Hs-129: asset or liability; alternatives?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

gjs238 said:
Wonder what Tizard thought (or would of thought) of the P-38...
Click to expand...

Probably not a lot, but the British in 1940/41 were trying to produce aircraft under very different circumstances to the Americans. It was an awareness of those circumstances and limitations which informed decisions like those taken by Tizard's committee, and they didn't apply across the Atlantic.
They did apply in Germany, though the RLM didn't act as if they did.
Cheers
Steve
 
tomo pauk said:
Dave - what the Hs 129 accomplished on the battlefield?
Click to expand...
I am looking for a great book I have, about the Hs129 and it's history. For such a low production total, they accounted for a great deal of AFVs in their theaters of operation. There were a number of pilots who were exception with the Hs129, one in particular, was Hauptmann Heinz-Rudolf Ruffer of 8./SG 1 flying red "S" (WkNmr. 0364) and red "G" (WkNmr. 141966).

davebender said:
Ju-87D/G can do everything Hs.129 can do only better and for lower cost.
Click to expand...
Not true, the Hs129 was cheaper to manufacture than the Ju87 and required only one crew member. And the Hs129 had a higher survivability than the Ju87 because of it's heavy armor...

Also, the Ju87G, armed with the Bk3,7 only had a total of 12 roundswhich meant it had a limited amount of opportunities against targets while the Hs129 had a higher capacity, allowing it more opportunities. It is true that the number of Hs129 types equipped with the Bk3,7 were limited, but they proved their worth. So to, did the limited Hs129s equipped with the Bk7,5.

While the Hs129 equipped with the 30mm may not have been a T-34 destroying beast, it did account for plenty of other AFV types. The technique that the Hs129 employed, was to get within 100m of their target and open up from a "diving" angle, which allowed penetration of the thinner armor found across the top and rear of their target and proved very successful.

They were known to fly just above the treetops and in some cases, nearly on the ground...this is why they sported the Infantry badge on the cowling and were nicknamed the "flying infantryman".
 

I was to some extent joking but I am a bit baffled that the aircraft were looked at in such a simplistic way, Or to put it another way two engines with 24 cylinders total in the Whirlwind are so much more expensive than one engine with 24 cylinders total in the Hawker Tornado using the exact same piston, rings, valves, valvesprings, camshafts in the R-R Vulture. Yes you need two prop hubs and more engine controls/instruments.
The actual utility of the Lysander in modern air combat also needed a major rethink. Way too big and expensive for artillery spotting and battlefield observation and 'liaison' and yet nowhere near high performance enough to act as a daylight tactical strike aircraft. Whatever it's deeds at agent dropping/recovery and supply of underground fighters (both not in it's original spec) it was major flop at most it's intended jobs. It's crews were brave and suffered as much as the Battles and Blenheims in France, they just didn't attack any 'high profile' targets to attract attention as they were shot down in horrifyingly large numbers.
 
But they were

To be fair Dowding was no fan of Westland or the Whirlwind, but he did anticipate the need for a cannon armed fighter both as bombers became more heavily armoured and, in 1940 when he wrote that, to deal with the prospect of German tanks on English beaches.

Tizard and his committee were probably looking at statistics rather than performance charts. I believe that they were simply looking for the biggest bang per ton of aluminium etc. They were not happy about the Blenheim but conceded due to its ability to carry out several roles. As it happens I think they would have come to the same conclusions about the Whirlwind had they looked at those performance charts. It really wasn't a great aeroplane. Westland didn't help their case by taking a long time to develop it, producing early production aircraft with some serious short comings and failures as well as claiming performance for it that it never achieved.

Freeman was writing in 1940 and was keen that Army Co-operation Command should receive its Lysanders.

Cheers

Steve
 
We know what Ju-87 (including engine) cost in late 1940 / early 1941. Do you have a historical production cost for Hs.129 including both engines?
 
stona said:
Freeman was writing in 1940 and was keen that Army Co-operation Command should receive its Lysanders.
Click to expand...

when in 1940?

After the battle of France nobody should have any illusions that Lysanders had any business at all in contested airspace. " Air Marshal Arthur Barratt, commander-in-chief of the British Air Forces in France as "quite unsuited to the task; a faster, less vulnerable aircraft was required.", They did a bit coastal patrol work after the fall of France (mainly because the squadrons had little else to fly... Bothas?) and the Canadians used them for a bit of patrol work but Lysanders rarely flew combat mission again aside from places like Madagascar and in support of the Chindits. For 1786 planes being built their combat effect was rather limited.
 
Shortround6 said:
when in 1940?
Click to expand...

My bad. September 1939, in a letter to Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner, Chairman of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors.

"It is strongly recommended, and I have no doubt will be approved, that the Whirlwind should be stopped forthwith, thus enabling us to replace it at Westlands with the Lysander, which is required in large quantities to meet the needs of an Expeditionary Force and of our Dominion forces."

Newall agreed and in October the initial axe fell on the Whirlwind and Peregrine production programmes. The partial reprieve came later as discussed above.

Lord Abercromby, Westland's chairman wrote to Kingsley Wood challenging the decision to cancel the Whirlwind in October and was told in reply.

"The decisions that have been reached as regards individual firms have been determined in the light of the programme as a whole. As you will realise the large increase in the size of the Army has meant a corresponding increase in the requirements of Army Co-operation aircraft and, while we have several fighter types in production or nearing the production stage, the only really satisfactory Army Co-operation type is the Lysander designed by the Westland Company. We are, therefore, anxious for Westlands to concentrate their undivided attention on the production of this aircraft..."

That's a polite way of telling Westland to do what they were told.

Cheers

Steve
 
BTW, any takers to change the listed weight on the Wikipedia page about the MK 101? Empty gun weighted 139 kg, 185 kg was the weight for a gun with full 30-round drum. From page 8 of it's manual:

 
So what would be the alternatives to the Hs-129? Armour-up the Ju-87, install the 2 x MG-FF canons, later two MK-101. Retaining the dive brakes could enable attacks from 60-75 degrees with the 30mm to punch through the top armor of many tanks. Granted, the 1000 kg bomb is out of the question, since most of the weight allowance will be consumed by the armor, so we would probably see a 250 kg + 2x50 kg and 2XMG-FF, for the Ju-87-based attacker. Advantage vs. Hs-129A - it can actually perform.
A Ju-87D-based attacker: the armor is already upped by almost 300 kg, but we will add a bit more armor and forget the 1800 kg bomb, settling with 250 kg + 2x70 + 2xMK-101 (= 750 kg with full 30mm ammo). Advantage vs. Hs-129B - much bigger punch, rear gunner, need less fuel per ordnance carried, can be available some 10 months earlier, much more reliable engines. Disadvantage - only one engine.

What to do with those French engines that we have captured? Re-engine the Ju-87 with G&R 14N. The Fw-189 can have the 14M.
 

Will you please forget about the near vertical dive for anti-tank work. At what altitude do you need to start the pullout? 600 meters? 800 meters? 1000 meters? Accuracy is going down hill fast and people started giving up on the dive bomber attack profile as the light AA got better. It is one thing to trade 3-6 dive bombers for a ship. It is another to trade a dive bomber for even two tanks. The dive bomber attack profile also sets you up for the defending fighters. Instead of approaching the target area at few hundred ft (at most) and trying to blend in with the terrian the dive bomber has to approach at several thousand meters (3-4000) actually identify the target tanks at that altitude and then start the dive. Everybody for miles around can see you if you can see them. (low clouds?) OR come in low, spot targets and then spend several minutes climbing to attack altitude?

Not sure what the G-R 14N in a JU-87 gives you? Less power and more drag? Not that the JU-87 engine installation was anything to brag about.



You may not be able to use those tight fighter cowlings at the speed the Ju-87 is going to fly and cutting your take-off power by about 10% isn't going to do much either.
 
Vs. the Jumo 211B (as used on the Ju-87B), the later G&R 14N will have 20-80 HP less for take off, not 20% less. The drag of the radial will be of the least worry, at least until we ditch, say, the spatted U/C and thick big wing, and that is not going to happen.
 
The Hs129 alreadt proved it's effectiveness by flying low (very low) over it's target area (hense the name "Flying Infantryman") and it packed a good punch with the 37mm. The downside of the Ju87G armed with the 37mm was that it could only carry 6 rounds per cannon. Granted the 37mm equipped Hs129 only carried a single (with 12 rounds) but it did not have a convergance issue, the cannon was along it's centerline, improving accuracy.

The Hs129 also attacked it's targets from above at a sloping angle as well as from behind, typically from a low altitude, unlike the Stuka, which typically entered it's attack at a considerably higher altitude.

The Hs129's mode of attack gave it an element of surprise, as it wasn't usually seen (or recognized) until it was right on top of it's target.
 
The Ju 87G carried 12 rounds per 37mm gun, two 6-round clips slapped together. 6 rpg is an old myth.
 
As is the 'tail gunner, somehow, reloads the cannons'?

BTW, here is a graph that shows the LW diving attack starts from 5000 ft (~1700 m), with a pull out initiated from 1500 ft (~500 m):

Junkers Ju 87 â€" Wikipedia
 
Which basically means 500yds (457meters) is as close as you are going to get, or position of your last possible shot at the tank. Plane moves about 40yds between shots if diving at 350mph.

Video of the Hawker Hurricane with 40mm guns, a bit propagandist and staged but still? They may start firing at more than 500yds or so but last shots are much closer.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfziVcyPXII
 
Thanks for the video

Hopefully no-one will dive the Ju-87 to 350 mph
 
For what it's worth - Hurricane IId tactics of 6 Squadron in Africa:

"...

The formation goes out at a height of 4,000 feet, which is considered to be above the effective range of small arms fire, and below the level of Breda bursts. Speed is maintained at 180 mph, until the target area is approached, where it is increased to 200 mph. On approaching the target, height is lost to 1,500 feet since at this height observation of ground objects is considerably more accurate. At the same time each Vic changes into line astern.

On sighting the target, the formation goes down to a height of 15/20 feet and approximately 1,000 yards away. On the leader turning to the target, the formation turns inside him and goes into attach in a rough echelon, each member of the formation selecting his own target. The approach is made at 240 mph since the datum line is more than 2 degrees down, the sights being set parallel. Variations of more than 10 mph will affect the accuracy of the shooting. Fire is opened at roughly 700 yards closing to 200 yards, and both Brownings and 'S' Guns are harmonised at 500 yards. After each burst of one shell per gun the sights are realigned on the target. Normally about five bursts can be got in on each attack. The breakaway is made before reaching the target if possible, to avoid being hit by splinters and the area is cleared by low flying and weaving."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Hs-129 use on the Western Front/MTO?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Andrew Arthy
A
Tank & AFV armament alternatives, 1935-45
6 7 8
Replies
156
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
W
Mass produced HS-123s
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
8K
nuuumannn
AA guns + rockets alternatives for 1935-45
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
SplitRz
French Army alternatives, 1935-40 (41?)
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
3K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register