Package guns

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the info.
Of 10 planes shot down over Ijmuijden, 3 were victims of mid air collision, and 2 were shot down by fighters, leaving 5 to Flak. According to the link you provided, Flak was ''murderous" there. Id venture to say any type of plane that ventured there would suffer the same fate.
RAF single-engined types were given a rough handling during Rhubarb operations, so these were not superior to twin-engined types.

 

[Cromwell]

Hurricane was void of any advantage medium bombers possesed (second engine, resilience, second pilot), and was void of main advantage contemporary (2nd part of WW2) fighter-bombers had (speed). So comparing the venerable plane with any member of those two categories is not fair

Yes but the Stuka with 37mm Cannon-packs was very succesful and slower and less nippy than the Hurricane I might add - "Kanonenvogel"

 

[machine shop tom]

I think heavily armed, twin-engined aircraft such as the Beaufighter, B-25, B-26, and A-20 (Boston) were used to great effect on naval targets. The heavy forward armament was useful in "discouraging" anti-aircraft fire and allowed the plane to accurately bomb the ship. Skip-bombing was perfected by General Kenney and Pappy Gunn. The Battle of the Bismarck Sea comes to mind.

tom

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes but the Stuka with 37mm Cannon-packs was very succesful and slower and less nippy than the Hurricane I might add - "Kanonenvogel"

The Russians (main 'customers' of Ju-87G) were deploying a fraction of planes and AAA* per mile of front line, than it was the case on Western front, for both sides. And we know all to well how Stuka fared in West from 1940 onward.

 

[Cromwell]

The Russians (main 'customers' of Ju-87G) were deploying a fraction of planes and AAA* per mile of front line, than it was the case on Western front, for both sides. And we know all to well how Stuka fared in West from 1940 onward.

Later versions of the 87 were actually employed with some success POST 1940 eg. in the Med and Western Dessert - and Greece etc

So, it was a bit like the Bf110 - you thought it was dead and then it would come back and bite you in the backside

 

[Markus]

Later versions of the 87 were actually employed with some success POST 1940 eg. in the Med and Western Dessert - and Greece etc

So, it was a bit like the Bf110 - you thought it was dead and then it would come back and bite you in the backside

None of the places had air defences like the UK. Allied air strenght in Greece(and Crete) was weaker than weak and Ju87 formations attacking Malta were well escorted.

 

[riacrato]

Thanks for the info.
Of 10 planes shot down over Ijmuijden, 3 were victims of mid air collision, and 2 were shot down by fighters, leaving 5 to Flak. According to the link you provided, Flak was ''murderous" there. Id venture to say any type of plane that ventured there would suffer the same fate.

Possibly. But I reckon the chances of a formation of large and somewhat cumbersome B-26s suffering mid air collisions on a rough low level sweep were also higher when compared to nimble single engine Typhoons or the likes.

Anyways, I think it was the high concentration of flak and probably also fighters that dictated the medium/high combat altitude of medium bombers of the USAAF in 1943. So i think the situation dictated the tactics not the other way around. After D-Day it may very well have been possible to do an occasional low level sweep using B-26s (maybe it was done?) but the necessity probably wasn't really there anymore or at least it didn't justify the potential losses.

 

[Glider]

Hurricane was void of any advantage medium bombers possesed (second engine, resilience, second pilot), and was void of main advantage contemporary (2nd part of WW2) fighter-bombers had (speed). So comparing the venerable plane with any member of those two categories is not fair

You overrate the ability of a medium bomber to take damage. Two 37mm will almost certainly spell the end of a medium bomber and three to four 20mm hits would put them at significant danger maybe more or less depending on where they are hit.

I chose the Hurricane deliberately as its performance would be similar to the B26/B25 but they were a lot smaller and more agile. There is a reason why medium bombers normally operated at medium altitude.

 

[Timppa]

Tony Williams mentions in his article, that attempts to use Ju 88s in the anti-tank role led to catastrophic loss rates. That is why that role fell to the smaller Ju-87.

The Coastal Command Beaufighters operated similar low level strafing type missions. North Coates Strike Wing operated as the largest anti-shipping force of the Second World War, and accounted for 117 vessels for a loss of 120 Beaufighters. That means that the whole wing was totally wiped out twice during its career.

 

[Glider]

The Coastal Command Beaufighters operated similar low level strafing type missions. North Coates Strike Wing operated as the largest anti-shipping force of the Second World War, and accounted for 117 vessels for a loss of 120 Beaufighters. That means that the whole wing was totally wiped out twice during its career.

True but in the cold logic of war, the loss of 1 aircraft for 1 vessel is a good swap and one worth paying.

Attcking ships was always a very dangerous business for any airforce and the German vessels were very well armed and normally escorted by well armed and proctected escorts. Often the excorts outnumbered the cargo ships

 

[Timppa]

True but in the cold logic of war, the loss of 1 aircraft for 1 vessel is a good swap and one worth paying.

Considering the tonnage sunk, 150,000 tons, the average vessel size was very small, less than 1/10th of the Liberty ships. Losing 10 planes and their crew, for equivalent of one Liberty class ship does not sound a very good swap anymore.

 

[Glider]

considering the escort, the distance from base, air cover over the target you wouldn't find anyone else doing it better.

 

[vanir]

RAAF used Bostons alongside USAF B-25's in New Guinea to good effect in low level strafing by all accounts. I believe the B-25 was first modified for extra forward firing armament (bombadier replaced) specifically for this combat region, whilst later the A-20G (bombadier replaced by more forward guns) appeared in New Guinea for the same reasons as the primary type alongside 75mm equipped B-25 gunships in the later period (about 1944).

Targets were mostly Japanese merchant shipping, the primary strategic objective of bomber forces based in New Guinea, which I imagine are not heavily equipped with AAA, and rough forward airfields improvised by Japanese Army air forces mostly, which similarly wouldn't have anything like the kind of AAA one might expect in the Reich.
The benefits were obvious for the area, great combat radius, sturdiness and reliability you get with a solid twin-engine aircraft, good weapons loads, you needed these things in the South Pacific where half the time single engine fighters aren't likely to make it 700km or more back to home base if they get any combat damage, whilst the land and sea regions in between aren't exactly very hospitable. Ditching often meant death even if you aced your mission and blew up the enemy.

The Japanese often were forced to improvise light-medium AAA using 25mm naval mountings in triple and double carriages, naturally they weren't always available. Often forward posts relied on things like 20mm anti-tank rifles as improvised AAA and small arms. Other than this they had a 75mm FlaK iirc at major bases. Ammunition was also a serious issue, supply problems of every type at their myriad of field bases dotted all over the Pacific. The American tactic of taking out their merchant shipping and island hopping was just perfect. In the South Pacific airfields frequently ran of out ammunition that was 12.7mm and larger and were forced to scavenge 7.7mm light guns from spotter planes and fit those to their front line fighters. For example the Ki-43 series initially featured 2x 12.7mm guns, but in the South Pacific many had one gun replaced with scavenged 7.7mm guns during 1942 because of ammunition shortages, then later from 1943 they had both guns replaced with 7.7mm to be used as armed reconnaissance models because the only surplus was in lighter calibre ammunition in the field.

In the South Pacific the strafing versions of the B-25 and Boston bombers have an excellent combat record and were a primary offensive type, probably more valued than single engine fighter models. But then in Europe even a Messerschmitt isn't going to be taken down by a .50-cal defensive gun anywhere near as easily as a Japanese fighter. And then is the sheer proliference of the German FlaK corps, where the British had developed radar and centralised command as a basis of home defence, Germany had traditionally relied on FlaK defences and these were highly developed and numerous, continuing their evolution throughout the war. You just can't compare a FlaK-38 with the Polsten, the sheer proliference of SPG FlaK-37 mutes the impact of the Bofors, and that 14.7km lethal altitude of the FlaK-41 plus those super-heavy 10.5 and 12.8cm FlaK used in Reich defence, well they're just terrifying.

 

[Cromwell]

In the South Pacific the strafing versions of the B-25 and Boston bombers have an excellent combat record and were a primary offensive type, probably more valued than single engine fighter models. But then in Europe even a Messerschmitt isn't going to be taken down by a .50-cal defensive gun anywhere near as easily as a Japanese fighter. And then is the sheer proliference of the German FlaK corps, where the British had developed radar and centralised command as a basis of home defence, Germany had traditionally relied on FlaK defences and these were highly developed and numerous, continuing their evolution throughout the war. You just can't compare a FlaK-38 with the Polsten, the sheer proliference of SPG FlaK-37 mutes the impact of the Bofors, and that 14.7km lethal altitude of the FlaK-41 plus those super-heavy 10.5 and 12.8cm FlaK used in Reich defence, well they're just terrifying.

Good posts Vanir

I am sure focusing on Supply Lines is actually a more effective strategy - if you can buy the time - in the long run.

For example, Rommel was ground to a halt by attacks on his lines of transport and communication - ditto the Ardennes situation and Peiper

Why try to blunt the hardened head of the arrow ? Is it not easier to break the shaft of the arrow - or just try to blind or disable the archer ?

Part of the reason for the German reliance on Flak could be the lack of fuel for air-cover, so the ground forces had to use what they could - well that is one theory I have read anyhow.

They also made extensive use of armoured flak carriages I understand, although whether this was offensive or defensive necessity I am not sure. I would not fancy my chances much against a barrage of 3 inch Rockets or even skip-bombing.

Note. Actually the Brits had some quite highly developed Flak Tanks such as the Centaur AA but were not used vey much due to allied air superiority most of the time. That is what I have read.

 

[tomo pauk]

Plethora of 15-37mm flak did made strafing runs difficult expensive, I agree with that.

As for German forces relaying on light Flak, that was the thing from day one. Eg. Germans deployed just under 10 000 (yep, under 10 thousands) of under-40mm weapons already in mid 1940. The number perhaps tripled to 1944, but many were deployed on Russian front at the time.

 

[Cromwell]

Plethora of 15-37mm flak did made strafing runs difficult expensive, I agree with that.

As for German forces relaying on light Flak, that was the thing from day one. Eg. Germans deployed just under 10 000 (yep, under 10 thousands) of under-40mm weapons already in mid 1940. The number perhaps tripled to 1944, but many were deployed on Russian front at the time.

That is a Lot of Flak - no pun intended. No wonder strafing was considered more dangerous that air to air !

I think this was partly the stimulus for the Allied development of the Polsten AA applications - a cheaper sort of Oerlikon I believe - as mounted on the Centaur and similar tank chassis.

As you probably know the Polsten was developed by escapee Poles Czechs at the Enfield gun works - well that was what it said on Wiki anyway (see below) - apparently they only finally got their act together in 44 although work started in 39/40 - so it seemed like an awfully long development period :-

Polsten - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cromwell]

Plethora of 15-37mm flak did made strafing runs difficult expensive, I agree with that.

As for German forces relaying on light Flak, that was the thing from day one. Eg. Germans deployed just under 10 000 (yep, under 10 thousands) of under-40mm weapons already in mid 1940. The number perhaps tripled to 1944, but many were deployed on Russian front at the time.

The Allies also captured a LOT of Italian Breda 20mm Cannon that were apparently very good.

Big Thank You to the Italians for so obligingly handing them over in such large numbers they could equip whole AA units, ships, armoured cars and so on.

Very thoughtful at such a difficult time in our history

"Gunner R.K. Bryant of 8th Battery, Australian 2/3 Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, with a Breda Model 35 gun at Derna, Libya, in March 1941." (taken from Wikipedia)

 

[Markus]

The Allies also captured a LOT of Italian Breda 20mm Cannon that were apparently very good.

Heavy AA-guns, tanks and AT-guns were also used against their former owners. The italian 90mm AA-guns were a match for the 88, the tanks were bett..., not worse than their english couterparts.

 

[tomo pauk]

Depends what British tanks are we talking about. Infantry tanks (Matilda, Valentina, Churchill) were far better then anything Italians fielded. But any tank that comes free is a good tank.

 

[vanir]

British Cruiser tanks were more useable in action but early models were inadequate compared to Panzer III and IV in the Desert. The Infantry tanks were too slow with poor mobility and were designed to be spread out among the troop formations as mobile pill-boxes rather than concentrated in classic tank warfare. The Churchill finally had good mobility on hard ground but was still slow (8mph cross country max, this is a bloody heavy tank designed for trench warfare and has about half the top speed at best, under any conditions of any Panzer ever built).
Cruiser tanks were preferred for tank warfare for these reasons, despite their shortcomings.

The Cromwell did much to bridge the gap between British and German tanks. It was a Cruiser type in the class of the Panzer III and IV where the Churchill was in the class of the Tiger with much less speed or mobility, less armour and a much lighter armament. The Panther though put superiority at least on paper back in German hands.

Italian tanks were predominantly tankettes based on the Carden-Lloyd and small numbers of 14-15 ton light tanks of prewar design. You could take them out with a heavy rifle. Even so, despite their light weight they still couldn't keep up with a Panzer for speed under any conditions, true enough they would not want to meet any British tank. I don't think they'd fare too well against a boy scout with an attitude and a Molitov.

But any tank that comes free is a good tank.

If we're talking Italian tanks, give me a good armoured car