Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
User avatar
AnchorSteam
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 31 Oct 2020 05:43
Location: WAY out there

Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by AnchorSteam » 23 Feb 2021 06:25

Sid Guttridge wrote:
17 Feb 2021 20:11
Hi Anchorstream,

That is all very interesting, but it seems unrelated to this thread. Wouldn't it be better to give it a thread of its own? It would then reach a wider audience and not bury the end of the Ju52 thread.

Cheers,

Sid.
Great idea!
Hs-123.jpg
This little fellow intrigues me because of this item;

"The greatest tribute to the Hs 123 usefulness came in January 1943 when Generaloberst Wolfram von Richthofen,[12] then commander-in-chief of Luftflotte 4, asked whether production of the Hs 123 could be restarted because the Hs 123 performed well in a theater where mud, snow, rain and ice took a heavy toll on the serviceability of more advanced aircraft. However, the Henschel factory had already dismantled all tools and jigs in 1940.[8]

After taking part in the Battle of Kursk, SG 1 returned to Crimea, and there during late spring 1944, they finally gave up the aircraft that had served all over Europe from Spain to Leningrad. 7./SG 1 traded its last Hs 123s in mid-1944, for Ju 87s, a type that was to have replaced it back in 1937."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_123

(Wiki isn't the only place to find that statement, it's just the easiest one to find)

250 were produced, none survive because they were brought back into service over and over again. It was not just the tough conditions on the Russian Front that kept demand up, but it's resistance to damage and the flight characteristics.
Like a Helicopter gunship of today, it could "loiter" around close to the battlefield at low altitude & low speeds. THey were popular with the troops on the ground because of this... here was one warplane that would stick aruond, instead of come zooming in, drop it's load and zip back to base as quickly as possible.

However- what mattered most on the Russian Front was firepower, and this plane dos not appear to have very much.
The bomb load was 450kg. or about the same as early Me.109 (which nobody liked as "Jabos") and its only guns were 2 x MG that had a high rate of fire, but no better than an MG-42.
There are some mentions of field modification for 2 x 20mm underwing gun pods, but that's all.

So, the question is, does anyone have some firm information on any attempts to upgrade the firepower of this little beast? Was it ever fitted with rockets or a multitude of anti-personel bomblets? Could it have been used as a tank-buster or a night-attack plane?
Also;
Had it ever been used as such, it could have given the Night Witches fits, but did it ever try?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Andrew Arthy
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 04:04
Location: Western Australia

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by Andrew Arthy » 23 Feb 2021 07:32

Hi,

The Wikipedia entry is incorrect regarding several things. 7./Sch.G. 1 did not exist after October 1943 - the Staffel became part of II./S.G. 2. The Hs 123s in the late-spring of 1944 were serving with the 4. Staffel of Schlachtgeschwader 2, and once it traded in its Hs 123s, that Staffel took on FW 190s, not Ju 87s. The Hs 123 actually did return to service with II./S.G. 2 towards the end of 1944, finally finishing its frontline duties in early 1945.

My colleague, Morten Jessen, is writing a history of this aircraft, and has already released two detailed articles on the subject, available at the links below:

- Development and Early Operations: https://airwarpublications.com/product/hs-123-part-one/
- Second World War Operations: https://airwarpublications.com/product/hs-123-part-two/

Cheers,
Andrew A.
Air War Publications - www.airwarpublications.com/earticles

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4247
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by Richard Anderson » 23 Feb 2021 08:08

The Wiki entry is a bit confused. II./Schlachtgeschwader 1 (the abbrevation was originally SchG) was organized 13 January 1942 with the Hs 129 as its primary aircraft, the Hs 123 was there to fill out the unit given the slow rate of manufacture and then the indifferent serviceability of the Hs 129. By March 1942 it had 16 Hs 129 and just 3 Hs 123. The problems with the Hs 129 led to the decision to replace it with the FW 190, but 5. and 6. Staffel had a mix of Bf 109 and FW 190 for a time...and 7. Staffel retained the last Hs 123, although it flirted with the FW 190 January-March 1943.

However, it wasn't 7./SG 1 when it turned those in in spring 1944; it was redesignated as 7./SG 2 on 18 October 1943 and began converting to FW 190 - again. By the end of May 1944 it turned in its last 9...only to draw 4 in November 1944. It still had those in December 1944 when the Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen end.

Anyway, there was only so much an aircraft with an 880 HP engine and a gross weight of 4,883 pounds could do. Given the useful weight carried was only 1,576 pounds, after pilot, fuel, and oil, there simply wasn't much room for armament.

oh, I see Andrew beat me to it. Cheers Andrew!
"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

User avatar
AnchorSteam
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 31 Oct 2020 05:43
Location: WAY out there

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by AnchorSteam » 23 Feb 2021 19:13

Andrew Arthy wrote:
23 Feb 2021 07:32
The Wikipedia entry is incorrect regarding several things.....
Richard Anderson wrote:
23 Feb 2021 08:08
The Wiki entry is a bit confused.
---
I am sensing a pattern here....
Richard Anderson wrote:
23 Feb 2021 08:08
Anyway, there was only so much an aircraft with an 880 HP engine and a gross weight of 4,883 pounds could do. Given the useful weight carried was only 1,576 pounds, after pilot, fuel, and oil, there simply wasn't much room for armament.

oh, I see Andrew beat me to it. Cheers Andrew!
Yes, thanks Andrew!

And as for that.... this thread was inspired by the thread on Ju.52 Gunship ideas. Those all seemed like very bad ideas to me so I turned to this type.

The bomb-load of 450kg. seems pretty useful to me, that is close to one US ton, but I don't even need that much for my own idea;
Replace the 2 guns above the engine with 15mm guns (the 20mm guns don't make much sense to me) and 2 standard MGs under each wing with plenty of ammunition. Add to that a dozen anti-personel bombs of about 15kg. and I think that would be the best combination for this plane.

User avatar
danebrog
Member
Posts: 366
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 15:59

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by danebrog » 23 Feb 2021 20:02

Now add a second engine to optimise flight performance and survivability - and you have a Hs 129....;-)

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4247
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by Richard Anderson » 23 Feb 2021 20:08

AnchorSteam wrote:
23 Feb 2021 19:13
The bomb-load of 450kg. seems pretty useful to me, that is close to one US ton, but I don't even need that much for my own idea;
Replace the 2 guns above the engine with 15mm guns (the 20mm guns don't make much sense to me) and 2 standard MGs under each wing with plenty of ammunition. Add to that a dozen anti-personel bombs of about 15kg. and I think that would be the best combination for this plane.
The 450-KG bomb load was maximum. Effective bomb load was 200-250 KG for a maximum radius of action of 240 kilometers and a practical combat radius with that load of about 160 kilometers. Adding heavier guns and ammunition, such as the MG 131 or 151/15 would take away significant weight. The MG 17 weighed just 10.2 KG, the MG 151 weighed 38.1 KG in its 15mm version and 42 KG in the 20mm version.

If you want an AP load the AB-250 on center line would be the most practical.

It might be the "best combination" for this plane, but why? Production ended before the war. They equipped five Schlachtfligergruppen through November 1938, when four were reformed as Stukagruppen and one became II.(Sch)/LG 2, which in turn dropped its Hs 123 in favor of Bf 109E Jagdbomber June-August 1940. From then until II./Schlachtgeschwader 1 was formed and partially equipped with it on 13 January 1942, the Hs 123 were primarily used as school and liaison aircraft. It was only retained for a time as a liaison Steffel with VIII. Fligerkorps and with 10.(Sch)/LG 2 when it was reformed for the Balkans Campaign, but even then disappeared from the active roster in November 1941.

Anyway, as best I can make out their were just seven V-series aircraft (V-8 was V-2 with a new engine), 16 pre-production A-0-series, and 228 production A-1-series (of which 12 went to China and 16 to Spain) built by fall 1938, so its numbers would never be meaningful. The greatest number on strength of the type was 195, in September 1938. When the war broke out there were just 40 on strength, of which 37 were operational. By the opening of the French Campaign there were 50 of which 45 were operational, and strength shrank steadily until 1 November 1941, when just 25 were on strength and 7 operational, after which they were withdrawn from service until January 1942, when 7./Schlachtgeschwader 1 was formed with 12-17 aircraft.

Edited cause I can't spell China half the time and I forgot Spain and 10.(Sch)/LG 2.
"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

User avatar
AnchorSteam
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 31 Oct 2020 05:43
Location: WAY out there

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by AnchorSteam » 23 Feb 2021 22:04

I was wondering what the actual number for Spain was. So subtract 28, leaving 222 for the LW.
Figure about 10% lost in training and other mishaps, and that's still over 200.

It would be insignificant if it weren't how well they did in their niche roll, we well that von Ritchtofen looked into making more of them. And honestly, how many Tigers were active in Russia at any one time?
The SS only asked for 25 new ADGZ armored cars to be built for fighting Partisans in the East... but that might be an indication of the gap between the reputation of the Partisans and their actual effectiveness.

The Hs129 is a great machine, maybe one of the best of it's kind and a sweet example of improvisation (I'm thinking of the use of surplus French engines here) but was it as rugged, could it operate from the same crappy landing fields, and what was it's stall speed?
I wasn't just thinking of loiter time.... but yes, when it comes to firepower the Hs.129 wins, hands down. I wonder if any were kept in use after the war?

User avatar
danebrog
Member
Posts: 366
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 15:59

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by danebrog » 24 Feb 2021 00:09

The 129 was a purpose-built CAS aircraft, while the 123 was a dive bomber adapted for this role. Its greatest handicap was and remained its too short range.
There were several other - and understandable - reasons why the RLM had decided on the 129.
Nobody could have imagined that the Hs123 would work so well under the primitive conditions in the SU - but the same can be said for the 129.

Interesting discussion regarding Ju87/Hs123 vs 129
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/h ... ves.41965/

Excellent book on the Hs 129 that leaves no questions unanswered:
Hs 129 Panzerjaeger by Martin Pegg

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4247
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by Richard Anderson » 24 Feb 2021 02:31

AnchorSteam wrote:
23 Feb 2021 22:04
I was wondering what the actual number for Spain was. So subtract 28, leaving 222 for the LW.
Nope. The V-series and A-0-series were all prototypes. the first for development and the second for manufacturing. None were likely ever assigned to operational units. Effectively 200 is what were available for the Luftwaffe. That can be confirmed from the weekly (later dekade) series of reports on aircraft strengths from the RLM, as found on AFHRA Microfilm Reel K1027M (also on copies at the AWM and IWM).
Figure about 10% lost in training and other mishaps, and that's still over 200.
Except that the greatest number recorded on hand with units was 195, as I mentioned earlier. By 2 September 1939, again as already mentioned, that number had dropped to 40 as all other remaining aircraft were transferred to the school establishment.
It would be insignificant if it weren't how well they did in their niche roll, we well that von Ritchtofen looked into making more of them.
He may have, but they never did, because, well, the Luftwaffe was more interested in more advanced ground attack aircraft like the FW 190, especially after the Hs 129 proved a bust. There is a phrase, "reinventing the wheel", which comes to mind.
And honestly, how many Tigers were active in Russia at any one time?
The SS only asked for 25 new ADGZ armored cars to be built for fighting Partisans in the East... but that might be an indication of the gap between the reputation of the Partisans and their actual effectiveness.
Who cares, since it has doodly squat to do with a supposed plan - or even desire - to resume manufacture of an seven year old design that the RLM had already declared obsolete.
The Hs129 is a great machine, maybe one of the best of it's kind and a sweet example of improvisation (I'm thinking of the use of surplus French engines here) but was it as rugged, could it operate from the same crappy landing fields, and what was it's stall speed?
I wasn't just thinking of loiter time.... but yes, when it comes to firepower the Hs.129 wins, hands down. I wonder if any were kept in use after the war?
So great that effectively only one unit in the Luftwaffe was ever equipped with it, and then for all of about six months? So in those six months at least 21 were lost to enemy actions...and 19 not to enemy action.
"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

User avatar
AnchorSteam
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 31 Oct 2020 05:43
Location: WAY out there

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by AnchorSteam » 24 Feb 2021 05:52

Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Feb 2021 02:31
Except that the greatest number recorded on hand with units was 195
Which is 5 different from the number I used.... and YOU are the one talking about "insignificant numbers? :roll:
Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Feb 2021 02:31
By 2 September 1939, again as already mentioned, that number had dropped to 40 as all other remaining aircraft were transferred to the school establishment.

And then were transfered back into combat again. Even the Wiki article mentioned that.
Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Feb 2021 02:31
He may have, but they never did, because, well, the Luftwaffe was more interested in more advanced ground attack aircraft like the FW 190, especially after the Hs 129 proved a bust. There is a phrase, "reinventing the wheel", which comes to mind.

Who cares, since it has doodly squat to do with a supposed plan - or even desire - to resume manufacture of an seven year old design that the RLM had already declared obsolete.

If it all suddenly irritates you so much, why keep posting in the thread?

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.

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?
Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Feb 2021 02:31
So great that effectively only one unit in the Luftwaffe was ever equipped with it, and then for all of about six months? So in those six months at least 21 were lost to enemy actions...and 19 not to enemy action.
Over 800 built and only one unit used it? Was it a German/Hungarian/Romanian unit?
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;
Sprey's discussions with Skyraider pilots operating in Vietnam and analysis of aircraft used in the role indicated the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability;[11] possessing the best elements of the Ilyushin Il-2, Henschel Hs 129, and Skyraider.
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.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4247
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by Richard Anderson » 24 Feb 2021 08:04

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? :roll:
We are talking September 1938. :roll: 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

User avatar
danebrog
Member
Posts: 366
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 15:59

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by danebrog » 24 Feb 2021 12:03

The Hs 123 was developed as a light dive-bomber to support the army.
The Hs 129 was developed as a dedicated CAS A/C for the same purpose.
Both, by the way, embedded in a concept based on air superiority over the battlefield

The Hs 123 was dropped from further planning in favour of the Ju 87, which was seen as superior concept.
Henschel then consequently dismantled the production facilities.
It was also the Ju 87 (or better, the dive bombing Dogma of that time) that caused the HS 129 to be given lower priority - Henschel had to resort to the inadequate Argus engine because no other engines were available for the project.
The resulting aircraft was barely airworthy and was given an even lower priority. This changed with the availability of G-R engines from 1940 and the changed situation since Barbarossa.
Although the 123 proved its worth, it was a discontinued model as no new machines could be produced. And even then, the Ju 87 would probably have been preferred
The 129 again could not be produced in larger numbers because the pool of available engines AND also the already limited production capacities throughout the Reich

From 1942 onwards, it was again the Ju 87 that grew into the CAS role because, among other things, it was available in sufficient numbers. The Hs 123 was only a supplementary stopgap.
And for the Hs 129, a new "ecological niche" was found - that of aerial anti-tank warfare.
All these were evolutionary developments that only arose in the course of the war from the changing requirements - which were solved by constant improvisation, because none of this could have been foreseen at the time these models were developed.
AnchorSteam wrote:
23 Feb 2021 22:04
(...)but was it as rugged, could it operate from the same crappy landing fields, and what was it's stall speed? (...)
According to Pegg´s book,
there were never any complaints about ruggedness, to the contrary.
The Hs 129 had two counter-rotating propellers which equalised the torque. This allowed them to operate even on muddy runways. Single-engine machines had the problem that the torque made the machine turn on the spot.
Stall speed was about 90 km/h

Both Henschels were extremely robust and reliable and both were highly valued by crews and ground troops equally
But as it went in reality, the concept of the fighter-bomber in the form of Typhoon, Fw-190 and P-47 proved to be far more suitable in the end

User avatar
AnchorSteam
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 31 Oct 2020 05:43
Location: WAY out there

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by AnchorSteam » 24 Feb 2021 21:35

Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Feb 2021 08:04
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?
Because there were some weapons systems that had effects all out of proportion to their actual numbers on the battlefield.
Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Feb 2021 08:04
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".
"Like" is an open-ended term, and I was making comparisons, not insisting they were identical and not looking fore endless pointless minutia on the differences.
Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Feb 2021 08:04
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.

That gets back to ruggedness; their ability use improvised landing strips within 50km. or less of the front.
Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Feb 2021 08:04
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.
That is because American engineers succeeded where German improvisation failed. It is also sorth noting that the design of the A-10 has more points of similarity with the Hs.129 than it does with the Il-2or the Skyraider. Specifically; twin engines, big-bore cannon, armored bathtub cockpit set well forward for the best pilot view of what is ahead and below him.
And speaking of the Skyraider.... interesting parallels to be found there.

User avatar
AnchorSteam
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 31 Oct 2020 05:43
Location: WAY out there

Re: Hs.123 - was it ever modified?

Post by AnchorSteam » 24 Feb 2021 21:38

danebrog wrote:
24 Feb 2021 12:03
The Hs 123 was developed as a light dive-bomber to support the army.
The Hs 129 was developed as a dedicated CAS A/C for the same purpose.
Both, by the way, embedded in a concept based on air superiority over the battlefield

The Hs 123 was dropped from further planning in favour of the Ju 87, which was seen as superior concept.
Henschel then consequently dismantled the production facilities.
It was also the Ju 87 (or better, the dive bombing Dogma of that time) that caused the HS 129 to be given lower priority - Henschel had to resort to the inadequate Argus engine because no other engines were available for the project.
The resulting aircraft was barely airworthy and was given an even lower priority. This changed with the availability of G-R engines from 1940 and the changed situation since Barbarossa.
Although the 123 proved its worth, it was a discontinued model as no new machines could be produced. And even then, the Ju 87 would probably have been preferred
The 129 again could not be produced in larger numbers because the pool of available engines AND also the already limited production capacities throughout the Reich

From 1942 onwards, it was again the Ju 87 that grew into the CAS role because, among other things, it was available in sufficient numbers. The Hs 123 was only a supplementary stopgap.
And for the Hs 129, a new "ecological niche" was found - that of aerial anti-tank warfare.
All these were evolutionary developments that only arose in the course of the war from the changing requirements - which were solved by constant improvisation, because none of this could have been foreseen at the time these models were developed.
AnchorSteam wrote:
23 Feb 2021 22:04
(...)but was it as rugged, could it operate from the same crappy landing fields, and what was it's stall speed? (...)
According to Pegg´s book,
there were never any complaints about ruggedness, to the contrary.
The Hs 129 had two counter-rotating propellers which equalised the torque. This allowed them to operate even on muddy runways. Single-engine machines had the problem that the torque made the machine turn on the spot.
Stall speed was about 90 km/h

Both Henschels were extremely robust and reliable and both were highly valued by crews and ground troops equally
But as it went in reality, the concept of the fighter-bomber in the form of Typhoon, Fw-190 and P-47 proved to be far more suitable in the end
Thanks, that was a good post!
I can't argue with any of that, and the three you named did dominate the game in the end. Isn't it interesting that all 3 of those originated as Fighter planes?

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”