parsifal
Colonel
Oh Dav, that is positively wicked
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
P-51 is simply week, at best
You mean a heavy plane like the Ta-152H with 263 gallons of internal fuel? What were they thinking?
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
@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.
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.