Ramirezzz
Senior Airman
you should know Udet these losses were caused due to the poorly planned and performed operation by the Soviets , in fact the whole idea of the preemptive air strike at Zitadelle was ill - fated from the very beginning.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
you should know Udet these losses were caused due to the poorly planned and performed operation by the Soviets , in fact the whole idea of the preemptive air strike at Zitadelle was ill - fated from the very beginning.In the very first day of operations of JG 3 for Unternehmen Zitadelle, meaning July 5th, 1943, the pilots of the Geschwader shot down 43 IL-2s; one should also add the IL-2s destroyed in the same day by pilots of the gruppen of JG 51, JG 52 and JG 54 flying in the same area [and those lost to Flak].
During the summer of 1943 when JG 52 became the only complete Geschwader operating in the East, the German boys of the Geschwader continued to chalk up air victories, with the IL-2 as the main dish.
The only theatre of the war where the Stuka remained operational in significant numbers throughout the entire conflict was precisely the Eastern Front, fulfulling its role: ground attack plane. With much less armor than the IL-2 the Stuka proved to be a highly survivable plane in the Eastern Front.
the organisation, tactics and equipment of the ShAPs in the early 1943 were still unsufficient enough to provide effective teamwork with the fighter regiments of the VVS -that doesn't mean the aircraft as such was bad. I can mention even worser examples than Kuban - just take a look at the horrible losses on the Kalinin Front in 1942, where some of the ShAP's were replaced some two or three weeks after arriving to front.Need examples? See the air battles in the Kuban bridgehead during 1943 where large formations of Stukas of Fliegerkorps I flew in operations; they never came close to take the losses the IL-2s did, say, in the opening day of Zitadelle.
The key element though was the air superiority - the Stukas performed as bad as Il-2 when the Luftwaffe couldn't achieve any - airbattles over the Dnjepr bridgeheads are just what comes to mind where some of the STGs were decimated by the VVS fighter regiments. So my point is the losses of any aircraft type in a single operation aren't good example to estimate its combat value.
Altough I must admit the early versions of the Il-2 were far away from being of really effective CAS aircraft indeed - in fact, it was underpowered, heavy beast with poor gun and bomb sights.
please keep such insulting comments to yourself - nobody calls Bf-109 or Ju-87a "best refugee strafing plane" ,because of what your beloved Luftwaffe boys did on the Eastern front in much greater scale when it was Russians who retreated back to Moscow and Stalingrad.Again the IL-2...
If there was a prize deserved by such plane that would be something like the "Best refugee strafing plane" as it occurred during late 1944 and 1945, when millions of civilians fled across the Baltic States and Poland, fleeing the advancing Red Army. Nobody will ever know the number of civilians that were murdered by soviet pilots.
Not a very demanding target: huge columns of civilians moving across vast portions of land...in many places there were dozens of thousands of them at the time and even more...even the hastily trained soviet pilots would hit them. Easier to kill than Panzers.
Guys
this thread is just too big to read all of the posts, so please pardon me if i am about to cover old ground
You guys all seem to favour the gun armed bombers. ive seen elsewhere some scathing attacks by some of you about the lower effectiveness of the FFAR, but if that is the case, why were FFARs more or less adopted as the standard Fighter Bomber equipment after the war for dealing with ground targets. Larger calibre cannon (37mm and above) virtually disappeared didnt they, after the war. Wouldnt this be due to the inherent superiority of FFAR
If i am right (and i am not suggesting that yet), wouldnt the western FBs like the P-47 etc be a better choice than the stukas, given their much greater level of survivability???? I guess Im saying that in the post war wash up, it appears that FFARs were judged to be more effective than big guns on planes
you should know Udet these losses were caused due to the poorly planned and performed operation by the Soviets , in fact the whole idea of the preemptive air strike at Zitadelle was ill - fated from the very beginning.
During the summer of 1943 when JG 52 became the only complete Geschwader operating in the East, the German boys of the Geschwader continued to chalk up air victories, with the IL-2 as the main dish.
The only theatre of the war where the Stuka remained operational in significant numbers throughout the entire conflict was precisely the Eastern Front, fulfulling its role: ground attack plane. With much less armor than the IL-2 the Stuka proved to be a highly survivable plane in the Eastern Front.
the organisation, tactics and equipment of the ShAPs in the early 1943 were still unsufficient enough to provide effective teamwork with the fighter regiments of the VVS -that doesn't mean the aircraft as such was bad. I can mention even worser examples than Kuban - just take a look at the horrible losses on the Kalinin Front in 1942, where some of the ShAP's were replaced some two or three weeks after arriving to front.
The key element though was the air superiority - the Stukas performed as bad as Il-2 when the Luftwaffe couldn't achieve any - airbattles over the Dnjepr bridgeheads are just what comes to mind where some of the STGs were decimated by the VVS fighter regiments. So my point is the losses of any aircraft type in a single operation aren't good example to estimate its combat value.
Altough I must admit the early versions of the Il-2 were far away from being of really effective CAS aircraft indeed - in fact, it was underpowered, heavy beast with poor gun and bomb sights.
please keep such insulting comments to yourself - nobody calls Bf-109 or Ju-87a "best refugee strafing plane" ,because of what your beloved Luftwaffe boys did on the Eastern front in much greater scale when it was Russians who retreated back to Moscow and Stalingrad.
May i ask you to elaborate further on your comment St.Gs were "decimated" by VVS fighter regiments? Over the Djneper? When and how many Stukas were lost?
And i do not know if i should know the horrific casualty rate endured by the VVS during the Kurks battles of the summer of 1943 was the consequence of poor planning on the part of the Soviets...what i do know is the Luftwaffe did not stop slamming the VVS wherever they met until the OKL decided to send a significant part of the Jagdwaffe to the West.
I am very sorry but i do not think i will stop calling the so-called "Black Death" the "Top/Best refugee strafing plane of the war", a rigthfully earned reputation.
Also this is hilarious, are you suggesting an exodus similar to that of the millions trying to flee the advancing Red Army during late 1944 occurred in the Soviet Union as the Wehrmacht advanced further into the Bolshevik pond during 1941 and 1942 and that my boys took advantage of that to straf fleeing civilians as standard procedure [like the brave IL-2M flyers did during late 1944]?
How many documented cases you think you might have on my boys strafing Soviet civilians? Notice what you just posted there, that my boys "did on the Eastern Front in much greater scale...". What are those based on? Wait! Don´t tell me...Ilya Eherenburg´s Patriotic/Anti-German pitch?
Also this is hilarious, are you suggesting an exodus similar to that of the millions trying to flee the advancing Red Army during late 1944 occurred in the Soviet Union as the Wehrmacht advanced further into the Bolshevik pond during 1941 and 1942 and that my boys took advantage of that to straf fleeing civilians as standard procedure [like the brave IL-2M flyers did during late 1944]?
How many documented cases you think you might have on my boys strafing Soviet civilians? Notice what you just posted there, that my boys "did on the Eastern Front in much greater scale...". What are those based on? Wait! Don´t tell me...Ilya Eherenburg´s Patriotic/Anti-German pitch?
Actually Udet it is a known fact that from the Polish campaign onward there were plenty of instances of civilians being straffed by German aircraft.
When I get my book back from my friend I will give you the ISBN and you can check it out yourself. There are plenty of pics in it to prove it as well.
Fact is that it was done on both sides, so there is no need to try and church up your "boys"...
Guys
You guys all seem to favour the gun armed bombers. ive seen elsewhere some scathing attacks by some of you about the lower effectiveness of the FFAR, but if that is the case, why were FFARs more or less adopted as the standard Fighter Bomber equipment after the war for dealing with ground targets. Larger calibre cannon (37mm and above) virtually disappeared didnt they, after the war. Wouldnt this be due to the inherent superiority of FFAR
The A-10 is my favorite aircraft by far. I couldn't imagine being in a ditch in some desert watching 2 circle in for their attack run on my position.
I imagine a C-130 would have the same "crap in my pants" factor only you probably wouldn't notice them until everyone around you starts imploding.
Why? Just me. Ok?Why dont you state your reasons why?