The ETO's finest single engined ground attack aircraft

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Trackend:

Surely you understand that an assertion that more fighter-bombers were lost than tanks would not just be "revisionist history to an extent" but a wholesale rewrite. Could it be true? I doubt it but I can not say for sure. That's why I asked Udet, "Do you have any reliable source that supports this claim?" and "Please elaborate further on this issue."

How is it that I have committed some foul because I have serious reservations about Udet's claim that more fighter-bombers than tanks were destroyed in combat betwen the two? I would think that most everyone interested in this topic would like to know what evidence Udet is relying on and I for one happen to enjoy the back and forth peppered with supporting evidence.

Finally, many of my replies have questions within them too for the same reasons yours do.
 
The only revisionist ones in the neighborhood are the allies (victors).

On several issues of WWII, those who had put the truth head over heels had been the victorious guys, and not the defeated ones, much less this creature known as Udet.

I already cited my fundamental source to substantiate the fact ground-attack missions conducted by the RAF and USAAF over Normandy were even more dangerous for the aerial attackers than they were to the panzers themselves: Niklas Zetterling.

Please bother to do a web search and I do think you might find information on Mr. Zetterling´s researches.

Same source also analysed non-guided rockets fired from allied fighters were as unaccurate as a drunk driver trying to get his car out of the parking lot, and that a minimun number of panzers and self-propelled artillery got ever hit by that specific weapon.


Finally, the 2 main Luftwaffe units in France during 1944, were JG 2 and JG 26: (i) search for the claims lists of both Geschwaderen. Write the number down. (ii) search for loss lists of RAF fighter squadrons opearing over Normandy. Write it down.

You might find the exercise real helpful.
 
No I didn't understand Dave I know this may shock you but not everybody gets the same education in this world. You are quite right. As I say I am not a very well educated man I have zero educational qualifications I never went beyond secondary school age (15) and having looked up the literal meaning of the word I am definitely incorrect, I took it to mean the same as reviewing what information is available on a subject not altering it. Does that make any sort of sense ?
 
Udet:

That "exercise" did not substantiate your claim that, "Furthermore, it would surprise you to know, it was the aerial attackers who took the biggest casualies, when they were greeted by flak batteries and ground fire from panzergrenadieren of the panzer divisions across Normandy. So instead of panzers, more Allied ground attack planes died during such attacks."

I am now convinced that the allied air to ground attacks were not nearly as effective as the published reports I had read but that is not the claim you are asserting above.

Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps I have missed something in your prescribed search and write exercise.

Or, perhaps your claim is not supported by the evidence it is anchored in. At present, the latter appears to be the case.
 

David, one has to ask why did the Germans camoflage and move their vehicles at night if Allied a2g was not effective? The lines of destroyed support vehicles, as opposed to AFVs, that lined the roads of France support that the Allied a2g was effective. The number of abadonned AFVs (see the report I linked to) further support the effectivness as supplies of ammo and fuel were not reaching the AFVs.
 
Trackend,

I am under the impression that you feel that I have attacked you and that this attack involved denigrating you for your education or lack thereof. I am at a loss as to how any such impression could have been conveyed. (Have I misunderstood your post?)

At any rate, you asked, "Does that make any sort of sense?"

Frankly, no.


Krazikanuk,

Interesting. There could be other reasons for the camoflage and night movement though. I'm curious if I missed something that supports Udet's assertion.
 
OK Dave I will put it simply when you say Surely you understand that comes over as sarcasm in other words I understand so you should too. its probably to do with the pond so I shall leave it at that as it is not really relevant to this topic
 
I see your point now. I guess that on this side of the pond it doesn't have the same acidity. However, I apologize just the same.
 
Indeed.

German armored and mechanized columns in Normandy became true masters in the art of camouflage and in coordinating themselves with scouts which would spot enemy planes approaching.

In daylight, when they had to move, they would usually get full advantage of tree lines, small forests and thickets or of anything that would be utilized to immediately bank off the road and hide whenever enemy aircraft were spotted.

From some accounts, German mechanized units became such masters of hidng from air attack, a long line of vehicles on a given road, would bank away and "dissapear" from air view in an extremely short period of time.

Many times, indeed, they moved during the night.

But when they got caught by enemy planes, they greeted the aerial attackers with all guns blazing: from personal weapons to flak batteries attached to the units spitted lead.

The point is, the Germans did not become masters of camouflage and of hiding in Normandy because they would had any kind of "sound awareness" non-guided rockets would destroy them.

They would not wait to discover either if rockets were accurate or even what kind of weapons the planes were fitted with: those allied jabos could straf them with their guns/cannons, and straffing my dear gentlemen, was far more accurate than non-guided rockets.

So that they used heavy camouflage and that they hid was not the consequence of "accurate" air attack. It was rather the simple logic of war of seeking cover when under attack.

Panzer units were forced to implement such measures and still the allied pilots claimed wildly.
 
David,

Interesting. There could be other reasons for the camoflage and night movement though. I'm curious if I missed something that supports Udet's assertion.[/quote]

The major reason was the continual attacks on anything moving on the roads behind the German lines.

Naturally they would have camo in ambush positions when on the line but the leaves on the tree branchs don't stay green very long so the travel camo would have to be replaced.
 
I just meant that movement at night, for instance, can have other advantages as well. Movement under cloak of night can literally keep the enemy "in the dark" as to force strength and direction of movement.

You said, "The major reason was the continual attacks on anything moving on the roads behind the German lines."

That was always my understanding as well.
 
well we were flying constantly over the normady area, even at night, whatever the enemy did we were gonna see them and find out what they're doing..........
 
Lanc,

At night, a pilot can only discern that which available light from the moon and stars will provide and weather will allow which often isn't a hell of a lot.
 
The Topic was:

Which country fielded the best single engined ground attack plane* (that saw at least 6 months of significant combat before the end of the war) and what was that plane?

*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder.
----------

You are nominating a Stuka?
 
So, in your learned opinion, no better aircraft used in a ground attack role saw at least 6 mos. of combat service during the entire war?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Could a single engined, single seat fighter be made for the Lycomings xr-7755?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GrauGeist
A
Heaviest armed Japanese single seat, single engine fighter?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
MIflyer
M
1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
8K
Admiral Beez
A
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
yulzari
"Super" A-36 for CAS/ground attack and tactical recon.
Replies
14
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register