Ever hear of artillery?
Hs-129 Panzerknacker
- Thread starter davebender
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ever hear of artillery?
mikewint
Captain
Milosh, Arty does work wonders but it has to be brought into position and the guns ranged which is difficult to do in a moving campaign. Depending on where we operated we could call in support from an FB but once out of their range, thank God for AC. I'd have jumped up and kissed those Skyraiders, F-4s, Huey Hogs and Frogs.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... the biggest foe for the low level flying hs 129's were the Soviet mobil flak units not Soviet fighters ."
No doubt. And in the west the biggest foe of the Typhoons was also flak. With their air cooled radials, the P-47's were a little tougher to kill.
MM
No doubt. And in the west the biggest foe of the Typhoons was also flak. With their air cooled radials, the P-47's were a little tougher to kill.
MM
Yes but in WW2 Arty was never that far away. I would have to check but I am sure I read somewhere that Arty was the biggest killer of AFVs in WW2.
- Thread starter
- #25
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I suspect the opposite is true. A lot of WWII artillery was horse drawn. Moving field howitzers was a slow business, especially on muddy, snow covered or rough terrain. Plus horse teams are extremely vulnerable to enemy fire of all types.
Where do you come up with such nonsense? I have yet to see photos any British, American, Soviet horse drawn artillery. The Heer, yes.
Shortround6
Major General
It is one thing for tanks to outrun their artillery support. It is quite another for infantry. Most units for most of WW II were somewhat compatible. By that I mean the Tank divisions got either self propelled or motorized (truck) artillery. As did mechanized or motorized infantry divisions. Those army's that were short of trucks tended to use horse drawn artillery in the non-motorized divisions. Yes, if the "muddy, snow covered or rough terrain" terrain was bad enough the soldiers on foot could out pace the horse drawn guns but getting out of range of guns was a really, really bad idea when most officers knew that the artillery did over 50% of the killing. And if the soldiers are out pacing the artillery they are probably out pacing the supply wagons, the horse drawn field kitchens and most of the rest of their logistics which means their survival is going to be short.
As far as tank killing goes, are we talking about the normal divisional artillery or anti-tank gun detachments, batteries, battalions?
Not to many armies tried to use horse drawn anti-tank guns after 1940.
As far as tank killing goes, are we talking about the normal divisional artillery or anti-tank gun detachments, batteries, battalions?
Not to many armies tried to use horse drawn anti-tank guns after 1940.
Erich
the old Sage
As to the Ju 87G variants they supplied generally the (10). Panzerstaffel of the LW SG's. this being the case of SG 1, 2, 3, and 77 that I know of maybe more so 15 craft and maybe 3 others for the Stabstaffel of the Panzerstaffel unit. the occasional one slipped into the NSGr units serving on the Ost front. Each of the above SG's in 1945 had a high cover of a gruppe of Fw 190's A's and also the use of the F-8 with Panzerblitz when the Ju 87 G was being phased out.
- Thread starter
- #29
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Horses in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
520,000. France
2.75 million. Germany
3.5 million. Soviet Union
520,000. France
2.75 million. Germany
3.5 million. Soviet Union
Easy on the guys Dave. You asked a complicated question and the guys here have been helping you in trying to answer it. But for each reason they give, you shoot it down. Maybe the Luft. made a huge mistake (the Nazis were certainly capable of making those) ,or maybe it is a combination of many things (some listed here already).
Soviet artillery? If half of it was horse drawn, that would still leave plenty (mechanically moved) to level a lot of ground at the front.
Since "flying artillery" is often used to cover the flanks of deep attacks and/or to provide fire support quickly, visually guided, and any where on the battlefield (even if you've out run your artillery), then why would the Nazis invest a lot of resources (fuel, pilots, and other materials they were running short of) when their true offensive days were left in July 1943. Sure they had some nice counter/surprise attacks after that, but nothing with staying power.
Just my two cents to this interesting topic.
Soviet artillery? If half of it was horse drawn, that would still leave plenty (mechanically moved) to level a lot of ground at the front.
Since "flying artillery" is often used to cover the flanks of deep attacks and/or to provide fire support quickly, visually guided, and any where on the battlefield (even if you've out run your artillery), then why would the Nazis invest a lot of resources (fuel, pilots, and other materials they were running short of) when their true offensive days were left in July 1943. Sure they had some nice counter/surprise attacks after that, but nothing with staying power.
Just my two cents to this interesting topic.
Erich
the old Sage
you guys need to get back on topic ....... please !
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Trying to get this back on topic...
Most reports indicate that the Hs-129 was a misery to fly, being too narrow, overweight and underpowered with marginal stability. It was also accorded wildly swinging priority through the first two years of design and production, something that is not conducive to rapid development and production.
The necessity for a dedicated twin-engine attack aircraft was seen by the Luftwaffe before the war commenced, but the HS-129 prototype didn't fly until April 1939 and it was accorded lower priority over types already in service once the war commenced. The success of the Me 110 in Poland in 1939 did nothing to help the aircraft, as many in the Luftwaffe considered it redundant. The 110 was faster, longer-ranged and could operate as a heavy fighter/night fighter.
With the fall of the Western European nations in 1940, the impetus for a Luftwaffe ground attack was lessened, as was the Hs-129s attack role with the entry into service of fighter bomber versions of the 109E and Me 110C/E. As a result, work on the eight pre-production 129A-0 aircraft was slow and they were put into a prolonged flight testing and modification programme.
The launch of the invasion of Russia, and the realisation that Germany was facing large numbers of heavily armoured tanks, revived the priority of the Hs-129 programme. The Initial Hs 129A series aircraft were equipped with 485 hp Argus engines, which made the aircraft's performance marginal.
The Henschel engineering team provided an updated design for a larger aircraft in 1941, but the Luftwaffe ruled in favour of refitting the existing design with the Gnome-Rhone 14M radial, of 700 hp. The 129B also had an updated cockpit and better propellers.
Henschel had all sorts of problems reworking their production line to accommodate the GR14M and fixing niggling problems with the aircraft. The first 129B aircraft were delivered late in 1941, but there were constant modifications needed to keep the aircraft in service.
Another drain on production were all the field kits necessary for the various weapon fit-outs: the MGFFs were replaced by MG151s. The aircraft has bomb carriers fitted to wings and fuselage. Designing the MK 101, MK 103, BK 3.7, BK5.0 and BK 7.5 weapon pods also soaked up engineering resources.
Finally there were the problems with the Henschel factory and with Gnome Rhone. The Henschel works were at Kassel were bombed heavily once in 1942, twice in 1943 and three times in 1944. The 1942 raid disrupted production and a decision was made to disperse some Henschel facilities, although I'm not sure if aircraft facilities were directly affected.
Forced labour was used at Henschel plants, meaning production quality was extremely poor. Henschel was also involved in the production of Panzer III and Tiger I tanks, which fought with the aircraft division for skilled labour.
After the initial captured supplies of GR14Ms were used up, Germany turned to new production engines. Unfortunately for the Hs 129, production at GR was infamously slow, perhaps deliberately. 14M production was just a trickle, with the French GR works producing only about a third of German needs. The engines were also remarkably finicky for a radial: problems with oil contamination, dust ingestion and overheating were common.
Most reports indicate that the Hs-129 was a misery to fly, being too narrow, overweight and underpowered with marginal stability. It was also accorded wildly swinging priority through the first two years of design and production, something that is not conducive to rapid development and production.
The necessity for a dedicated twin-engine attack aircraft was seen by the Luftwaffe before the war commenced, but the HS-129 prototype didn't fly until April 1939 and it was accorded lower priority over types already in service once the war commenced. The success of the Me 110 in Poland in 1939 did nothing to help the aircraft, as many in the Luftwaffe considered it redundant. The 110 was faster, longer-ranged and could operate as a heavy fighter/night fighter.
With the fall of the Western European nations in 1940, the impetus for a Luftwaffe ground attack was lessened, as was the Hs-129s attack role with the entry into service of fighter bomber versions of the 109E and Me 110C/E. As a result, work on the eight pre-production 129A-0 aircraft was slow and they were put into a prolonged flight testing and modification programme.
The launch of the invasion of Russia, and the realisation that Germany was facing large numbers of heavily armoured tanks, revived the priority of the Hs-129 programme. The Initial Hs 129A series aircraft were equipped with 485 hp Argus engines, which made the aircraft's performance marginal.
The Henschel engineering team provided an updated design for a larger aircraft in 1941, but the Luftwaffe ruled in favour of refitting the existing design with the Gnome-Rhone 14M radial, of 700 hp. The 129B also had an updated cockpit and better propellers.
Henschel had all sorts of problems reworking their production line to accommodate the GR14M and fixing niggling problems with the aircraft. The first 129B aircraft were delivered late in 1941, but there were constant modifications needed to keep the aircraft in service.
Another drain on production were all the field kits necessary for the various weapon fit-outs: the MGFFs were replaced by MG151s. The aircraft has bomb carriers fitted to wings and fuselage. Designing the MK 101, MK 103, BK 3.7, BK5.0 and BK 7.5 weapon pods also soaked up engineering resources.
Finally there were the problems with the Henschel factory and with Gnome Rhone. The Henschel works were at Kassel were bombed heavily once in 1942, twice in 1943 and three times in 1944. The 1942 raid disrupted production and a decision was made to disperse some Henschel facilities, although I'm not sure if aircraft facilities were directly affected.
Forced labour was used at Henschel plants, meaning production quality was extremely poor. Henschel was also involved in the production of Panzer III and Tiger I tanks, which fought with the aircraft division for skilled labour.
After the initial captured supplies of GR14Ms were used up, Germany turned to new production engines. Unfortunately for the Hs 129, production at GR was infamously slow, perhaps deliberately. 14M production was just a trickle, with the French GR works producing only about a third of German needs. The engines were also remarkably finicky for a radial: problems with oil contamination, dust ingestion and overheating were common.
- Thread starter
- #35
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Messerschmitt Bf 110 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An interesting idea. Was the Me-110 successful as a tank buster?
An interesting idea. Was the Me-110 successful as a tank buster?
- Thread starter
- #36
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Luftwaffe Cannons Machineguns.
Apparently the limited production Me-110C6 worked well enough that the 3cm Mk101 cannon was an option on later versions of this aircraft.
How many tanks did it kill historically?
Apparently the limited production Me-110C6 worked well enough that the 3cm Mk101 cannon was an option on later versions of this aircraft.
How many tanks did it kill historically?
Erich
the old Sage
no it was not successful. as you said and have found the crate was flying in an experimental unit. what was used was an up-gunned 3.7cm unit for bomber destroying but even then it was not maneuverable as hoped and aiming was difficult, thus the replacement with 2cm and upper nose 3cm in some cases.
- Thread starter
- #38
davebender
1st Lieutenant
In North Africa?
By mid 1942 Afrika Korps armor was badly outnumbered and out gunned by U.S. supplied Sherman and Grant tanks. I find it difficult to believe the Germans didn't try killing British tanks with that high velocity 3cm auto cannon.
By mid 1942 Afrika Korps armor was badly outnumbered and out gunned by U.S. supplied Sherman and Grant tanks. I find it difficult to believe the Germans didn't try killing British tanks with that high velocity 3cm auto cannon.
Erich
the old Sage
the profile is bogus it was never used in N. Afrika as far as I know, it was equipped for testing in an operational Ost ground attack unit and the crate failed. Remember the pics of Hs 129's used in Afrika ? that was the extent of early northern ground attack A/C in the big continent
- Thread starter
- #40
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I was wondering about that myself.
Maschinenkanone MK 101
Mk101 cannon installation in an early model Me-110B. The cannon is tucked neatly into the lower fuselage. I assume this improves aerodynamics and also makes it possible for the Me-110 gunner to change the cannon magazine in flight.
Another picture of a Mk101 cannon installed on the Me-110. Once again the cannon is tucked neatly into the lower fuselage.
By comparison, the Mk 101 cannon on this Me-110E appears to be simply tacked onto the bottom of the fuselage. It is also installed futher to the rear.
So.....
We know the Me-110 was designed to carry a 3cm Mk101 cannon right from the beginning as the Me-110B was the first production version. We still don't know how many Me-110s had this weapon installed either at the factory or as a field kit. Nor do we know how the Me-110 / Mk 101 cannon combination performed in the CAS role.
Maschinenkanone MK 101
Mk101 cannon installation in an early model Me-110B. The cannon is tucked neatly into the lower fuselage. I assume this improves aerodynamics and also makes it possible for the Me-110 gunner to change the cannon magazine in flight.
Another picture of a Mk101 cannon installed on the Me-110. Once again the cannon is tucked neatly into the lower fuselage.
By comparison, the Mk 101 cannon on this Me-110E appears to be simply tacked onto the bottom of the fuselage. It is also installed futher to the rear.
So.....
We know the Me-110 was designed to carry a 3cm Mk101 cannon right from the beginning as the Me-110B was the first production version. We still don't know how many Me-110s had this weapon installed either at the factory or as a field kit. Nor do we know how the Me-110 / Mk 101 cannon combination performed in the CAS role.
