experts tried unsuccessfully to halt or reduce the Notjaegerprogram", but as history taught us it didn't change the upper's decision or position.

Germany simply did not have the recourses to commit its development and production on all kind of weaponry needed and requested for. (during the entire war). Maybe the question should be turned around; why were the Germans still producing an obsolete Ju-87 in 43/44 instead of pressing 190's or Hs129's into service?

Well they just simply didn't have the engines, and as such had to rely on bounty such as the questionable Gnome Rhone 14N, which still was better than nothing.

Also let us not forget all the Wunderwaffen; Kingtigers, Maus, E-100's that were good enough to halt the Soviet advance which only consisted of inferior Slavic rubbish and subhuman's. (Not my opinion okay!!!)


Regards
Kruska

The 14M Gnome-Rhône 14M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (not the 14N Gnome-Rhône 14N - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was also much better than the originally used As 410 of ~480 hp. (which was totally unacceptable)

The 14N would have been good for the Hs 129. (or the BMW 132, or the Bramo 323)

Hi All,

-Interesting... ''punching-out armour in a strafing role, armoured to the teeth''...

I feel the concentrated firepower of 4x20mm plus 4x.3o3 [with bombs/rockets] in FB.IV Mossies, [initially flying in concert with 'Tse-Tse's'], plus with Beaufighters also suitably armed and in-support, must seriously make the RAF Coastal Command's Strike Wings' real strong contenders for ''Best Strafers'' - Chewing into heavily-defended Enemy shipping, U-Boats and sometimes ground-targets...especially in the conditions they sometimes flew in; - serious naval coastal AA to deal with; - often attacked by defending fighters; - long return trips over freezing seas, sometimes wounded and with battle-damage... - I reckon those chaps had stainless-steel balls...

[that's my 10 cents worth]

Cheers!