AnchorSteam wrote: ↑
24 Feb 2021 05:52
Which is 5 different from the number I used.... and YOU
are the one talking about "insignificant numbers?
We are talking September 1938.
right back atcha.
And then were transfered back into combat again. Even the Wiki article mentioned that.
Sorry, but no, they weren't, you seem to be having trouble following the sequence of events.
1. Peak numbers in operational service was September 1938, a year before the war began.
2. All were relegated to the schools, except for 40 remaining with the Schlacht Lehrgruppen in October 1938.
3. The single Gruppe, with 40-50 aircraft was all that was operational, until August 1940, when they turned in their Hs 123 for Bf 109.
4. The remaining Hs 123, an average of about 27, remained operational, with the Fligerkorps VIII liaison Staffel and then with 10.(Sch)/LG 1, which operated until January 1941 when they went out of service entirely.
5. It was brought into operational service again in January 1942, to fill up the new II./SchG 1, until it received its Hs 129, but then given the problems with that aircraft they remained around as filler, with the units changing designation, until they were withdrawn from service again in May 1944. During this period of 28 months, all of about 10-18 aircraft were operational at any one time.
6. It was brought back for a swan song in November 1944, again in small numbers,
To recap, the maximum number on hand after October 1938 was 50. The average number operational was probably around two dozen - if that.
If it all suddenly irritates you so much, why keep posting in the thread?
No, believe me, no suddenly about it, but still wondering what Tiger tanks and armored cars have to do with the insignificant numbers of Hs 123 aircraft that fought in the war?
1- I was asking about weapons upgrades, and while Andrew posted some good stuff, i don't feel like paying 10 Euros to see it.
Okay, short version, there were no "weapons upgrades". I suspect the business about 2cm guns is speculation.
2- Having been in Combat Arms myself, right up front, I thought the point about an aircraft that can stick around would have been obvious, but I'll explain it in more detail;
Normal airstrikes (including FW-190) are like "Zoooooom.... BOOM.... gone!" And if they missed, that's too bad, wait for the next go-round.
If you can get them.
Planes like the Hs.129 (and this is why I compared it to Helicopter Gunships earlier) can come in for a pass, fade back and do lazy-eights over Regiment HQ for a while where they can be called back in at a moment's notice, zap 'em again and pull back, and do it over and over because they fly so low the enemy won't see them coming until it's too late. And again, and again if need be.
If that isn't clear enough, can I get a fellow veteran to explain it better?
Oh, gee, thank you for your service, me I just spent my last seven years working for the government as an analyst, but do I need to explain what an argumentum ad verecundiam is? What your experience in Iraq or Afghanistan was is irrelevant to the capabilities of the Hs 123 and Hs 129, nearly 80 years ago. The Hs 123 and Hs 129 were emphatically not like "Helicopter Gunships".
Did you miss the short legs? Loiter is only as long as the fuel holds out...and it doesn't exactly have a robust ammo load either. With an effective combat radius of about 160 kilometers and its speed, its got about an hour in the air, there and back again. You could of course replace the center line load with a drop tank, but then you have a machine gun platform with a couple of 50KG bombs. Not very cost effective.
Over 800 built and only one unit used it? Was it a German/Hungarian/Romanian unit?
The German unit was II./SchG1 which later became II./SG2 and then later still IV./SG9. They were employed entirely on the Ostfront, except for 5./SchG 1, which was in Tunis from 29 November 1942 until May 1943. It was redesignated as 8./SchG 2 in December 1942. Romania received a number of A-0 aircraft and possibly some others, while Hungary got four B-1 in August 1943 for evaluation, one of which crashed immediately, after which they returned them to the Luftwaffe. That tells you something about the problems with the aircraft...famously it has been said that its loss rate may have exceeded its production rate.
I like it because the French engines made it very cheap and harder to damage than liquid cooled engines, the forward-mounted cockpit and the fully armored cockpit, plus the options of 30mm or 75mm cannon.
It reminds me of the A-10, so I looked up the development of THAT aircraft;
The French engines also left it seriously under powered, while sabotage at Gnome-Rhone left many of the engines as time bombs...and it could not fly on a single engine. The 7.5cm version was almost uncontrollable in flight.
Please don't try to make it seem like I don't know what I am talking about, I have had to call for air support while under fire. It left me with some very firm opinions on this subject.
That's fine, and again thank you for your service, but your experience with modern CAS has essentially zero to do with the German employment of such aircraft. The Hs 129 might remind you of an A-10, but then that is the problem, because the Hs 129 was nothing like an A-10.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018