Visitor
(12/20/01 9:15:11 pm)
Reply Hs-129 versus Ju-87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did the Germans kept on building the Stuka when they had the excellent Hs-129B as CAS airplane. Why didn't they concentrate more on this airplane?
stammfuhrer
Visitor
(12/21/01 12:08:29 am)
Reply Hs129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite being a promising machine there were a number of problems with the design which have been written about. The reliability problems of the Gnome-Rhone engine as used on the Hs 129 was one of the Achilles heel's of this type. It had a "disconcerting tendancy to seize without warning" {W.Green - Warplanes of the Third reich} and was very sensitive to dust and sand. Indeed 4/Sch.G.2 formed in Poland with 12 aircraft was most unsuccessful. They transferred to N.Africa on 10 November 1942, lost 4 aircraft enroute and only 4 proved servicable on arrival. 2 of those were lost behind allied lines due to mechanical failure and the remainder were withdrawn to Tripoli for major repairs, later being destroyed on the approach of the 8th Army before work was completed! It is also noted that pilots found the Ju87 more manouverable and with its unreliable engine it was not well liked. It was only 20 mph faster than the Ju design in any case. The poor show of the early operations did not however stop the Luftwaffes plans to equip further units with the type which was produced in numbers until September 1944 when it was cancelled. By end of 42 219 units had been delivered and 414 produced in 1943, half the amount planned due to production line difficulties and ancillary component supply problems. A further 225 were produced leading to a total of 859 machines including prototypes. The 5 Hs129 staffeln used on the russian front performed reasonably to break up russian tank formations etc and servicability did improve but in periods of extreme cold the large calibre guns had problems. Also by June 1944 petrol problems began to curtail operations. There are many arguments for and against different aircraft of course! The Oberkommando of the Luftwaffe could be said to be the failure of the design due to their lack of foresight on matters related to the ground attack role vs armour and their short sightedness led to the Hs 129 not being introduced on a really large scale. It certainly seems to have deserved more attention.
Scott Smith 01
Veteran Member
Posts: 1119
(12/21/01 12:09:58 am)
Reply
Re: Hs-129 versus Ju-87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ju 87 "Stuka" worked great. It was a stable airframe and a good weapons-delivery platform. The only reason that it needed replaced was because it was so slow that it was vulnerable to enemy fighters and could only be operated in climates of local German aerial supremacy, which Germans seldom enjoyed even on the Russian front after 1943. The Ju 87 also lacked adequate armor and could have used more payload.
The Ju 87 was replaced by the fighter-bomber version of the FW 190, the main problem being lack of machines, fuel and skilled pilots.
The Hs 129 was promising but was still being developed, in spite of the numbers being built. It's main problem was engine reliability and power with its French engines. The twin-engined Hs 129, was not as fast as enemy fighters and was unable to engage them and therefore needed German aerial support. Any way you look at it, close ground-support is a challenge for a pilot’s skills in flying, shooting and bombing.
Edited by: Scott Smith 01 at: 12/21/01 9:05:27 pm
godolfo
Visitor
(12/21/01 1:31:30 pm)
Reply JU 87/Hs 129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Stuka used a German engine - the Hs 129 was dependent on deliveries fron occupied France - do you
need a better reason?
Ovidius
Veteran Member
Posts: 870
(12/21/01 9:19:36 pm)
Reply
Re: Hs129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<It is also noted that pilots found the Ju87 more manouverable and with its unreliable engine it was not well liked. >>
I assume you are speaking about the engines of the Hs-129, the Jumo engine of the Ju-87 was a reliable design.
~Ovidius
Victor Nitu
Visitor
(12/21/01 9:22:03 pm)
Reply Gnome Rhone engines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Stuka used a German engine - the Hs 129 was dependent on deliveries fron occupied France - do you
need a better reason? "
And France was then an independent state which could have halted any exports to Germany? Is that your reason?
Victor Nitu
Visitor
(12/21/01 9:26:47 pm)
Reply The Hs 129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ARR also had an Hs-129 equipped group (the 8th Assault Group). The pilots loved theairplane and I found many testimonies about its maneuverablity compared to other airplanes of its category. It was heavily armoured and armed (2x13.2 mm and 2x20 mm for the B2) and could as well shoot down other aircraft (this happened). Fromwhat I read these machines, in the hands of good pilots were simply butchers. The only real enemy was the light and medium AAA, because of the low altitude they operated (sometimes under 50 m). Fighters rarely ventured that low.
Ovidius
Veteran Member
Posts: 871
(12/21/01 9:27:56 pm)
Reply
Re: Hs-129 versus Ju-87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The Ju 87 "Stuka" worked great. It was a stable airframe and a good weapons-delivery platform. The only reason that it needed replaced was because it was so slow that it was vulnerable to enemy fighters and could only be operated in climates of local German aerial supremacy, which Germans seldom enjoyed even on the Russian front after 1943. The Ju 87 also lacked adequate armor and could have used more payload.>>
The Hs-129 was only marginally faster than the Ju-87, and much less manoeuvrable.
<<Any way you look at it, close ground-support is a challenge for a pilot’s skills in flying, shooting and bombing.>>
What is funny: if the Germans did not like the Hs-129, other operators valued it as gold!
Romania had equipped the 8th Assault Air Group with Hs-129 aircraft, which were used against the Russian tank formations in Ukraine. I don't know about their engines, but a 1,040 bhp version of the Gnome-Rhone engine was built by IAR in Brasov under license to power the Romanian-designed IAR-80 fighters, so I assume that at least a few Hs-129 planes were re-engined with it.
They performed so well that some historians said later that: "there is a warrior couple that does marvels; the couple Henschel + Romanian pilot".
~Regards,
Ovidius
Stammfuhrer
New Member
Posts: 2
(12/22/01 12:53:21 am)
Reply Re: Hs-129 versus Ju-87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ovidius, yes I did mean the Gnome Rhone engines...they were pretty yuck and yes the Jumo was indeed a far superior design.
Scott Smith 01
Veteran Member
Posts: 1124
(12/22/01 12:57:12 am)
Reply
Re: Hs-129 versus Ju-87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++The Ju 87 "Stuka" worked great. It was a stable airframe and a good weapons-delivery platform. The only reason that it needed replaced was because it was so slow that it was vulnerable to enemy fighters and could only be operated in climates of local German aerial supremacy, which Germans seldom enjoyed even on the Russian front after 1943. The Ju 87 also lacked adequate armor and could have used more payload.++
<<The Hs-129 was only marginally faster than the Ju-87, and much less manoeuvrable.>>
Yes, and that's why it was a marginal replacement. I meant that the FW 190 Jagdbomber replaced them both in the ground-support role, due to the need for (and lack of) escorts.
Victor Nitu
Visitor
(12/22/01 2:15:21 pm)
Reply Hs-129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I read (veteran testimonies) I understood the contrary. it was very maneuverable. It could do almost all the acrobatics a fighter could. It's true that its engines were the big problem, but they behaved quite well at small altitudes, where the mjority of the missions
took place. One veteran stated that he didn't remember going over 1500 m.
I refered to 1941-1942, when the Germans still had air supremacy on the Eastern Front.
So the Fw-190 remark doesn't have too much weight.
Ovidius, the engines weren't replaced.
Ovidius
Veteran Member
Posts: 875
(12/22/01 4:46:53 pm)
Reply
Re: Hs-129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the info, Victor.
~Ovidius
Scott Smith 01
Veteran Member
Posts: 1128
(12/22/01 9:32:14 pm)
Reply
Re: Hs-129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The low-altitude of operations is not a big problem for pursuit aircraft if they are hunting. The Hs 129 may have been quite maneuverable for its type, perhaps even almost like a fighter, but I'm not aware of any heavy fighter (two engines), let alone an aircraft made to deliver ordnance, that could dogfight a standard fighter or run away. The Me 262 was an exception because it was so very much faster than anything in the sky and carried such heavy armament, but it still couldn't "dogfight," just hit hard with surprise and run.
Any heavy aircraft needs either an environment of local aerial supremacy to operate in, or escorting support from air-superiority fighters. Since the Germans were short of single-engined fighters, fuel and pilots later in the war when the Stuka was phased out, let alone newer multiengined specialty aircraft, choices had to be made. With powerful engines like BMW 801s (had they been available for the purpose, and without relying upon foreign factories for obsolete powerplants), the Hs 129 would have been a very cool customer in its role, but only if supported or enjoying aerial supremacy, as the Ju 87 once had.
Ovidius
Veteran Member
Posts: 876
(12/22/01 10:34:41 pm)
Reply
BMW 801
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BMW 801 had some teething problems in 1941-1942, when put on the FW-190. The rear bank of cylinder, less exposed to the flow of air, tended to overheat badly.
The 801 became a first class engine only after the troubles had been solved, and until then the slow and poor-airfoil airframe of the Hs-129 was no longer a solution.
~regards,
Ovidius
Victor Nitu
Visitor
(12/23/01 5:07:19 pm)
Reply Hs-129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The low-altitude of operations is not a big problem for pursuit aircraft if they are hunting"
Wrong! It's a BIG problem. A fighter needed space to maneuvering into position, it also had to reduce its speed. It lost some of its advantages at low altitudes. Of course, an experienced fighter pilot would surely shoot down a lonely Hs-129, but if he has some
buddies to watch his back, the fighter might get into trouble. I know of an occasion when a Romanian Hs-129 escaped from 6 VVS fighters. Of course probably the Soviets weren't too experienced (it resulted from the way they attacked, almost all at once). The point
is that very few Hs-129s were lost to fighters. The majority were lost to the AAA.
My original question was if the Hs-129 wouldn't have been a better replacement for the Stuka in 1941 or 1942, when the germans still had air supremacy and didn't have to use the Fw-190 as fighter-bombers.
Scott Smith 01
Veteran Member
Posts: 1130
(12/23/01 9:05:19 pm)
Reply
Re: Hs-129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The point is that very few Hs-129s were lost to fighters. The majority were lost to the AAA.>>
I agree with the above. However, I don't agree that flying low is such a problem for interception by faster aircraft, except that the prey is harder to see and find, and of course the aircraft are more vulnerable to Flak, as you mention.
<<My original question was if the Hs-129 wouldn't have been a better replacement for the Stuka in 1941 or 1942, when the germans still had air supremacy and didn't have to use the Fw-190 as fighter-bombers.>>
That is a very good question. The Ju 87 was a "Sturz" aircraft (dive-bomber) while the Hs 129 was a "Schlacht" aircraft (ground-attack) so they were a little different in comparison.
I think the Hs 129 had great potential for development in its role, but I do not feel that the Ju 87 was especially obsolete except for an increased enemy fighter and Flak threat, which could only be partially overcome by the Hs 129 "flying tank."
The FW 190 worked well for ground-support as well. Everything is a matter of tradeoffs.
Edited by: Scott Smith 01 at: 1/22/02 9:15:27 am
Victor Nitu
Visitor
(12/26/01 10:21:46 am)
Reply Hs-129/Ju-87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that the Ju-87 and the Hs-129 had slightly different roles. I will rephrase my question. Don't you think that a "Schlacht" airplane would be better than a "Sturmkampf" airplane in the CAS role? Sure the Stuka was more precise and was better against strong
fortifications, like those at Sevastopol, but a much larger number of Hs-129s in the initial phase of the war in the east, would have been more helpful. I think that the
Soviet war winning weapon was not the T-34, but the Il-2.
Scott Smith 01
Veteran Member
Posts: 1134
(12/27/01 6:57:37 pm)
Reply
Re: Hs-129/Ju-87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Don't you think that a "Schlacht" airplane would be better than a "Sturmkampf" airplane in the CAS role? Sure the Stuka was more precise and was better against strong
fortifications, like those at Sevastopol, but a much larger number of Hs-129s in the initial phase of the war in the east, would have been more helpful. I think that the
Soviet war winning weapon was not the T-34, but the Il-2.>>
Probably. A Schlachtflugzeug is a little more versatile than a Sturzflugzeug, but I doubt that the Hs 129 would have necessarily been better at C-A-S early in the war compared to Stukas, although I agree about the importance of the Il-2 Stormovik.
Better bombsights were developed during the war which generally made the earlier emphasis on dive-bombers from the Spanish Civil War almost obsolete except for antishipping. Dive-bombers are also vulnerable to disciplined groundfire while hanging in the air to deliver their ordnance, and they are slower than fighters. Early in the war ground support was provided by lots of medium bombers, Stukas, and heavy fighters and sometimes ordinary fighters (strafing, but later fighter-bombers). The Hs 129 was more versatile than the Ju 87 but it was also more expensive with two engines. The Germans enjoyed aerial superiority earlier in the war and had not suffered years of attrition in pilots and aircraft so its something of an apples-and-oranges comparison.
For C-A-S the FW 190 Jagdbomber was pretty hard to beat. But a more favorable operating emvironment would have allowed more to be done with heavier attack aircraft, and they can of course deliver more firepower than JaBos. The Il-2 would have been far less successful against stiffer Luftwaffe fighter support, particularly FW 190s with 20mm cannon.
The Stormovik has such a good reputation, like the T-34, in part because of the environment it operated in. If as many late-model Pz IV and Pz Vs had been produced as T-34s, the story would be completely different.
Ovidius
Veteran Member
Posts: 907
(12/27/01 7:24:04 pm)
Reply
Sturmovik
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sturmovik(ground-attack aircraft) was not successful only because of numbers, but also because of its design.
The concept of Sturmovik appeared in the Soviet Union(there were also similarities in other countries, but only as conversions from fighter and bomber) because of the environment in which the battles were supposed to be held.
The Russians have a long time cavalry tradition(the Cossack cavalry troops had been the hard core of the Russian army for centuries) and they always saw the "manoueuvering" battle as the most efficient tactic. So they designed the Fast Tanks( Bystrochodny Tank or BT) as part of a combined cavalry-armour attack force, and later from the BT series evolved the T-34 as the core of a pure-armour attack force.
The similarity between the T-34 Model 1940 and the Somua S-35 is not incidental, both being designed for the same purposes: cavalry-combined or armoured cavalry high-speed attacks. The Somua S-35 was even designated Char de Cavallerie or Cavalry Tank.
So when facing the possibility of opposing a force using a similar tactic, the Russians had imagined a weapon to give them a definite advantage: the "air cavalry" in form of a flying anti-tank gun platform. They firstly experimented with I-153 and I-16 fighters converted to carry heavier armament, later they designed the purpose-built Ilyushin Il-2.
When the Americans had designed the Bell P-39 Airacobra, the heavy-gun fighter did not prove itself much too useful. It was not quite good at high altitudes, and the heavy 37mm cannon was much too powerful for the opposing fighters. However, the role of Sturmovik was perfectly fit for the P-39. The Sturmovik was not supposed to be very fast, or fly at high altitudes - all that was requested was ability to carry a large-caliber weapon, and manoeuvrability to escape AA fire at the low altitudes where it operated(sometimes 20 yards over the battlefield). So half of the P-39 production was set to Russia under the Lend-Lease Program.
The flying artillery was further refined by the Russians, the armoured Il-2 being turned into the Il-10. Later, in the late-1940s and early-1950s, they designed one of the best subsonic ground-attack/light bomber planes, the Il-28, built also under license by the Chinese as H-5 Hong. The equivalent of the English Electric Canberra, the Il-28 could carry either a tactical nuclear bomb or 2500 kg of bombs, and was enough manoeuvrable and small to be easily operable. The Romanian Air Forces still use a significant number of these airplanes, both for bombing and reconnaisance, and they perform rather good, considering their age.
The Americans still claim that the present-day A-10 Warthog is the descendant of the P-39. But the P-39 had been designed primarily as a fighter. The "aircraft designed around a gun" sounds more like a Sturmovik.
The basis for the most widely used and praised American airplane, the A-10, was a Soviet invention.(I hope Steve will read this).
~Best regards and Merry Christmas,
Ovidius
Scott Smith 01
Veteran Member
Posts: 1139
(12/28/01 1:09:15 am)
Reply
Re: Sturmovik
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The Sturmovik (ground-attack aircraft) was not successful only because of numbers, but also because of its design.>>
I meant "numbers" meaning: as opposed to its opposition or the countermeasures arrayed against it. If there had been an adequate screen of Luftwaffe fighters, then the Stormoviks would not have been quite so successful; hence, reputation is largely determined by circumstances and outcomes. These slower aircraft can basically only be used when aerial supremacy is the rule, and the modern A-10 is no exception.
<<The basis for the most widely used and praised American airplane, the A-10, was a Soviet invention.>>
I can't see any similarity whatever except that both are designed as gun and bomb platforms rather than for high-performance/speed or combat maneuverability. A better comparison for the A-10 Thunderbolt II aka "Warthog" would be a Ju 87 with cannon, or better yet, the armored Hs 129. But Do 17s and Ju 88 medium-bombers and heavy-fighters like Bf 110s were sometimes used for ground attack, particularly earlier in the war. The Americans used a B-26 bomber as a ground-attack aircraft, the A-26, with something like ten 0.50 caliber machine guns in the nose.
As far as the P-39 Airacobra in Soviet use, it was underpowered with an obsolete Allison engine and was used for ground-attack because as Lend-Lease junk it was available in quantity.
Remember that the P-51 Mustang was crappy with the Allison engine (it too was originally intended as a ground-support aircraft) until outfitted with a British Merlin engine (Mustang II), and because of its new-found performance and range was ideal in a bomber escort role (1944), replacing the Army Air Force's high-altitude fighter, the P-47. At low-altitudes the P-47 Thunderbolt, aka "Juggernaut" was a dog, but it was extremely durable and thus made a wonderful ground-attack aircraft, the original role of the more-delicate P-51.
Edited by: Scott Smith 01 at: 1/22/02 9:24:25 am
Ovidius
Veteran Member
Posts: 911
(12/28/01 1:23:00 am)
Reply
Re: Sturmovik
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<As far as the P-39 Airacobra in Soviet use, it was underpowered with an obsolete Allison engine and was used for ground-attack because as Lend Lease junk it was available in quantity.>>
Underpowered - maybe; I would say that it was quite fast in a straight line(592 km/h, which made it faster than a 1940 version of Spitfire, Hurricane or Messerschmitt Bf 109). But it had what a Sturmovik needs: a powerful large-calibre gun, with a powerful secondary package of 2 x .50 cal. MGs and 4 x .30 cal. MGs. A flying gun platform, like the Il-2, never claiming to dogfight a Me-109, but ideal to punch the slow-moving tanks and trains from the air.
<<At low-altitudes the P-47 Thunderbolt, aka "Juggernaut" was a dog, but it was extremely durable and thus made a wonderful ground-attack aircraft, the original role of the more-delicate P-51>>
I remember to have seen an interwiev with Chuck Yeager, who claimed to have escaped from a dogfight with his P-47 badly shot, and when he got to the ground he saw that one cylinder of his engine, together with the piston and connnecting rod, was missing. And he still managed to reach the airfield! Tough plane!
~Merry Christmas,
Ovidius
