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

Germanys technology needed to find a solution to the T 34 and other heavy tanks, Russian infantry, artillery and rocket bombardments and overwhelming superiority in what Stalin rightly observed the USA was superior in..........machines. A massive conflict isnt normally won by a technical marvel but by huge numbers of fairly mundane products. Much is made of the stars of a war like fighters and bombers but on the eastern front basic supplies and logistics were important. I believe it was Galland who speculated that the air war in the west served only to define where the Russians were halted.

from wiki
The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.

By contrast when Germany invaded Russia approximately 800,000 horses were used.


It would take a technical edge only seen in science fiction to overcome the discrepancy in industrial output once the USA and USSR were mobilized combined with the UK and commonwealth already engaged.
 
Last edited:
Why not bring back the Skyraider? Its cheaper and easier for COIN

I think you are confusing terms. COIN is counter-insurgency warfare. It is NOT close support in a battle against an opponent with a a 1st class (or even 2nd class ) air defense system.

If your opponents are limited to 12.7mm/14.5mm MGs on predominately single mounts using simple iron sights ( no optics let alone radar) AND your targets are predominantly "soft" targets then a lot of cheap air craft with good load lifting ability can work fairly well. Against multiple 23mm and up cannon on powered mounts (not a twin bolted/welded onto a Toyota) with sophisticated sights and/or radar (even if just a warning radar) and missiles, the cheap and cheerful aircraft start getting a lot less cheerful and a lot more expensive in terms of planes and pilots lost for a given amount of target effect.
Saving money on the airplane and then mounting multiple $100,000 missiles on it seems to be a budget conflict. :)
 
I think you are confusing terms. COIN is counter-insurgency warfare. It is NOT close support in a battle against an opponent with a a 1st class (or even 2nd class ) air defense system.

If your opponents are limited to 12.7mm/14.5mm MGs on predominately single mounts using simple iron sights ( no optics let alone radar) AND your targets are predominantly "soft" targets then a lot of cheap air craft with good load lifting ability can work fairly well. Against multiple 23mm and up cannon on powered mounts (not a twin bolted/welded onto a Toyota) with sophisticated sights and/or radar (even if just a warning radar) and missiles, the cheap and cheerful aircraft start getting a lot less cheerful and a lot more expensive in terms of planes and pilots lost for a given amount of target effect.
Saving money on the airplane and then mounting multiple $100,000 missiles on it seems to be a budget conflict. :)

Gulf War 2 Battle Damaged A-10
Story about Battle Damaged A-10

01.jpg
 
Last edited:
Big difference between a COIN aircraft and an A-10.

The Thunderbolt II was designed to get down low, engage and kill the most powerful AFVs on earth while keeping a high degree of survivability. It was an answer to high-end Soviet/cold war technology and premier battlefield situations.

This is why it is so devestating to insurgents and their 3-ring circus. When they pin down coalition ground elements, the A-10 comes in and tears through these idiots like crap through a Christmas goose.

In this scenario, it is simply overkill squared.
 
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."

vB, I actually disagree with post, bacon was due to my fat fingers and darned touch screen :oops:

The Hs-129 was conceived as an all-around ground attack aircraft, and not as a dedicated tank buster. The MG 151/20 was a fine cannon for air-to-air-work, but less powerful for anti-armor work, even when compared with Hispano or Flak 30/38.
 
One might note that the armored vehicles of 1938-39 didn't require the larger cannon to take out that the the 1941-42 Russian tanks did.
And that "tanks" while a majority of the armored vehicles of 1938-39 were by no means the only armored vehicles of the time.
 
Yep, plenty of countries (Poland, Italy, Czechoslovakia) fielded tankettes, that would be pierced by AP bullet fired from a rifle. Plus a host of armored cars, even APCs.
OTOH, the most likely German opponent, France, fielded well-armored tanks, even the R-35 was too thick armored for the 20mm guns.
 
I think you are confusing terms. COIN is counter-insurgency warfare. It is NOT close support in a battle against an opponent with a a 1st class (or even 2nd class ) air defense system.

If your opponents are limited to 12.7mm/14.5mm MGs on predominately single mounts using simple iron sights ( no optics let alone radar) AND your targets are predominantly "soft" targets then a lot of cheap air craft with good load lifting ability can work fairly well. Against multiple 23mm and up cannon on powered mounts (not a twin bolted/welded onto a Toyota) with sophisticated sights and/or radar (even if just a warning radar) and missiles, the cheap and cheerful aircraft start getting a lot less cheerful and a lot more expensive in terms of planes and pilots lost for a given amount of target effect.
Saving money on the airplane and then mounting multiple $100,000 missiles on it seems to be a budget conflict. :)

Right, when is the last time we fought a state actor that required the A-10? We are mostly fighting COIN and the Skyraider could do what the A-10 is in those wars for cheaper.
 
Why not bring back the Skyraider? Its cheaper and easier for COIN

While i dont disagree with the skyraider i would prefer a modern vertion of the F7F. Two modern turboprops for massively better load cpacity, two engines safety,and then you can load it with tons of armor and bombs. Very Cheap in comparison with fancy F16s,F15s etc, much harder hitting and better Protection than AH-64, and Internal space for modern electronics
 
Right, when is the last time we fought a state actor that required the A-10? We are mostly fighting COIN and the Skyraider could do what the A-10 is in those wars for cheaper.

Except you have the A-10s in inventory and service (with parts and trained mechanics) and the "new" COIN aircraft would have to purchased. SO what would be cheaper? less fuel burn?
Unless you are talking about a turbo prop "conversion" of the Skyraider there aren't enough R-3350 engines and parts to support even a small number of of combat aircraft and trying to put the R-3350 back into production would not be cheap. Finding the gasoline it needs to run on won't be easy either.

the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" is likely to pop up just about anywhere. Especially in the mid-east, how many still have functioning radars may be subject to question.

Shoulder fired AA missiles are fairly common these days compared to the 1960s-70s. Even the second generation missiles are quite common.
 
Except you have the A-10s in inventory and service (with parts and trained mechanics) and the "new" COIN aircraft would have to purchased. SO what would be cheaper? less fuel burn?
Unless you are talking about a turbo prop "conversion" of the Skyraider there aren't enough R-3350 engines and parts to support even a small number of of combat aircraft and trying to put the R-3350 back into production would not be cheap. Finding the gasoline it needs to run on won't be easy either.

the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" is likely to pop up just about anywhere. Especially in the mid-east, how many still have functioning radars may be subject to question.

Shoulder fired AA missiles are fairly common these days compared to the 1960s-70s. Even the second generation missiles are quite common.

My understanding of the A-10 issue was that the airframes were so old that they need to be replaced anyway, so if you have to make new purchases, why not go for a cheaper aircraft both to buy and operate in the long run, suck up the high initial cost and enjoy the back end benefits as we end up fighting less serious opposition in the near future; there is not going to be a major US-Russia or China dust up that requires the A-10. Yes I am referring to a turboprop version.
 
It is rather doubtful that the A-10 would be put back in production either.

Last one was built about 30 years ago (which makes a pup compared to the B-52s) but the tooling is probably long gone, not to mention resurrecting 30 year old designs rather ignores whatever knowledge has been gained in the last 30 years.

Anybody really want to try and surf the web on a Radio Shack TRS-80 :)

Getting down and dirty Skyraider style is also probably long gone when you combine both the higher sensitivity to casualties (lost pilots) and the prevalence of smart munitions with longer stand off distances. IF you are not going to use drones there is little reason to put a new plane (and pilot/crew) within HMG range of the insurgent targets given modern sensors. Yes sensors cost money but pilots cost over a million dollars to train and make wonderful propaganda tools if captured.
 
It is rather doubtful that the A-10 would be put back in production either.

Last one was built about 30 years ago (which makes a pup compared to the B-52s) but the tooling is probably long gone, not to mention resurrecting 30 year old designs rather ignores whatever knowledge has been gained in the last 30 years.

Anybody really want to try and surf the web on a Radio Shack TRS-80 :)

Getting down and dirty Skyraider style is also probably long gone when you combine both the higher sensitivity to casualties (lost pilots) and the prevalence of smart munitions with longer stand off distances. IF you are not going to use drones there is little reason to put a new plane (and pilot/crew) within HMG range of the insurgent targets given modern sensors. Yes sensors cost money but pilots cost over a million dollars to train and make wonderful propaganda tools if captured.

You make a solid point there. Drones are probably the way to go, but do they do CAS yet? Also I was just hearing that they are losing controllers who decide to leave the service faster than they can get replacements.
 
Getting down and dirty Skyraider style is also probably long gone when you combine both the higher sensitivity to casualties (lost pilots) and the prevalence of smart munitions with longer stand off distances. IF you are not going to use drones there is little reason to put a new plane (and pilot/crew) within HMG range of the insurgent targets given modern sensors. Yes sensors cost money but pilots cost over a million dollars to train and make wonderful propaganda tools if captured.

I have mixed emotions on the A-10. In addition to its massive firepower and ruggedness, the intimidation factor on the enemy and the reassurance factor on friendlies of the A-10 flying close overhead has got to be great. However the danger of forces overhead the battle area is also great. Downed pilot put other forces at risk in materiel and lives. Often other crew and vehicles have been lost in rescue attempts. Also, captured warriors become a real emotional drag on morale of forces and public support which affects fighting support and ability. My opinion, get bodies away from the battle zone using drone fighting aircraft and robotic ground forces. Many, and more everyday, aircraft missions can be flown by drones today. It will take a mindset change of the military to implement more changes.
 
Once again, COIN is NOT CAS, although CAS can be part of a COIN operation.

Insurgents today expect armed helicopters and strike aircraft, unlike the Guerrillas of the 1950s/60s. They are better often equipped and financed (trained may be another story). In the Mid-east you can have both sides (or even a 3rd side) ALL equipped with ex-government arms including AA weapons, artillery, tanks and light armored vehicles. Maintenance of such equipment, even if government hands, might be a bit suspect compared to western standards but you are betting your pilots lives on it if you try buying aircraft that are too cheap. It might only take one "runner" out of 5-6 units captured to take-out one aircraft.
Look at the flap concerning the Jordanian pilot lost.
 
There is also the issue of planning for the next war/battle based upon the current one.
The next one might involve better equipped and trained opponents.

Better to show up to today's knife fight with a gun than to show up to tomorrow's gunfight with a knife.
 
Once again, COIN is NOT CAS, although CAS can be part of a COIN operation.

Insurgents today expect armed helicopters and strike aircraft, unlike the Guerrillas of the 1950s/60s. They are better often equipped and financed (trained may be another story). In the Mid-east you can have both sides (or even a 3rd side) ALL equipped with ex-government arms including AA weapons, artillery, tanks and light armored vehicles. Maintenance of such equipment, even if government hands, might be a bit suspect compared to western standards but you are betting your pilots lives on it if you try buying aircraft that are too cheap. It might only take one "runner" out of 5-6 units captured to take-out one aircraft.
Look at the flap concerning the Jordanian pilot lost.

Sure, but we are talking about a replacement for the A-10, which only conducts CAS, so what is going to be the cheap alternative?
 
Sure, but we are talking about a replacement for the A-10, which only conducts CAS, so what is going to be the cheap alternative?

Didn't the USAF use the A-37 Dragonfly in Vietnam?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back