Didn't someone in Luftwaffe ask to restart the production of Hs 123 in 1942? Unless it was another aviation myth.
Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Richtofhen asked in 1943 if Henschel could start making more for service on the Ost Front, but Henschel no longer had the tooling for production.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Which weren't?
The Heinkel He50 was designed for the IJN, which was produced by Aichi as the D1A. The He50 in Luftwaffe service was replaced by the Hs123.
The Polikarpov U-2 (later redesignated as the Po-2) was best known as the night harassment aircraft of the Red Airforce's "Nacht-Hexxen".
The Curtiss SOC "Seagull" was replaced by the OS2U, with was to be replaced by the SO3C but after the Seamew's dismal performance, the SOC was brought back into frontline service through 1945 to supplement the Kingfisher.
All three mentioned:
He50 (including D1A)
U-2/PO-2
SOC
were most certainly biplanes.
Replaced as a dive bomber yes, but I believe the He50 actually saw continued service as a night harassment raider in the same style as the PO2 until the end of the war?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Yes, it was removed from training service and transferred to the Ost Front as an answer to the U-2 in a night harassment role.
Sons of Anzac
Recruit
- 6
- Apr 27, 2022
Yes, and also worth noting that LW when literally there were no more HS123's to use, continued to make use of ex Italian CR42's etc in the Balkans in similar / same type of groun d attack / night ops that they did with HS123's.
Obviously they werent survivable for long vs first rate fighters 1942-3 onwards but in arenas such as ground attack in harsh physical conditions and night attack where maneuverability counted as much as weapons load, where those first rate planes were limited in ops, the biplane could still do the job up to wars end. I'd inc Gladiator in the mix as well but it wasnt used as such but capable along with the Hind / Demon too I suppose if needed for that role. The Russians also had biplane nocturnal squadrons as well. Not aware of any Japanese nor US / Australian usage in the Pacific but if night attack ops were necessary in the ground support role reckon a biplane gave that extra agility and 'feel' you just could not get in a higher performance plane. Come to think of it, from memory I think the RAF used Tiger Moths and Harts / Audaxes during the Japanese invasion of Malaya, Burma and Middle East (Iraq) for nocturnal ground support / small supply drops- but I think thats outside of the intention of the original query.
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
The obsolete biplanes in RAF service in secondary roles such as trainers and target tugs etc. were to be used as bombers had the Germans invaded. Most famously the Tiger Moths were also to be used and bomb racks made and issued. An old acquaintance who flew AACU Westland Wallace's and later Hawker Henley's had Wallace bomb racks returned to the station for fitting were they needed for an invasion. IIRC the RAF identified about 600 potential emergency bombers for the task plus the Tiger Moths.
As a member of the of "Il-2 haters club" I'd like to see Su-2 and I-153 as two shturmovik types of VVS until new ground attack aircraft appears in 1943.
It would be nice to improve protection of I-153 , of course. Fuel tank, at least.
I did not mention the I-153, which also was used relatively successfully as an attack aircraft, only because it was not particularly effective. Its maximum bomb load was about 150 kg, and its design did not allow the installation of cannon armament. However, practice demonstrated that the I-153, when used as a ground attack aircraft, suffered significantly fewer losses than the Il-2 despite the lack of armor. And the I-207 could not only carry 500 kg of bomb load, but also could dive steadily with it at an angle of 70°. In addition, its design allowed the installation of two suspended 23-mm cannons instead of bombs. In general, this "little guy" had outstanding performance for 1940-1941 - but not as a fighter aircraft, as it was originally designed to be! In addition, its engine allowed the use of low-octane gasoline, the plane was sufficiently stable and very maneuverable, it did not make high demands on the level of pilot's training, takeoff and landing were not difficult. With the same engine, this biplane had the same maximum speed as the I-16, surpassing the latter in all other characteristics.
This is one of the problems of the Soviet Air Force - serious underestimation of many concepts due to tactical stereotypes. In particular, this relates to the concept of the fighter-bomber or generally unarmored light bomber-attack aircraft. The Soviets relied on armor, but it turned out that by 1941 the Germans had 20-mm antiaircraft guns whose shells easily penetrated any aircraft armor. A much more effective defense was maneuverability and speed - especially with an air-cooled engine. The Soviets did not immediately, but gradually realized that the P-40 was much more useful as a bomber than as a fighter, but at the same time the P-40 retained the ability to engage enemy fighters (albeit defensively), i.e. it could operate independently without additional escort. The Soviets did not recognize the combat potential of the P-47 at all - there is a rather arrogant characteristic from the famous test pilot Mark Gallai, saying that it was a very comfortable aircraft to fly it in a straight line, but it was not a fighter. The P-47 would hardly have been as successful as a fighter on the Eastern Front as it was on the Western Front - primarily due to lower altitudes of the major air combats where the P-47 had no advantage. But as a fighter-bomber it had excellent performance.
The Soviets had their own "evil genius" in the field of air force tactics in the late 1930s and early 1940s - the head of the Red Army's main aviation supply directorate, P.A.Alekseyev [ah-lehk-say-ehv], whose efforts prevented the I-207 from being adopted for service, despite the pilots' high estimates. This is not the only "merit" of Alekseyev - he was the only one who insisted on a single-seat version of the Il-2, in addition, due to his unjustifiably excessive requirements to the range of fighters, Soviet designers were forced to increase the capacity of fuel tanks, which greatly deteriorated maneuvering characteristics. The list can be continued.
Last edited:
Antarctica
Airman
- 79
- May 20, 2023
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
That's the first Ramjet powered fighter but the world's first combat jet powered by Turbojets, was the He280 (September 1940).
