Hs123/9 and Schlactflugzeuge were WW2 equivalent to helicopters?

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

Possibly, but I think the helicopter has taken over many of the tanks roles on the battlefield in terms of mobile firepower.
 
The Hs123 was a divebomber in the ground attack role, where the Hs129 was purpose built as a gun platform. So in a modern day battlefield, the Hs129's mission would still be effective. The Hs129 could be comparable to modern western helicopter gunships.

The Modern helicopter that fits the IL-2 best, would be the Mi-24, as the Hind carried internal and external guns/cannon, plus hard-points for a broad range of munitions (bombs, rockets, mines, etc.) and mission roles.
 
I was reading that due to its short range and resulting close basing to the front that during the Battle of France the Hs123 managed to response in 10 minutes to calls for air support, while the Ju87 required 45-55 minutes on average:

Battle of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
VIII Fliegerkorps, under the command of Wolfram von Richthofen, covered the dash to the channel coast. Heralded as the Ju 87s' (Stuka) "finest hour", these units responded via an extremely efficient communications system to the Panzer Divisions' every request for support, which effectively blasted a path for the Army.[165] The Ju 87s were particularly effective at breaking up attacks along the flanks of the German forces, breaking fortified positions, and disrupting rear-area supply chains.[166][167] The Luftwaffe also benefitted from excellent ground-to-air communications throughout the campaign. Radio-equipped forward liaison officers could call upon the Stukas and direct them to attack enemy positions along the axis of advance. In some cases, the Luftwaffe responded to requests in 10–20 minutes. Oberstleutnant Hans Seidemann (Richthofen's Chief of Staff) said that "never again was such a smoothly functioning system for discussing and planning joint operations achieved".[168] Closer examination reveals the army had to wait 45–75 minutes for Ju 87 units, and just 10 minutes for the Henschel Hs 123 units.[169]
Click to expand...

Given this performance would it have been a good idea, assuming production was restored or never taken out in the first place, to equip each Panzer division with a Gruppe of 30-40 Hs123s? Currently the US military has a helicopter brigade attached to its armored/mechanized division, so it would seem there is a recognized utility for a quick air support option.
 
You would have had to shoot Goring in order to implement such a tactic. He was claiming Luftwaffe ownership/control over AA guns, Paratroopers, Floatplanes on cruisers and Battleships, etc. Even if the Luftwaffe speced, ordered and issued the aircraft having them leave Luftwaffe control was probably not going to happen.

Then you have the logistics problem. The Modern US Army is pretty good at logistics. The WW II German army not so good. WW II military trucks ran on things like 70 octane gas, not the 87 we are used to seeing today for our cars. There was no common fuel supply for aircraft in the German division. The liaison aircraft that used Hirth and Argus engines used 80 octane. They may run on B4 but the reverse is not true.

The US Grasshoppers could and did run on 70 octane.
 
But the Ju87 wasn't initially designed as a designated tank killer as the A-10 and Hs129 were.
 
Milosh said:
But the Ju87 wasn't initially designed as a designated tank killer as the A-10 and Hs129 were.
Click to expand...

The Hs129 wasn't designed as a tank killer either:
Henschel Hs 129 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the mid-1930s the German military, as well as its counterparts in other countries, had come to see the main role of ground attack aircraft as the interdiction of logistics and materiel, a task in which targets were often poorly protected and less likely to be protected by strong, well-coordinated defences. For high-value, well-protected tactical targets dive bombers had become the conventional solution. However, the experience of the German Kondor Legion during the Spanish Civil War (1936–39) turned this idea on its head. Even though it was equipped with types unsuited to the role, such as the Henschel Hs 123 and cannon-armed versions of the Heinkel He 112, the Kondor Legion proved that ground attack aircraft were a very effective weapon. This led to support within the Luftwaffe for the creation of an aircraft dedicated to this role, and the Reichsluftministerium (RLM; "Reich Air Ministry") requested tenders for a specialized ground attack aircraft.

It was anticipated that the main source of damage to such an aircraft would be small arms fire from the ground, meaning that the plane had to be well-armored around its cockpit and engines. Similar protection was also needed in the canopy, in the form of 75 mm (2.95 in) thick armored glass. The aircraft was expected to be attacking in low-level, head-on strafing runs, so the cockpit had to be located as close as possible to the nose, in order to maximize the visibility of its targets. Another, non-operational, requirement severely hampered the designs: the RLM insisted that the new design be powered by engines that were not being used in existing aircraft, so that the type would not interfere with production of established types deemed essential to the war effort.
Click to expand...

It was meant as a ground attack/strafer type. It developed into a tank buster once the need was identified during the 1941 campaign in Russia.
 
wiking85 said:
I was reading that due to its short range and resulting close basing to the front that during the Battle of France the Hs123 managed to response in 10 minutes to calls for air support, while the Ju87 required 45-55 minutes on average

Given this performance would it have been a good idea, assuming production was restored or never taken out in the first place, to equip each Panzer division with a Gruppe of 30-40 Hs123s? Currently the US military has a helicopter brigade attached to its armored/mechanized division, so it would seem there is a recognized utility for a quick air support option.
Click to expand...
The idea was the the Hs123 was out dated in speed and performance and newer types were being put into service that would perform the Hs123's role better and in greater numbers.

However, given the Hs123's rugged construction and low maintainence requirements, it soon turned out that it was best suited for the harsh conditions of the Ost front and this is the reason it was brought back from retirement (liason, training, storage) and served literally until there were no more left (about 1944). For instance, there were occasions when it could take off from a flooded, muddy field during a storm - conduct it's mission and return - when nothing else in the Luftwaffe inventory could.

As far as the A-10 goes, the Hs129 is very comparable, both in concept and mission, but the Ju87G grabbed the limelight. Both were fearsome to Red AFV crews, but the Hs129 was intended as a gunship from the onset, the Ju87G (and refitted Ju87D) were evolutions to a purpose-built dive bomber.
 
Last edited:
gjs238 said:
Should the US Army operate AV-8B Harrier II's?
Click to expand...
The US Army should aquire the A-10 fleet from the USAF.

The Air Force argues that the Army needs the Air Force to operate the fleet because of it's logistics, etc...but the Army already operates an extensive rotary wing fleet that operates in direct proximity, and in support, of ground forces.
 
GrauGeist said:
The US Army should aquire the A-10 fleet from the USAF.

The Air Force argues that the Army needs the Air Force to operate the fleet because of it's logistics, etc...but the Army already operates an extensive rotary wing fleet that operates in direct proximity, and in support, of ground forces.
Click to expand...

Why not bring back the Skyraider? Its cheaper and easier for COIN
 
wiking85 said:
The Hs129 wasn't designed as a tank killer either:
Henschel Hs 129 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It was meant as a ground attack/strafer type. It developed into a tank buster once the need was identified during the 1941 campaign in Russia.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with that statement. This is from "Hs 129 Panzerjager!" by Martin Pegg:

Page 27: "....in April [1938], final development began and the P.46 received the official designation "Hs 129". Designed by Henschel's chief designer, Dipl. Ing. Friederich Nicolaus, the Hs 129 was a cantilever low-wing monoplane developed entirely for attacking ground targets including armoured fighting vehicles."
 
wiking85 said:
Why not bring back the Skyraider? Its cheaper and easier for COIN
Click to expand...
Because nothing says "severe ass kicking" like the A-10 does.
There are COIN aircraft candidates that are cheaper to own/operate than the A-1, like the Pilatus PC-21, Embraer EMB 314/A-29, Air Tractor AT-802U and so on.

vikingBerserker said:
I have to disagree with that statement. This is from "Hs 129 Panzerjager!" by Martin Pegg:

Page 27: "....in April [1938], final development began and the P.46 received the official designation "Hs 129". Designed by Henschel's chief designer, Dipl. Ing. Friederich Nicolaus, the Hs 129 was a cantilever low-wing monoplane developed entirely for attacking ground targets including armoured fighting vehicles."
Click to expand...
Agreed - the Hs129 was first called for in a request from the RLM for a ground attack aircraft, based on a small, armored, twin engined airframe that mounted at least two 20mm cannon (MG FF).
 
Prototypes aside, Hs.129 production didn't begin until 1942 when 221 were produced. That's a very low priority program.

For comparison purposes, 1942 Germany produced about 3,000 Ju-88s.
 
The Hs129 delivered the first eight Hs129A-0 to 5./LG2 in late 1940, however, they weren't happy with it's performance, so some changes were proposed but the RLM decided they would stay with the original design, but with some upgrades. So there was a lapse in production. The Hs129B was the result. The original A-0s were retro-fitted to come up to the B-0's configuration.

So the first batch of B-0 types (ten: WN 0151 - 0160) were delivered december 1941. The B-1 was coming off the production line by March 1942 for a total of 219 units for that year. 1943 saw 414 units produced, 1944 saw 225 units produced until production ceased in September.

The priority of the Hs129 was much different than the Ju88. Comparing production figures really doesn't apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

aidenmac16
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
459
Dimlee
Dimlee
S
Why airplanes were designed the way they were.
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
8K
EwenS
E
A
Were any British non-RR ww2-era aeroengines considered for land use?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
3K
MiTasol
MiTasol
G
AAF bases at Dakar and Marakesh
Replies
2
Views
779
Grittis
G
T
JU88 G1 work numbers and unit code data base
Replies
0
Views
633
tkaniuka
T
Back