Luftwaffe's Sturmoviks
-
- Member
- Posts: 189
- Joined: 25 Nov 2004, 21:07
- Location: Folkestone England
Relpy To Huck
Hello Huck.
As you say, only 2 planes were purpose designed for ground attack. To me this shows that the purpose built ground attack aircraft was not worth the investment.
The Russians seem to think diffrently, but then they did not go for strategic bombing and seemed to use aircraft as a battle field weapon.
I agree the FW190 was not the best ground attack, but it was a lot faster than the 129 and was therefore better at the hit and run tatic. The 190 could also be heavily aroured, for example the bomber detroyer version was very well protected. It also had an air cooled engine.
The JU87 again was more versitile and had a longer range.
I agree that Air supiriority is required for specilised ground attack aircraft to survive. However, multirole aircraft can use the hit and run tatic. Helicopters can hide behind hills and easily land on the battle field, so they are a bit different.
The modern airforces seem to be going the way of the muli role aircraft. The US still has its A10, but this is getting old and I do not think they have a replacement in design ( I may be wrong here).
In the second word war the WESTERN allies relegated air craft types to ground attack, once they were not competative. For example Typhoon, Huricane and P47. However, current fighters like the mustang and spitfire were still fitted with bombs.
Funny that both JU87 and Typhoon had ruddy great radiators in the nose and yet they seemed to survive.
So my view is that multi role aircraft are the way to go, unless you have such resourses to ensure that you own the air space over the battle field when ever you want to operate.
David
As you say, only 2 planes were purpose designed for ground attack. To me this shows that the purpose built ground attack aircraft was not worth the investment.
The Russians seem to think diffrently, but then they did not go for strategic bombing and seemed to use aircraft as a battle field weapon.
I agree the FW190 was not the best ground attack, but it was a lot faster than the 129 and was therefore better at the hit and run tatic. The 190 could also be heavily aroured, for example the bomber detroyer version was very well protected. It also had an air cooled engine.
The JU87 again was more versitile and had a longer range.
I agree that Air supiriority is required for specilised ground attack aircraft to survive. However, multirole aircraft can use the hit and run tatic. Helicopters can hide behind hills and easily land on the battle field, so they are a bit different.
The modern airforces seem to be going the way of the muli role aircraft. The US still has its A10, but this is getting old and I do not think they have a replacement in design ( I may be wrong here).
In the second word war the WESTERN allies relegated air craft types to ground attack, once they were not competative. For example Typhoon, Huricane and P47. However, current fighters like the mustang and spitfire were still fitted with bombs.
Funny that both JU87 and Typhoon had ruddy great radiators in the nose and yet they seemed to survive.
So my view is that multi role aircraft are the way to go, unless you have such resourses to ensure that you own the air space over the battle field when ever you want to operate.
David
Re: Stormovik
The Armor of the Il-2 was not that good placed as well as it was quite easy to destroy it's tail (no armor protection or at least much less)Huck wrote: Fw-190F&G, despite its wide array of weapons, never made a complete attack plane. Fw-190F&G came out of necessity, because they could operate without having air superiority but they were nowhere as effective. Ju-87 became a decent attack plane, despite being designed as a dive bomber - however, armor protection was just an afterthought and despite a heavy armor additions, almost as heavy as that of Il-2, it was not that well placed (it was very well protected in comparison with other planes though). Only Il-2 and Hs-129 were designed with ground attack in mind from the beginning, and they remained the best designed ww2 planes for this role.
Oh and Erich i cannot agree more with you!
Actually I could think of an occasion with 15-16 sorties per day made by each pilot in the 8th Assault Group in November 1943, during the desperate effort to save the remains of the 24th Infantry Division retreating to Crimea.Huck wrote: Hs-129 was an extremely rugged, reliable plane. As I said before, there were days in which ARR made over 10 sorties per day with these planes.
-
- Member
- Posts: 194
- Joined: 28 Sep 2004, 13:23
- Location: Sydney, Australia
-
- Member
- Posts: 189
- Joined: 25 Nov 2004, 21:07
- Location: Folkestone England
He129
Hello
I think only 850 odd He129'S were built and production ended in September 1944. Considering the number of tanks the russians had, I am surprised that production was not increased to cope with the demand for tank destroyers. To me this would indicate that the He129 was not considered a battle winner.
I also read that its engines were not very reliable and that pilot view was poor. I am afraid that I see the FW190 as the better option.
Regarding Huck's question about the total IL2 kills. I wonder how the total number of russian claims compare with the german tank production figers. If you could work out the number of tanks and assult guns commited to Russia by Germany, and compare it with russian kill clams, you could get a de-rating factor for russian kills. Or Not !
One of my books says that Germany made a total of 40,000 tanks and assult guns during ww2. This includes Pz1 amd 2. I think the russians claimed about 11,000 tanks and assult guns detroyed in 1945 alone, which seems rather high. The number of real IL2 tank kills may be quite low, BUT I bet they detroyed a hell of a lot of trucks and the like.
I know I am playing with figuers and that the numbers I am using may be inaccurate (depending on the books i get them from), but it is interesting. Does anyone know the IL2 kill claims ???
David
I think only 850 odd He129'S were built and production ended in September 1944. Considering the number of tanks the russians had, I am surprised that production was not increased to cope with the demand for tank destroyers. To me this would indicate that the He129 was not considered a battle winner.
I also read that its engines were not very reliable and that pilot view was poor. I am afraid that I see the FW190 as the better option.
Regarding Huck's question about the total IL2 kills. I wonder how the total number of russian claims compare with the german tank production figers. If you could work out the number of tanks and assult guns commited to Russia by Germany, and compare it with russian kill clams, you could get a de-rating factor for russian kills. Or Not !
One of my books says that Germany made a total of 40,000 tanks and assult guns during ww2. This includes Pz1 amd 2. I think the russians claimed about 11,000 tanks and assult guns detroyed in 1945 alone, which seems rather high. The number of real IL2 tank kills may be quite low, BUT I bet they detroyed a hell of a lot of trucks and the like.
I know I am playing with figuers and that the numbers I am using may be inaccurate (depending on the books i get them from), but it is interesting. Does anyone know the IL2 kill claims ???
David
Re: Stormovik
I'm definitelly interested, if you have the time to dig for it please do. Thanks.RoW wrote: Only few Soviet Il-2 pilots completed more than 300 missions. The largest number I know had Ivan Petrovich Fonaryov from 504th ShAP (74th Guards) ShAP - 354 missions. My favorite post-Soviet memoirs of Il-2 pilot was written by Talgat Begeldinov from 144th Guards ShAP, Kazakh, who completed 305 missions during short period as compared with other pilots - from February, 1943. The only list of top Il-2 pilot in English I found is http://www.wio.ru/aces/aceb2.htm , but it's very incomplete and has many mistakes.
If you are SO interested in official Soviet results of Il-2, I'll try to adduce this data...
Re: Relpy To Huck
david Cotton wrote: Hello Huck.
As you say, only 2 planes were purpose designed for ground attack. To me this shows that the purpose built ground attack aircraft was not worth the investment.
Sorry, my mistake. There were plenty of planes designed from the beginning for ground attack. However, from all those, only Hs-129 and Il-2 used extensive armor, almost all around. Hs-129 and Il-2 were the only planes that could claim that pilot, engine, fuel tanks and ammo (Hs-129 only) were protected against small caliber guns fire (the next one would be Ju-87, but at some distance).
Fw-190 was much better at running than at hitting (something on the ground, that is). Ground attack requires that you actually hit the enemy and hit him hard, not only come to the battlefield, then disappear in a split second. When a squadron of Hs-129 found a platoon of T-34, pilots loitered until they hit them all, , most of time all spotted tanks without air cover were destroyed. In areas were Hs-129 was active the Soviets considered the threat so big that the tank crews received training for firing the main gun!!! as antiaircraft weapon (the small firearms could scare other pilots planes but not those flying Hs-129). Some Hs-129 were lost to main tank guns!!david Cotton wrote: I agree the FW190 was not the best ground attack, but it was a lot faster than the 129 and was therefore better at the hit and run tatic.
This kind of fight was not in Fw-190's league. Rudel flew a while the Fw-190D but he felt that he lost in effectivness (nevertheless Rudel got during this period 9 aircraft kills, despite that he did not have fighter combat training, which shows that Fw-190 did much better what it was designed for, which was shooting down planes).
david Cotton wrote: I agree that Air supiriority is required for specilised ground attack aircraft to survive. However, multirole aircraft can use the hit and run tatic. Helicopters can hide behind hills and easily land on the battle field, so they are a bit different.
The modern airforces seem to be going the way of the muli role aircraft. The US still has its A10, but this is getting old and I do not think they have a replacement in design ( I may be wrong here).
Attack helicopters are the replacements for A10. As you can see the ability to fly very low is more important that the ability to fly very fast when it comes to ground attack. Also the ability to operate close to the battlefield is/was very important. Planes like Hs-129, Ju-87 and Il-2 could take off loaded in rough fields, they simply did not need runaways (they were almost as flexible as helicopters). Fighters like Fw-190 or P-47 were nowhere as flexible.
The real multirole planes during ww2 were the light and medium twin engine bombers. They proved very versatile.david Cotton wrote: So my view is that multi role aircraft are the way to go, unless you have such resourses to ensure that you own the air space over the battle field when ever you want to operate.
David
Re: Stormovik
Il-2 half of the wings and tail were in wood, however some of the structure was metallic even in the wooden part. For instance metal spars were used for the whole wing span.Ome_Joop wrote: The Armor of the Il-2 was not that good placed as well as it was quite easy to destroy it's tail (no armor protection or at least much less)
Besides, any plane can be lost once the controls are cut. For these armored planes it took considerably more hits to achieve this.
The more the merrierVictor wrote:Actually I could think of an occasion with 15-16 sorties per day made by each pilot in the 8th Assault Group in November 1943, during the desperate effort to save the remains of the 24th Infantry Division retreating to Crimea.Huck wrote: Hs-129 was an extremely rugged, reliable plane. As I said before, there were days in which ARR made over 10 sorties per day with these planes.
Of course, Hs-129 unreliability is just a myth.
I stand by my comments as the F and G were excellent arms platforms of the Fw 190. the rockets did incredible damge to Soviet armor. The Hs 129 and Ju 87G was a specialized tank buster and were needed on the east front. Both the latter had very little protection from soviet mid range a/c and this is where the Fw 190 could support itself. The hs 129 fell prey mostly to Soviet triple Fla but also to Soviet fighters according to martin Peggs excellent work.
The number of Hs-129s lost to fighters was much smaller than the one lost to the Soviet AAA, at least by the Romanian 8th Assault Group. All memories of Romanian Hs-129 pilots mention the "terrible Soviet light AAA". I know only few cases of Hs-129s actually shot down by VVS fighters. I suppose the same can be said about Luftwafe Hs-129s.Erich wrote:The hs 129 fell prey mostly to Soviet triple Fla but also to Soviet fighters according to martin Peggs excellent work.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 05:31
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: Relpy To Huck
Actually, the replacement for the A-10 is the A-10 - it is having its systems upgraded and is expected to remain in service for several decades.Huck wrote:david Cotton wrote: The modern airforces seem to be going the way of the muli role aircraft. The US still has its A10, but this is getting old and I do not think they have a replacement in design ( I may be wrong here).
Attack helicopters are the replacements for A10. As you can see the ability to fly very low is more important that the ability to fly very fast when it comes to ground attack. Also the ability to operate close to the battlefield is/was very important.david Cotton wrote: So my view is that multi role aircraft are the way to go, unless you have such resourses to ensure that you own the air space over the battle field when ever you want to operate.
David
Compared with a helo, it has far better range, speed and payload, and is tougher. It also needs less pampering; in recent conflicts it has maintained several times the sortie rate of the attack helos.
Compared with a multi-role plane, it is far more survivable and a more stable weapons platform. Despite the protests of the US Army (which loves the A-10) the USAF has wanted to get rid of the A-10 for years - they prefer multi-role planes as it gives them more flexibility. But the specially-equipped 'A-16' they produced in small numbers and tried in Iraq 1991 was a failure. So they've finally admitted that nothing else can do the A-10's job.
When the A-10 is eventually replaced, it will almost certainly be by a UCAV.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
-
- Member
- Posts: 189
- Joined: 25 Nov 2004, 21:07
- Location: Folkestone England
He129
Hello everyone,
Been doing some digging throught me airplane books on the He129. Found an interesting bit in a book on the Luftwaffe in the North African Campaign.
An oblt Oswald of 8/(Pz) SchG 2 was awarded the knights cross after 50 kills and 300 missions in the He129. The book also say that the He129 was known as a the flying can opener to the troops and pilots. It also indicates that the He129 was held in high regard and the units performed well.
Another of my books praises the armour and hitting power of the He129. However, it says the engines were French and not that reliable. However, ofther members have provided information that shows a high number or sorties per plane, indicating good reliability. My guess is that reliability was possible if spares were available. As the He129 had a rare engine (rare compared with an Fw190) then i would suspect spares were harder to get and reliability suffered.
I agree that the evidance indicates that the He129 did its job well. However, the fact that it was phased out indicates that it was not considered to be worth the investment.
Regarding the modern equivalent, the A10, i do not consider it as battle tested yet against a wothy oponent yet. The USA is probably the only country that can aford to finance a aircraft with such a limited roll. I would suggest that the safest way to kill tanks now is with standoff weapons, so you do not have to fly into a wall of flak and stinger missiles.
David
Been doing some digging throught me airplane books on the He129. Found an interesting bit in a book on the Luftwaffe in the North African Campaign.
An oblt Oswald of 8/(Pz) SchG 2 was awarded the knights cross after 50 kills and 300 missions in the He129. The book also say that the He129 was known as a the flying can opener to the troops and pilots. It also indicates that the He129 was held in high regard and the units performed well.
Another of my books praises the armour and hitting power of the He129. However, it says the engines were French and not that reliable. However, ofther members have provided information that shows a high number or sorties per plane, indicating good reliability. My guess is that reliability was possible if spares were available. As the He129 had a rare engine (rare compared with an Fw190) then i would suspect spares were harder to get and reliability suffered.
I agree that the evidance indicates that the He129 did its job well. However, the fact that it was phased out indicates that it was not considered to be worth the investment.
Regarding the modern equivalent, the A10, i do not consider it as battle tested yet against a wothy oponent yet. The USA is probably the only country that can aford to finance a aircraft with such a limited roll. I would suggest that the safest way to kill tanks now is with standoff weapons, so you do not have to fly into a wall of flak and stinger missiles.
David