Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net.

[parsifal]

Oh Dav, that is positively wicked

 

[Kryten]

would'nt hanging a pair of cannons in pods under the wings of a 109 have a rather detrimental effect on the aircrafts peformance and agility?
or were the 190 pilots who elected to remove the outer guns of thier aircraft misguided?

 

[davparlr]

P-51 is simply week, at best

There is no evidence that the P-51 armament was weak for the tasks they were confronted with. At the 1944 joint fighter conference, which included both Army and Naval aviators, there was the combined opinion that there was no need to change the 50 cals for 20 mms. If they had thought the armament was weak, you can bet they would stated that they needed more firepower. This is the opinion from pilots whose life depended on their weapons, not the opinion of internet bloggers. The P-51B only had four 50s in the wings and was a deadly aircraft which some pilots preferred over the six gun P-51D.

 

[Kryten]

I seem to recall the 20mm was chosen for the air to air arena for its ability to incapacitate bombers?
20mm should be the more effective weapon in the air to ground role due to he effects but in the air superiority role 6x .50 should have little trouble causing substantial damage to the light airframe of a fighter?

my own experiences with .50M2 are recalled with considerable respect for the damage it did to light armoured vehicles and buildings!

 

[ctrian]

You mean a heavy plane like the Ta-152H with 263 gallons of internal fuel? What were they thinking?

The P-51 was a light aircraft ? The Ta-152H should have been available when? in 1939 ? I don't see a point.The Bf had more than enough performance for all the missions given to it.If you want more range you have to sacrifice something .Not everyone was in love with ''Strategic''TM bombing.

 

[Lighthunmust]

The A-10 was mentioned and I think everyone should acknowledge it has never had to operate in highly contested airspace. I suspect if operated under the conditions that J-87 Stukas did it would suffer similar losses. Sure a great deal of the USAF reluctance to specialized ground attack types is due to bias against the type because it takes resources away for more glamourous fighters and bombers, but I have to believe it also is due to an understanding of the types vulnerability in contested airspace. During my service during the Cold War years I recall the general belief that the USSR was somewhat contemptuous of the U.S. Army but had a real fear of the USAF. The capability that created that fear would have definitely been needed to keep the A-10 from earning the same sitting duck reputation the J-87 has here in the West. I would also like to add that while the Sturmovik was a great aircraft the Luftwaffe fighters shot them down in droves, but of course the USSR could afford the losses due to huge amounts of manpower and large production numbers of Il-2s.

Ctrian I respect your right to your opinion but you are near one of the edges of the spectrum. When opinion differs so greatly from the majority, the opinion holder is either near the edge of foolishness or genius. You may be at the edge of genius but perhaps a little introspection is needed to determine if you are near the edge of foolishness.

 

[Lighthunmust]

I seem to recall the 20mm was chosen for the air to air arena for its ability to incapacitate bombers?
20mm should be the more effective weapon in the air to ground role due to he effects but in the air superiority role 6x .50 should have little trouble causing substantial damage to the light airframe of a fighter?

my own experiences with .50M2 are recalled with considerable respect for the damage it did to light armoured vehicles and buildings!

.... my personal experience also confirms they sure tear up things much more sturdy than WW2 fighters and bombers.

 

[ctrian]

The A-10 was mentioned and I think everyone should acknowledge it has never had to operate in highly contested airspace. I suspect if operated under the conditions that J-87 Stukas did it would suffer similar losses. Sure a great deal of the USAF reluctance to specialized ground attack types is due to bias against the type because it takes resources away for more glamourous fighters and bombers, but I have to believe it also is due to an understanding of the types vulnerability in contested airspace. During my service during the Cold War years I recall the general belief that the USSR was somewhat contemptuous of the U.S. Army but had a real fear of the USAF. The capability that created that fear would have definitely been needed to keep the A-10 from earning the same sitting duck reputation the J-87 has here in the West. I would also like to add that while the Sturmovik was a great aircraft the Luftwaffe fighters shot them down in droves, but of course the USSR could afford the losses due to huge amounts of manpower and large production numbers of Il-2s.

Ctrian I respect your right to your opinion but you are near one of the edges of the spectrum. When opinion differs so greatly from the majority, the opinion holder is either near the edge of foolishness or genius. You may be at the edge of genius but perhaps a little introspection is needed to determine if you are near the edge of foolishness.

Why don't you look at the development of the A-10 and the constant effort to denigrate it versus it's performance in the field.Take a look at Sprey and what he says abour USAF obsession with fighter-bombers.Aircraft need not only to survive but also to get things done.A surgical strike against a fuel depot ,a bridge or a tank unit may be more important in a war than keeping losses to zero point zerf course i'm not saying to turn craft into kamikazes simply that difficult missions will have heavy losses so you can't over generalize like you did about the Stuka.

 

[Mustang nut]

Why don't you look at the development of the A-10 and the constant effort to denigrate it versus it's performance in the field.Take a look at Sprey and what he says abour USAF obsession with fighter-bombers.Aircraft need not only to survive but also to get things done.A surgical strike against a fuel depot ,a bridge or a tank unit may be more important in a war than keeping losses to zero point zerf course i'm not saying to turn craft into kamikazes simply that difficult missions will have heavy losses so you can't over generalize like you did about the Stuka.

The Il 2 was not uniquely a dive bomber and frequently missed its target until better bomb sights and training were used. Its losses were huge but there were tolerated because it was operated by the Soviets who accepted losses. As a dive bomber Ju87s were incredibly vulnerable and in level flight they have no advantage over any other plane apart from lack of speed which is hardly an advantage anyway. There is nothing to stop a P 47 attacking at just above stalling speed apart from the pilots will to survive. The lancaster took out the Tirpitz so does it qualify as a fighter bomber?

 

[ctrian]

The Il 2 was not uniquely a dive bomber and frequently missed its target until better bomb sights and training were used. Its losses were huge but there were tolerated because it was operated by the Soviets who accepted losses. As a dive bomber Ju87s were incredibly vulnerable and in level flight they have no advantage over any other plane apart from lack of speed which is hardly an advantage anyway. There is nothing to stop a P 47 attacking at just above stalling speed apart from the pilots will to survive. The lancaster took out the Tirpitz so does it qualify as a fighter bomber?

After how many years did they manage to get it? How many sorties ? How many losses ? What did the tiny Stuka do to RN and Soviet ships ? Which one is the more economical choice?
P-47,P-51 and Fw190 were simply too fast to be effective ground attack aircraft just like A-10 is better in that function compared to F-16,F-15.

 

[Mustang nut]

After how many years did they manage to get it? How many sorties ? How many losses ? What did the tiny Stuka do to RN and Soviet ships ? Which one is the more economical choice?
P-47,P-51 and Fw190 were simply too fast to be effective ground attack aircraft just like A-10 is better in that function compared to F-16,F-15.

They actually got it twice but didnt realise, once it was out of the way a huge part of the RN could be re deployed so definitely worth the effort. Could a Ju87 have sunk the Tirpitz? How on earth can an aircraft be too fast? They all have throttles dont they. The P51 (in A36 variant) was fitted with air brakes and used as a dive bomber but was withdrawn due to heavy losses.

I now throw in the towel on this discussion, it is like discussing whether the earth is round or not.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Why don't you look at the development of the A-10 and the constant effort to denigrate it versus it's performance in the field.Take a look at Sprey and what he says abour USAF obsession with fighter-bombers.Aircraft need not only to survive but also to get things done.A surgical strike against a fuel depot ,a bridge or a tank unit may be more important in a war than keeping losses to zero point zerf course i'm not saying to turn craft into kamikazes simply that difficult missions will have heavy losses so you can't over generalize like you did about the Stuka.

I am fairly familiar with A-10 development from the beginning from my reading about it in Aviation Week when I was a teenager and seeing it perform while in the Army. Many of them are based 90 miles from me. I am also aware of the USAF attempt before the 1990-91 Gulf War to replace it with modified F-16s. Only the A-10s performance in poorly contested airspace (just like the early battles for the Stuka) probably saved all of them from storage at the boneyard about 90 miles southeast of where I am sitting. In addition to the Ju-87 being on the wrong side of history as soon as it faced a credible air defense, the Il-10 in Korea was quickly shown to be a turkey when facing U.N. fighters, and the Su-25 like the A-10 has also never operated in contested airspace.

 

[Shortround6]

The P-51 was a light aircraft ? The Ta-152H should have been available when? in 1939 ? I don't see a point.The Bf had more than enough performance for all the missions given to it.If you want more range you have to sacrifice something .Not everyone was in love with ''Strategic''TM bombing.

Ah, I see, the BoB and the Blitz was all tactical bombing. They were just hitting all those aircraft factories, docks and transportation centers by mistake while trying to take out the British troops that escaped from Dunkirk.

 

[ctrian]

Yep that's the exact feelings of the USAF .Any aircraft tainted with army support is wasted money and will ''obviously'' be blown out of the sky by....someone.I won't go through the same argument ,if the enemy has crippling air superiority all aircraft will suffer even the fastest most agile fighter.If this isn't the case the Stuka had low losses compared to sorties JUST like the Allied bombers.Never heard that the B-17 ,Lanc and B-24 were blown out of the sky or that they should be replaced though...

@Shortround6:I have no idea what you're trying to say .The LW was not built with ''Strategic''TM bombing in mind.

 

[Shortround6]

@Shortround6:I have no idea what you're trying to say .The LW was not built with ''Strategic''TM bombing in mind.

Read it again, it is sarcasm. The Luftwaffe may not have been built with long range strategic bombing in mind, but terror bombing cities like Rotterdam, bombing London docks, mining coastal waters and bombing aircraft factories and cities in England were not tactical bombing. The He 111 was not a tactical bomber. The Ju 52 and the Ju 86 were not tactical bombers although they could be used against a tactical target. Same with the Do 17. a single forward firing 7.9mm mg with a 75 round saddle drum is a pretty pathetic gun armament for a "tactical" aircraft.

 

[ctrian]

The He-111 and the Ju-88 were good enough provided they had fighter cover.I still don't see what your point is.The LW was always used in conjunction with the army.The one time they tried to go solo they failed for the same reason the allied bomber offensive (and any kind of ''strategic''TM ) failed .

 

[Readie]

Read it again, it is sarcasm. The Luftwaffe may not have been built with long range strategic bombing in mind, but terror bombing cities like Rotterdam, bombing London docks, mining coastal waters and bombing aircraft factories and cities in England were not tactical bombing. The He 111 was not a tactical bomber. The Ju 52 and the Ju 86 were not tactical bombers although they could be used against a tactical target. Same with the Do 17. a single forward firing 7.9mm mg with a 75 round saddle drum is a pretty pathetic gun armament for a "tactical" aircraft.

The Stuka was a one trick pony. Quite good at its one trick admittely but, limited to what it can do at the end of the day.
The 'Tatics' the Germans had in the early part of WW2 was 'blitzkreig' as far as I understand it. The aircraft were all designed around that concept.
There was no Lancaster or Flying Fortress.
The only long range weapon that the Germans planned was the U boat.
That weapon alone caused Britain no end of grief and nearly defeated us.
Cheers
John

 

[Lighthunmust]

Read it again, it is sarcasm. The Luftwaffe may not have been built with long range strategic bombing in mind, but terror bombing cities like Rotterdam, bombing London docks, mining coastal waters and bombing aircraft factories and cities in England were not tactical bombing. The He 111 was not a tactical bomber. The Ju 52 and the Ju 86 were not tactical bombers although they could be used against a tactical target. Same with the Do 17. a single forward firing 7.9mm mg with a 75 round saddle drum is a pretty pathetic gun armament for a "tactical" aircraft.

I would like to add that the B-17 and B-24 were essentially "tactical bombers" on occasion in Normandy. In fact the B-17 had as part of its original mission coastal defense bombing, I believe versions through E actually had the capability to carry bombs on the wings.

 

[Gnomey]

Right ladies, I've pretty much seen enough. So un-twist your knickers and put the handbags away before I bring my hammer to the party.

People have differing opinions and some are obviously going to be different to yours and some of course will be so absurd as to be unbelievable and the full range have been shown in this thread and varying points. So I don't feel the need to express mine.

Either you share the sandpit like nice young children or the sandpit is taking away, rather simple isn't it...

 

[Juha]

Hello Ctrian
Quote: " Why would the LW need that range when it had airfields everywhere?"

For ex for attacks against Allied convoys in Med. If there were Allied fighters around unescorted LW bombers tended to suffer losses. LW reply was to try to attack at dusk but when on 26 Nov 43 fighters had loitered around later than usually, they shot down 6 out of 20 attacking He 177s, surely LW would have had use for an effective escort fighter. Saying nothing when they needed to attck North Africa ports, especially after May 43.

Quote:" So many posts so little reason I can't answer each individually so I'll just say again :"

I have a copy of Gooderson's book, so what? Maybe you don't understand that it was much easier for pilots to hit tanks in open spaces of Ukraine than in more closed country. When German tanks were caught in fairly open area as the 112 PzBrig was at Dompaire, fighter bombers could be rather effective against tanks, as all participants of the combat at Dompaire testified. On the other hand during the big battles on Summer 44 in Karelian Isthmus appr 400 Il-2s didn't succeed to destroy even one Finnish AFV and according to Soviet info but contrary to LW claims and Finnish opinion during these battles the ability of Ju 87s of I./SG 3 or Fw 190s of 1./SG 5 to destroy Soviet AFVs was very limited. The terrain is rather closed there.


Hello Tante Ju
the Finnish experience was that in practice the max flight time of Bf 109G without a drop tank was 1,5 hours and with a 300l drop tank over 2h. Combat sorties were usually 1h long. Reason for that was that at most economic speed sparking plugs began to collect carbon and exhaust gases "flooded" into cockpit. Finns definitely thought that Bf 109G was a rather short range fighter. If Bf 109F's/G's range was so good why LW didn't utilize that in Med but allowed their unescorted bombers took losses and then, because of that, switched to more inaccurate night attacks in Med and in the East, for ex during 43 attacks on Soviet a/c industry. n fact LW really had a need for long range escort fighter, as least a fighter that would have been capable to escort He 111s as far as they could deliver useful bomb loads.

On Hispano, 4 Hispanos was more than enough against even biggest LW bombers, He177 or Do 217, so RAF had no reason to go to bigger guns. That was shown many times.
I agree with LW armament from 109G-5 onwards, MG 151/20 was a very good gun, personally I liked the armament of 190D-9, 2xMG 131s and 2xMg 151/20s well concentrated.
On P-51 , its armament was clearly enough against fighters, its combat history proves that. And it was perfectly capable to dispatch He 111s or Ju 88s.

On fighter-bombers, in fact pilots of FB units had trained for their trade and according to Finnish tests, even pure good fighter pilots learned very fast to drop their bombs accurately. Il-2 was an another solution to CAS problem, it had its pros and cons, it was more vulnerable to enemy fighters but less vulnerable to AAA and totally invulnerable to rifle calibre weapons.

You might take a little time to think why German offensive in Ardennes in Dec 44 was timed for a long period of bad weather. That would have been illogical if Allied CAS was so ineffective that you and Ctrian seemed to think.

Juha