davebender
1st Lieutenant
So is every other purpose built CAS aircraft.
Fighter-bombers such as Fw-190F may provide some air support in a hostile environment but they are nowhere near as capable as Ju-87D, Skyraider, IL2 etc.
Luftwaffe A10-style aircraft in 1944-45?
- Thread starter wiking85
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Fighter-bombers such as Fw-190F may provide some air support in a hostile environment but they are nowhere near as capable as Ju-87D, Skyraider, IL2 etc.
parsifal
Colonel
I agree, but better some support, and tolerable losses, rather than a bunch of flamed aircraft unable to complete their mission because lossesd are too heavy.
Its a perennial issue. performance over mission capability. as the war progressed the germans had to give up on mission capability and concentrate on survivability. The Allies and the Russians didnt really have to worry about that as much
Its a perennial issue. performance over mission capability. as the war progressed the germans had to give up on mission capability and concentrate on survivability. The Allies and the Russians didnt really have to worry about that as much
Is that why the A-10 engines make such a unique sound?
Shortround6
Major General
Same engines on Grumman S-3 and several small airliners. They are quieter than "normal" jets but most commercial airliners now use turbo fans of some sort. The thrust (power) falls off with speed so the fan jets, in order to have enough power for a 500-600 mph cruise actual have quite a surplus of power for climb, and engine out situations.
A good example of matching a propulsion system to the needs of the aircraft and flight envelope. A pure jet (no bypass) would be a very inefficient engine for low altitude, slow and medium speed work. 450-500mph passes against ground targets help keep the airplane safe but don't do much for accuracy in delivering ordnance against ground targets.
A good example of matching a propulsion system to the needs of the aircraft and flight envelope. A pure jet (no bypass) would be a very inefficient engine for low altitude, slow and medium speed work. 450-500mph passes against ground targets help keep the airplane safe but don't do much for accuracy in delivering ordnance against ground targets.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Junkers had a ground attack aircraft design with an Argus pulsejet engine, the EF.126. Very simple (=rugged) and ideal for low altitude operations. I am worried about possible vibration problems though.
Also B&V had a few very interesting Schlachtflugzeug designs which would have allowed the installation of a large frontal auto-cannon.
Kris
Also B&V had a few very interesting Schlachtflugzeug designs which would have allowed the installation of a large frontal auto-cannon.
Kris
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
That is simply what an imminent ass-kicking sounds like...
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I think you are wrong. Soviet casualties were huge right up to VE Day and not just in aircraft.
U.S. and British CAS aircraft casualties also remained high. Not so many shot down by Luftwaffe fighter aircraft during 1945 but German light flak kept getting more effective and more numerous right up to May 1945. Germany produced over 50,000 20mm flak weapons during 1944 plus over 10,000 37mm flak weapons.
U.S. and British CAS aircraft casualties also remained high. Not so many shot down by Luftwaffe fighter aircraft during 1945 but German light flak kept getting more effective and more numerous right up to May 1945. Germany produced over 50,000 20mm flak weapons during 1944 plus over 10,000 37mm flak weapons.
parsifal
Colonel
They were heavy, but in the last year of the war, German caualties on the ground were heavier. people often quot eht losses in the basttle of Berling. Over 200000 casualties. There were reasons for that...mostly they were in a hurry, and any fight in a built up area attracts huge casualties for the attacker. Before that from DAGC onwards, it had been a series of unmitigated disasters for the Wehrmacht, as they reeled under successive hammer blows from the red army
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I think this is a reasonable assessment.
There is evidence in russian sources to suggest that Berlin was to be taken initially by March 1945 according to schedule. However, advancing red army forces were subject to very heavy CAS attacks. SG Gruppen with -190F8 took a toll on red army ground forces in this period. The losses and strained resupply lines required to clear areas in the north first, build up more strength in the Oder bridgehead and delayed the final operation of the Berlin encirclement(-s) by a month or two. Then came the battle of the Seelow heights, in which the soviets lost a significant portion of their AFV (sources differ between 743 minimum and 2,083 maximum) and 33,000 casualties in four days.
The RA won, though. By may 1945, the red army was also short on infantery men in very many fighting divisions on testimony of different (including soviet) accounts.
I think the -190F8 was the best the LW was going to whish in this period. Survivable, small target size, fast, armoured, good payload and ordenance options. The -F9 with BMW-801(T)S and 2,250hp was not worse and both are better than less survivable Hs-129 or Ju-87 (both mostly used by night in this timeframe).
Earlier, I think the (not produced) Me-410A2 (with twin 30mm Mk-103) would have been very effective in CAS -else the -410A/U4 with BK5 comes to mind.
There is evidence in russian sources to suggest that Berlin was to be taken initially by March 1945 according to schedule. However, advancing red army forces were subject to very heavy CAS attacks. SG Gruppen with -190F8 took a toll on red army ground forces in this period. The losses and strained resupply lines required to clear areas in the north first, build up more strength in the Oder bridgehead and delayed the final operation of the Berlin encirclement(-s) by a month or two. Then came the battle of the Seelow heights, in which the soviets lost a significant portion of their AFV (sources differ between 743 minimum and 2,083 maximum) and 33,000 casualties in four days.
The RA won, though. By may 1945, the red army was also short on infantery men in very many fighting divisions on testimony of different (including soviet) accounts.
I think the -190F8 was the best the LW was going to whish in this period. Survivable, small target size, fast, armoured, good payload and ordenance options. The -F9 with BMW-801(T)S and 2,250hp was not worse and both are better than less survivable Hs-129 or Ju-87 (both mostly used by night in this timeframe).
Earlier, I think the (not produced) Me-410A2 (with twin 30mm Mk-103) would have been very effective in CAS -else the -410A/U4 with BK5 comes to mind.
