Ground Support Aircraft

[Thomas Goetz]

A few comments on Stukas, Shturmoviks, and CAS generally.

Stukas (Ju 87): Several models. First the "A", used in the Spanish Civil War, and briefly in Poland. Superceded quickly by the "B".

The "B" was the model used in Poland, France, Battle of Britain, North Africa and Russia. Armed with 2x7.9mm machine guns, one in each wing, and a single 7.9mm in the rear of the cockpit. It could carry 1x500kg bomb on the center rack, and up to 4x50kg bombs on the wing racks. I believe it could also carry a single 1000kg bomb on the center rack for short distances and with no other external armament.

The "R" version of the Stuka was simply a "B" version equipped for long-range flight by the addition of 300 litre drop tanks on each wing. Used mainly in the Mediterranean theater.

The "D" version of the Stuka was a fairly heavily modified version of the plane. The D-1 had a larger engine, and more streamlined engine cowling, canopy, and landing gear spats. Initially it carried the same wing armament as the "B", but later the wing guns were changed to a single 20mm cannon in each wing. It had a twin 7.9mm machine gun mounted in the rear cockpit for defense. Same basic bomb load as the "B" model.

The D-5 model improved aerodynamics by lenghthening the wings, and I believe that was when the switch was made to the 20mm cannon in the wings. There also was a D-8 model, which was a D-5 fitted with exhaust flame dampener tubes and and used as a night harassment aircraft.

The "G" model tank buster version existed in two forms. The earlier G-1 was a field modification of the D-1, and had the earlier shorter wings. It also had visible mounting points for dive brakes, and the wing guns were removed and the space faired over. It also had the shorter wings of the D-1. Rudel's unit flew these aircraft as a field test in the Crimea in 1943, and had great success with them, despite the performance penalties imposed by the big 37mm cannon pods under the wing.

The later G-2 version, also flown by Rudel in 1944, was a factory built version, based on the later D-5 version. It had the longer winttips, and no dive brake mounts, and wing armament was never installed. This version likewise was a great battlefield success, at least until enemy fighter oppostion grew to the point where it became suicidal to fly one. Ironically, it was never Russian fighter opposition that caused that, but rather as the fronts contracted, American fighters, (P-51, mostly) appeared over the East Front, and sometimes shot up German aircraft there.

Rudel finished his career flying the ground attack version of the Fw 190, and even managed about a dozen air to air kills in it, including a couple of US Mustangs. Rudel claimed over 500 Russian tank kills, mostly while flying the G versions of the Stuka. While kill figures have to be treated with some scepticism, there is no question that he was enormously successful with this plane.

The Shturmovk is often considered "the" ground attack plane of the war, and there is no question that it was a tough, rugged plane able to carry a significant amount of weaponry. Poor pilot training, unimaginative tactics, and significant German opposition, both in the air and on the ground, meant that Shturmoviks were destroyed in large numbers, though.

Although heavily armored, the Shtumovik had a vulnerable oil cooler. A few bullets into this target, and down it went. Since the "flying tank" was slow and unmanuverable, it was relatively easy for a nimble fighter to target this point. Early Shturmoviks even lacke defensive armament, and later ones had only a single 7.9mm machine gun for rear protection.

One significant statistic - the Shturmovik was the single most produced aircraft in the history of warfare - over 36,000 of them were built. (Next in line is the Me 109, with 33,000) Yet there were never enough Shturmoviks to satisfy ground commanders, or even Stalin himself.

Good sources on these planes are the Squadron/Signal "In Action" books. Inexpensive and quite thorough, they are useful resources.

A few general comments about aviation on the East Front. Soviet aviation was exclusively a tactical instrument, subordinated to the needs of the ground war, unlike the air forces of all the other combatants. Soviet aircraft rarely operated much above 10,000 feet of altitude, and focused entirely on what would be called tactical and operational targets, never on strategic.

After 1942, German aviation in the East was extremely limited. After that point there were never more than 3 German fighter groups on the entire East Front! Three! One for each sector - North, Central, and South. The Soviets, although in much greater numbers, never had, for a variety of reasons, "control of the sky" the way England and the US did in the West. So German aircraft, including the vulnerable Stuka, continued to operate until the end of the war, with much greater success than in any other theater. It should be remembered that it was in the East that almost all of the great German aces ran up those immense scores - 352 for Hartman, 301 for Barkhorn, for example.

Sorry if this ran on for a bit, but I thought the members might find this information interesting and useful.

Tom Goetz

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Yes, well I certainly did. Thanks Tom for taking the time to do such a well researched post.

Regards

Jim R.

[edgars]

Thanks, Tom, that was very interesting.

However i would like to see a little more on this thing:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> ...as the fronts contracted, American fighters, (P-51, mostly) appeared over the East Front, and sometimes shot up German aircraft there. <hr></blockquote>

Did US planes run out of targets in their part of the front, that they had to fly over and help their soviet "buddies"?

[CombinedArms]

Anyone have any insights on the demise of the dedicated dive-bomber in WWII combat and the rise of the fighter-bomber?

I've never seen a detailed discussion of this, but common sense suggests that after the first stuka-shock was over, both the Western Allies and Germans realized that dedicated dive-bombers were too slow and vulnerable for land warfare. They required escort if there were any enemy fighters around and they also carried a relatively small bomb load.

So, esp. in the West, we got the fighter bomber. A fighter bomber could drop (or if it got in trouble jettison) it's load, then fight on equal terms with enemy fighters. Of course, the US P-47, P-38 and P-51 and the British Typhoon were among the planes developed as fighters but used extensively as as fighter-bombers, equipped at times with 1000 pounds of bombs or more and sometimes rockets, and packing lots of MGs (8 .50 MGs in the P-47; 4 center-mounted .50MGs and one 20mm cannon on the P-38). The Germans were mostly using their fighters defensively later in the war, but the FW-190 had a very effective fighter-bomber variation.

So, my question is three-fold:

1) The late-war fighter-bomber has obvious advantages over the Stuka: faster, more survivable, an as big or bigger bomb-load, much more strafing power. Did the Stuka (and we might add the Sturmvok) have any lingering advantages? Was it a more accurate bomber, for instance, or did the jabo pilots develop tactics that were equally effective at getting bombs on target? The built-in tank-busting cannon was something the Allies generally avoided, preferring, it would seem, not to compromise plane performance.

2) Did anyone in the Allied high command anticipate this adaptation of fighters to bombing roles, or was it just serendipity? The P-47, P-38, Typhoon, and (in the Pacific) Corsair were very good at their job--but was this just a lucky off-shoot of an attempt to construct a good fighter? The P-47 in particular seems born to the jabo role, but did anyone foresee this?

3) When did the diversion and adaptation of fighters to the fighter-bomber role begin in earnest? Did it encounter any resistance from Strategic Bombing advocates who might have wanted to keep all those fighters in an escort role? My guess is that if even P-51s were eventually used for ground attack, the Allies must have at some point felt they had more than enough escort planes, but this may not have been obvious earlier.

P.S. This all seemed to have developed somewhat differently in the Pacific, where dedicated dive-bombers and torpedo planes persisted throughout the war. Maybe pinpoint accuracy in dropping bombs was more at a premium when attacking ships? Corsairs and Hellcats were used fairly extensively as ground attack planes, but not much, I think, to bomb shipping.

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms:

...they also carried a relatively small bomb load.<hr></blockquote>

Relative to what? Circa 1,000 lb. bombloads were typical.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>1) The late-war fighter-bomber has obvious advantages over the Stuka: faster, more survivable, an as big or bigger bomb-load, much more strafing power. Did the Stuka (and we might add the Sturmvok) have any lingering advantages? Was it a more accurate bomber, for instance, or did the jabo pilots develop tactics that were equally effective at getting bombs on target? The built-in tank-busting cannon was something the Allies generally avoided, preferring, it would seem, not to compromise plane performance.<hr></blockquote>

The adaptation of fighters into successful ground attack aircraft was the side effect of much more powerful engines of 2,000 hp or more that began appearing around 1942. This permitted aircraft of small wing area to haul the necessary ordnance. The pre-war designs generally had only about half that horsepower and had to have greater wing area in order to lift sufficient payload. The combination of low power and large wing area gave poor performance.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>2) Did anyone in the Allied high command anticipate this adaptation of fighters to bombing roles, or was it just serendipity? The P-47, P-38, Typhoon, and (in the Pacific) Corsair were very good at their job--but was this just a lucky off-shoot of an attempt to construct a good fighter? The P-47 in particular seems born to the jabo role, but did anyone foresee this?<hr></blockquote>

Only the more rarified visionaries. The planes you mention were designed to perform optimally as fighters. It was discovered almost accidentally that were also good ground attack aircraft. Mind you, the main reasons they were pressed into that role were (1) they were good enough under the circumstances; (2) they were abundantly available and cheap to build; (3) with the decline of Axis air forces, they were in need of employment.

The fact is, better ground attack aircraft could have been built. The outstanding example is the Douglas AD-1 Skyraider. But even the Vultee A-31 Vengeance would have probably have been somewhat more effective in placing bombs on a target. But the need was not so urgent as to justify the expense and delays of opening a new production line.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>3) When did the diversion and adaptation of fighters to the fighter-bomber role begin in earnest? Did it encounter any resistance from Strategic Bombing advocates who might have wanted to keep all those fighters in an escort role? My guess is that if even P-51s were eventually used for ground attack, the Allies must have at some point felt they had more than enough escort planes, but this may not have been obvious earlier.<hr></blockquote>

A ground attack version of the P-51, called the A-36 Apache, IIRC, was built early on, about 1941-2 I believe. But the large-scale assignment of fighter types to ground attack missions didn't really get underway until 1943. (This is not to ignore that fighters were earlier used in this role by the RAF in Africa, Europe, and to some extent in Asia. But except in the case of the 40mm cannon armed Hurricane Mk. IV, this involved relatively light attack duties.) It is during that period that several things came together to encourage the large-scale use of fighters in the ground attack role. The first was the appearance in large numbers of planes with sufficient load carrying capacity at the front. These were mostly American designs, but the Typhoon idea was starting to catch on and even the lightweight Spitfire was being modified to carry a 500 lb bomb.

I think the P-47 began to show what could be done during Operation Strangle in Italy in early 1944 when it and other Allied fighter began serious attacks against the German lines of supply in an attempt the weaken the German resistance in the Gothic line.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>P.S. This all seemed to have developed somewhat differently in the Pacific, where dedicated dive-bombers and torpedo planes persisted throughout the war. Maybe pinpoint accuracy in dropping bombs was more at a premium when attacking ships? Corsairs and Hellcats were used fairly extensively as ground attack planes, but not much, I think, to bomb shipping.<hr></blockquote>

That's pretty much the case. I'm doubtful that either the Corsair or the Hellcat could have hauled a torpedo into the air in any event. A-20s and B-25s were used to skip bomb naval targets, mostly merchant shipping, but operating them off carriers would have been difficult, Doolittle notwithstanding.

Michael

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p>

[Thomas Goetz]

A few more thoughts on ground attack aircraft, and at least partial answers to some recent questions.

Re; US aircraft over the East Front - By late 1944 and 1945, several things had occured. One was the contraction of both fronts, so that only a few hundred miles separated them. Another was the almost complete lack of opposition/targets for Allied fighters. Many bombing missions were conducted in what would now be "Eastern" Europe - eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia, etc. Since these missions were escorted, often with large numbers of fighters, there were often US fighters over what had become the East Front.

The US Air Force even conducted a number of "shuttle" bombing missions, where the bombers would attack target far to the east, then land at Soviet bases to refuel and for minor maintanance, then fly back home the next day. At least one of these missions was heavily damaged by the Germans, who were able to locate the bombers on the ground, and sent their own bombers over and destroyed many B-17s on the ground, something that essentially never happened to those based in England.

So while the US planes were not officially coordinating with the Soviets, by the late war German aircraft and even ground troops in the East were almost as likely to be attacked by American planes as by Soviet ones.

As for fighters carrying bombs, none of the major WWII fighters of any nationality was specifically designed for ground attack work, although it was a consideration in many of the later models that they at least be capable of carrying bombs or rockets. The ground attack version of the early P-51, the A-36 Apache (a name which never caught on, by the way) was an effective machine, but had been developed for that role simply because the USAAF did not like or want the original Mustang, and the only way North American could get them to take the plane was as a ground attack machine.

As for fighters carrying bombs, like a lot of elements of the war in the air, it was the Germans that first began this practice, but the credit seems to have gone to the later development by the Allies. During the Battle of Britain in 1940, the Germans experimented with having both the Me 109 and Me 110 carry bombs and hit tactical ground targets with them. They had a special unit to try this, and it was such a success that subsequent models of the 109 were all modified to be able to carry bombs. Later the Fw 190 was also built as a ground attack machine, and was even more effective. The bomb load was limited because of the small size of the plane, but the big advantage of a fighter with bombs, versus a dedicated ground attack machine like a dive bomber, was that a fighter-bomber could become a fighter simply by jettisoning its bomb load. Dive bombers, with their inherently larger and less manuverable aircraft, were vulnerable to enemy fighters even without a bomb load.

One good source for this fighter-bomber vs. dive bomber discussion is Eric Bergerud's recent book, "Fire in the Sky." The book is a discussion of the air war in the South Pacific, and covers both land and carriers. Briefly, his research has shown that single-engined tactical attack aircraft were found to be much more vulnerable and less useful (shorter range, less bomb load) than multi-engined ones. Although a dive bomber with a well trained crew is a more accurate weapon, against serious opposition and over time such units will suffer unacceptably high losses.

The use of such aircraft on carriers continued because of the space limitations on the carriers, and because carrier engagements tended to be very brief - even if your dive bombers got chewed up in battle, you could count on replacement aircraft and crew before your next engagement, something that was not possible with land-based units.

The survival of dedicated ground attack aircraft on the Eastern Front is a testimony more to the immense size of the front than to the effectiveness of the aircraft. Both sides needed every plane they could get. Of course the Germans also needed their fighers to defend the Reich from bombing, but that's another story.

Both German and Soviet ground attack aircraft could operate with at least some expectation that they would not encounter enemy air oppostion. When they did, Russian air oppostion, especially, often tended to be, shall we say, less effective than it could have been.

Two reasons for that. One, poor training, tactics and doctrine for the Red Air Force overall. Two, the Soviet practice of taking the best pilots and crews and placing them in "Guards" air units. While these Guards units were therefore very dangerous and often as good as anything you could find in the West, there were not that many of them. This practice also left the other air units with no veterans or aces or good leadership, and they suffered accordingly.

Even with that, German tactical aircraft suffered as the war went on. Rudel himself was shot down something like a dozen times, as were many of the German fighter aces in the East. But the short ranges and open terrain meant that it was often possible for these downed pilots to return to their own lines and fight again, something much more difficult for an American pilot shot down over Germany.

One last fact. Dedicated ground attack aircraft tend to be rare in any air force, at least in part becasue air forces don't like them. If, like the Red Air Force, they are dedicated to ground attack, that is one thing. But in autonomous air forces, both the leadership and the pilots tend to consider their main missions to be air superiority and strategic bombing. Ground support comes in near the bottom of the list of things to do.

This means that even when such aircraft exist, they are often ignored by the leadership of the air force. The earlier mentioned AD-1 Skyraider is a good case in point. An immensely rugged single engined ground attack plane that carried a larger bomb load than a B-17, it was ignored by the USAF until the need for such an aircraft became glaringly obvious in Vietnam. Then the scramble was to find them wherever they'd been dumped.

So, a few thoughts on ground support and the aircraft that did it. Hope this information is useful.

Tom

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms:

Anyone have any insights on the demise of the dedicated dive-bomber in WWII combat and the rise of the fighter-bomber?

I've never seen a detailed discussion of this, but common sense suggests that after the first stuka-shock was over, both the Western Allies and Germans realized that dedicated dive-bombers were too slow and vulnerable for land warfare. They required escort if there were any enemy fighters around and they also carried a relatively small bomb load.

So, esp. in the West, we got the fighter bomber. A fighter bomber could drop (or if it got in trouble jettison) it's load, then fight on equal terms with enemy fighters. Of course, the US P-47, P-38 and P-51 and the British Typhoon were among the planes developed as fighters but used extensively as as fighter-bombers, equipped at times with 1000 pounds of bombs or more and sometimes rockets, and packing lots of MGs (8 .50 MGs in the P-47; 4 center-mounted .50MGs and one 20mm cannon on the P-38). The Germans were mostly using their fighters defensively later in the war, but the FW-190 had a very effective fighter-bomber variation.

So, my question is three-fold:

1) The late-war fighter-bomber has obvious advantages over the Stuka: faster, more survivable, an as big or bigger bomb-load, much more strafing power. Did the Stuka (and we might add the Sturmvok) have any lingering advantages? Was it a more accurate bomber, for instance, or did the jabo pilots develop tactics that were equally effective at getting bombs on target? The built-in tank-busting cannon was something the Allies generally avoided, preferring, it would seem, not to compromise plane performance.

2) Did anyone in the Allied high command anticipate this adaptation of fighters to bombing roles, or was it just serendipity? The P-47, P-38, Typhoon, and (in the Pacific) Corsair were very good at their job--but was this just a lucky off-shoot of an attempt to construct a good fighter? The P-47 in particular seems born to the jabo role, but did anyone foresee this?

3) When did the diversion and adaptation of fighters to the fighter-bomber role begin in earnest? Did it encounter any resistance from Strategic Bombing advocates who might have wanted to keep all those fighters in an escort role? My guess is that if even P-51s were eventually used for ground attack, the Allies must have at some point felt they had more than enough escort planes, but this may not have been obvious earlier.

P.S. This all seemed to have developed somewhat differently in the Pacific, where dedicated dive-bombers and torpedo planes persisted throughout the war. Maybe pinpoint accuracy in dropping bombs was more at a premium when attacking ships? Corsairs and Hellcats were used fairly extensively as ground attack planes, but not much, I think, to bomb shipping.<hr></blockquote>

well i thinkn a big issue is being over looked here, the stuka was not the only ground attack plane the germans had, just the most famous. the allies realized the importance or ground attack aircraft from the start of the blitzkrieg. it was a very important cog in the wheel of the blitzkrieg. if you remember, the allied countried had little faith in the bomber actauly being able ot get thru air drefenses and wreck havoc, the germans disagreed fervrently and well history showed us who's theory was correct. so needless to say the allies had to adjust as fast as they could to the new modern warfare. the usa's airforce in 1940 was quite obsolete compared to that of the luftwaffe, luckily we were given enough time to adjust. but getting back to the stuka, some sources say it was made obsolete by the time of the battle of britain. in some cases, i aggree, in some cases i don't. i don't take the stuka as an actual fighter bomber, since it was not suited very well for air to air combat. but used soley in the ground attack role it was very accurate and deadly. but air superiority needed ot be achieved beforehand. because of this germans developed other planes more suited for the fighter bomber role, though the had the me-110 early in the war it was refitted later to become the best night fighter of the war. the FW-190 series, wich were great fighters , were alo used widly in the role as fighter bombers, there were many models, aslo a good point ot add is that the prduction of the dreaded ME-262, was delayed a year because Hitler wanted it fitted for a fighter bomber role. now i can't say enough how glad i am that hitler was less then a brilliant tactician, because if ther germans had me-262's in the 1943 air campiagn over europe, the d-day invasion probably would not have happend

[Stuka]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

if the germans had me-262's in the 1943 air campiagn over europe, the d-day invasion probably would not have happend

<hr></blockquote>

You can't seriously beleive that, do you?

Although slower in speed, the P51 Mustang was a worthy opponent of the Me262.

OVERLORD would still have happened despite the early appearence of the '262'.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Stuka, i think your mistaken, the air war over europe was decided in 1943, where the skies were heavily contested by the luftwaffe. in 1944 the luftwaffe was all but destroyed, and the early apearence of the me 262 was not even close to the numbers needed, and apeared exactly a year to late. the P-51 were not a worthy adversary of the ME-262, i'm afraid nothing was at the time. the P-51's main strength was that it was a long range fighter, it suited the allies need for one perfect. this does not make it the best fighter of the war, though i like them too. i think you are refering to the mustangs being a match for the rocket powered komets, the me-163, where they would shoot them up easily when they tried ot glide in for a landing. the tiny squadrons of 262's that were used were attacking forces numbering in the hundreds and thousands of planes during 44-45. alot of people think of the ME-262 as too little too late. where it was not. it was just plain too late. in 1943 if production had not been delayed by hitler they actualy could have turned the tide over the skies of germany and france. and i would like to add as planes being a match for one another, you also have to take in acocunt the pilots. germany had superior pilots. it's just that Goering was a bafoon. alot of the german aces stuck with BF-109's, heck even Adolf Galand flew a heavier and slower ME-110 and his kills numbered in the hundreds

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stuka:

You can't seriously beleive that, do you?

Although slower in speed, the P51 Mustang was a worthy opponent of the Me262.

OVERLORD would still have happened despite the early appearence of the '262'.<hr></blockquote>

Overlord would not have happend if the skies over europe were still being contested. the allies needed total air superiority for OVERLORD to take place. the allies had total air superiority before they invaded france. the only resistance the allies got form the air during the invasion were 2 lone FW190's took off and actualy flew towards the air armada of thousands of bombers and fighters that belonged to the allies over normandy. the 2 brave pilots swooped down on the beach, made one strafing run and pulled up into the clouds and actualy escaped. even the allied soldiers on the beach were impressed. it is a true account

[tss]

Thomas Goetz wrote:

Soviet aircraft rarely operated much above 10,000 feet of altitude, and focused entirely on what would be called tactical and operational targets, never on strategic.

They operated mostly on tactical and operational level, but there were also few strategic missions also, so "never" is a little too strong word here.

In 1943 the Soviet strategic air forces (ADD) had eight regiments of bombers, mostly twin-engined SB-2 and DB-3 bombers, and it increased to ~10 air corps by early 1944. Since the planes were almost exclusively twin-engined, they lacked range (and survivability) to conduct long-distance bombing runs into Germany and many of their operations should probably be classified to happen on operational level.

However, few clear cases of strategic bombing exists. For example, three night bombings of Helsinki in early 1944 with ~350, ~650, and ~1000 sorties and a total of ~20000 bombs. Only 799 bombs hit the city proper, roughly 4%. Soviet losses were 20-30 bombers (4 by German night-fighters, rest by AA).

- Tommi

[tss]

Iron Chef Sakai wrote:

the P-51 were not a worthy adversary of the ME-262, i'm afraid nothing was at the time.

Does anybody have statistics comparing Mustang kills by ME-262 and ME-262 kills by Mustangs? I would guess that the latter outnumber the former by a sizable factor but I don't have any concrete figures. Of course, the fact that by the time ME-262s got in active service Mustangs could roam almost at will over Germany will skew the figures.

heck even Adolf Galand flew a heavier and slower ME-110 and his kills numbered in the hundreds

Supposing that you mean Adolf Galland, then no, he didn't get his kills in ME-110. I'm not certain what he flew in Poland, but already in France he had a ME-109. Also, saying that his kills numbered in hundreds is a little misleading since the total figure was 104. However, it is difficult to say what it would have been if he had

stayed longer at front.

Also, it's quite funny that you took Galland as your example since he was shot down by a Mustang in his last combat flight in ME-262.

- Tommi

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Overlord would not have happend if the skies over europe were still being contested. the allies needed total air superiority for OVERLORD to take place. the allies had total air superiority before they invaded france. the only resistance the allies got form the air during the invasion were 2 lone FW190's took off and actualy flew towards the air armada of thousands of bombers and fighters that belonged to the allies over normandy. the 2 brave pilots swooped down on the beach, made one strafing run and pulled up into the clouds and actualy escaped. even the allied soldiers on the beach were impressed. it is a true account<hr></blockquote>

I was under the impression that air superiority over France wasn't assured until early 1944. Also if the Luftwaffe was so unsuccessful at attacking the invading invasion forces, why does Blackburn in his book, "The Gunners of Normandy" relate of almost daily and nightly air attacks by the Germans? Indeed, it was one aspect of that narrative of that book which most definitly surprised me.

The Me-262 was a marginal fighter and an even more marginal fighter-bomber, BTW.

Neil Smith in his excellent book, "Dive Bomber", BTW, which is a history of the development and deployment of the dive bomber makes the point that when utilised properly and in the right conditions the specialised diver bomber was able to provide exceptional accuracy for the CAS role. However, the lack of versatility told against it and it was, for most combatants replaced by fighter-bombers which were found to be able to be nearly as effective in the dive bombing role.

The Vengeance's ability to hit its target consistently was particularly appreciated in both New Guinea and Burma.

I'm surprised though, that no one has mentioned perhaps the most effective fighter-bomber on the Allied side - the P-40. It lasted in service until the war's end and proved very good as a dive bomber.

Another interesting point, can anyone name the US dive bomber which saw extensive action in the Pacific but was never utilised by the US in Europe and which was used extremely effectively by the French supporting their own units?

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

Another interesting point, can anyone name the US dive bomber which saw extensive action in the Pacific but was never utilised by the US in Europe and which was used extremely effectively by the French supporting their own units?<hr></blockquote>

Wow, this is intriguing. I feel I should know the answer. The most widely used dive bomber in the Pacific was the Douglas SBD Dauntless. The Army designation for it was A-24, but I don't think they ever used it in action. Some were sent Lend Lease to Australia, I believe, and were most likely employed in New Guinea. But for the life of me I cannot recollect the French using any.

BTW, are you sure about the Vengeance being used in New Guinea? I know the RAF had a couple of squadrons that they used over Burma very satisfactorily.

Michael

[CombinedArms]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

I'm surprised though, that no one has mentioned perhaps the most effective fighter-bomber on the Allied side - the P-40. It lasted in service until the war's end and proved very good as a dive bomber.

Another interesting point, can anyone name the US dive bomber which saw extensive action in the Pacific but was never utilised by the US in Europe and which was used extremely effectively by the French supporting their own units?<hr></blockquote>

Was the P-40 really used that much in ground attack? I don't recall hearing anything about its use in Europe much after the North African campaigns of 1942, and have rarely heard it mentioned in terms of a ground attack role. Maybe it was used for that role in Italy or in the Pacific? I know the US built roughly 10,000 of them, so I guess they had to use them somehow. Any details about what made them effective divebombers?

The Helldiver (replacement for the Dauntless) is the only other US divebomber I know about, so if the French used a US divebomber, I'd guess it would have to be the Dauntless or Helldiver.

BTW, my sense is that most US fighter-bombers went into a shallow glide toward their targets rather than a steep dive. Do any sources have details on fighter-bomber tactics--how they differed from dive-bomber tactics and how they evolved?

BTW, thanks guys for all the details about the rise of the fighter-bomber.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tss:

Iron Chef Sakai wrote:

the P-51 were not a worthy adversary of the ME-262, i'm afraid nothing was at the time.

Does anybody have statistics comparing Mustang kills by ME-262 and ME-262 kills by Mustangs? I would guess that the latter outnumber the former by a sizable factor but I don't have any concrete figures. Of course, the fact that by the time ME-262s got in active service Mustangs could roam almost at will over Germany will skew the figures.

heck even Adolf Galand flew a heavier and slower ME-110 and his kills numbered in the hundreds

Supposing that you mean Adolf Galland, then no, he didn't get his kills in ME-110. I'm not certain what he flew in Poland, but already in France he had a ME-109. Also, saying that his kills numbered in hundreds is a little misleading since the total figure was 104. However, it is difficult to say what it would have been if he had

stayed longer at front.

Also, it's quite funny that you took Galland as your example since he was shot down by a Mustang in his last combat flight in ME-262.

- Tommi<hr></blockquote>Galands kills were over 200, he flew an ME-110, the mustangs had a good kill ratio, because they outnumbered the enemy by odds that would blow your mind, the mustang was a grat long range fighter, but it was not a jet. if the gemrans had the same amount of ME-262's as the allies had fighters, you mean to tell me the allies would somehow win? i mean if your looking at the air war over europe of 44-45, the was was over by then in the skies, the gemrans fought hard, but they had barley any servicable aircraft compared with the thousands that were flying over german daily and nightly

[Iron Chef Sakai]

how is it funny taking a pilot that got shotdown as an example? all the great aces were shot down at least once. von richtoven, the red barron was killed in combat, he actualy was wounded earlier and still flew, because of this that somehow makes him not a good pilot?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

i think you are right about him flying an ME-262 later in the war, was it with JG-26? i can't remember its been so long since i've read anyhting on WW1, i have to start brushing up on the thechnicalities

[imported_Wildman]

Several complete different aspects of aviation being tossed about here.

First, the ME-262 debate. The Me was ready to go in 1943, but Hilter wanted to make it a bomber and not a fighter, hence it was late being delivered. Calling the ME-262 a fighter is actually a misnomer, it is really an interceptor. The difference is this, the ME was never intended to fight fighters, its only target was the bombers, it had a 100+knot top speed advantage over the Mustang allowing it to use BOOM and ZOOM tactics, or a slashing type attack from a higher altitude, dive to the attack and then zoom back to the altitude. It carried only 20mm cannons which are not suited to destroy fighters due to their lower rate of fire. Almost all kills against the ME-262s were on takeoff and landing. In fact, finding and destroying Jet fields and facilities became a major priority for the 9th Air Force in the ETO.

Having the jets in 1943 would not have stopped D-Day, but would have easily delayed it at least a year. In 1943 there were few long-range fighters and none that went the entire bombing distance. The jets would have stopped Daylight bombing by the 8th Air Force until 1944 when significant numbers of escorts were available.

[tss]

Iron Chef Sakai wrote:

Galands kills were over 200

I suppose that you have some source for that surprising figure. Surprising, because every book that I've read gives 104 as Galland's (note two 'l's) victories. When I posted my original reply this morning, it took me about 20 seconds to Google that figure out from Internet.

he flew an ME-110,

I suppose that you have some source for also that astounding information. Spick's "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" mentions that he commanded a He-51 unit in Spain, a Hs-123 unit in Poland. Then he was transferred to a Me-109 unit JG-27 and from there to JG-26, another 109 unit, where he served until he was removed from front duty in late '41 when he had 97 air victories. In 1945 he commanded JV-44 and got 7 more kills in Me-262.

the mustangs had a good kill ratio, because they outnumbered the enemy by odds that would blow your mind,

Wow, that must then be a really large ratio.

the mustang was a grat long range fighter, but it was not a jet.

And Me-262 was a great interceptor but it wasn't a dogfighter.

if the gemrans had the same amount of ME-262's as the allies had fighters, you mean to tell me the allies would somehow win?

If those Me-262s had competent pilots (it was a beast to fly), fuel, and engines that didn't self-destruct after 3-4 hours, then the Allies would have had a really difficult time. And if Germans had had several squadrons of F-16s, they would have had even more difficult time. Both "if"s are about as realistic.

how is it funny taking a pilot that got shotdown as an example?

Well, you wrote that a Mustang couldn't match a Me-262 in combat and later cited Galland as an example of an outstanding German pilot. I think that in this context it is rather ironic that Galland's Me-262 was shot down by a Mustang. By the way, it didn't even happen during takeoff or landing.

all the great aces were shot down at least once.

Change that "all" to "most", then I agree. Enemy planes didn't hit Nishizawa's plane even once during his ~6 years in combat. Juutilainen's plane was hit three times but it was AA each time and they were not serious. As far as I know, Adolf Glunz was the only high-scoring German ace that wasn't shot down even once.

von richtoven, the red barron was killed in combat, he actualy was wounded earlier and still flew, because of this that somehow makes him not a good pilot?

Of course not.

i can't remember its been so long since i've read anyhting on WW1, i have to start brushing up on the thechnicalities

I would strongly suggest that you checked your facts before posting them. In Galland's case, just typing "adolf galland" to Google (www.google.com) gives you many, many, links.

- Tommi

[JAK]

Hi All,

I recently read in Citizen Soliders, by stephen ambrose that P-47's regularly bombed targets directly infront of advancing columes of infantry and armor (50-100meters). One account states that the last P-47 finished its bomb run just as the first sherman was lumbering into the village that was being subjegated to loveing attention by the Army Air Corp. As far a FO's for battlion airsupport, the XXX corp during Market Garden had many of these directing surgical air strikes directly against seen targets, furthermore the Typhoons had strict orders not to attack any undesignated targets regardless of what they may see occuring on the ground ("A Bridge too far", Cornelius Ryan)

It was also said the the GI's if france were comfortable with Airstrike as close a 250meters, while arty prep closer than 500meters was a source for alot of panic. IMHO, the setup for CMBO is not historically correct(then again, I am the lord hi god of information! )

Respectfully,

Jake K.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

i realy have ot start re-reading some stuff, its been awhile, but the ME-252 pilots were very good. yes it was hard dogfighting slower planes with them, but they did not dogfight them, rather they made fast runs thru formations of them. they were'nt the classic dofights of manuevering and outrunring ect... but it still classifies as dogfighting. the pilots had to be quik on the trigger since they came up so fast on the prop planes. but then blew right by them before they cold realy be hit. yes the me-262 had some severe growing pains. but it was the worlds first operational jet. all fighters are of the interceptor class as well. plenty of BF-109's and FW-190's intercepted bomber and mustang formatoions. you may be right about galland i am very rusty, but i will check up on it sometime. the allies actualy had ot worry more about FW.190's since there was a decent amount of them late in the war, as well as a great many BF-109's, wich were excelent fighters. the FW-190 is my personal favorite of the war, i thought the nitros on them was a nice feature, and they were very versatile. the Komets were very deadly as well, and yes even to their own pilots since it was'nt uncommon for them to explode randomly, but aside from being wat to vulverable on landing, and having limited time airborn, there was no plane of the war that could scramble as fast to a bomber formation

[The Commissar]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

i realy have ot start re-reading some stuff, its been awhile, but the ME-252 pilots were very good. yes it was hard dogfighting slower planes with them, but they did not dogfight them, rather they made fast runs thru formations of them. they were'nt the classic dofights of manuevering and outrunring ect... but it still classifies as dogfighting. the pilots had to be quik on the trigger since they came up so fast on the prop planes. but then blew right by them before they cold realy be hit. yes the me-262 had some severe growing pains. but it was the worlds first operational jet. all fighters are of the interceptor class as well. plenty of BF-109's and FW-190's intercepted bomber and mustang formatoions. you may be right about galland i am very rusty, but i will check up on it sometime. <hr></blockquote>

No, they made quick runs through formations of bombers. Due to the fact that most of the Allied fighter planes were more maneuverable then the 252, escaping them was not very difficult to do, if you flew a fighter that is. If you were in a bomber and one got behind you with no friendly air cover, you were as good as dead.

Not so with fighter aircraft. As already said, the cannons were not ideally suited for fighting, but for intercepting bombers, which were the real threat to the German industrial machine. The 252 was designed for this in mind, while the 109 and 190 only served in this role until a better alternative was invented or if there was no better alternative was to be found. Once again, to recap, the 252 had one main purpose. All of the other fighter planes of the opposing powers were multi purpose aircraft with the ability to carry bombs, cannons, and machine guns for whatever role they were called on to serve.

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]</p>

[Ogadai]

The myth that the Me-262's delay into service was caused by Hitler's demands about it being transformed into a fighter-bomber are just that myths, in my opinion.

Willy Messerschmitt made the claim as a means of "buck passing". In reality the delay was caused by the poor serviceability of the Jumo-004 turbjet engines. With a service life of only 4 hours for most of late 1943-early 1944, its a bit hard to have a functioning, operational aircraft which needs to change its engines after every mission. Galland repeated the claim after the war, in his memoires and it seems to have been picked up and perpetuated ever since.

This, plus the fact that the Me-262 was designed from the outset to actually be developed into a fighter-bomber were revealed in the excellent four volume set of books published over the last few years on the Me-262 (basically everything you ever wanted to know about the aircraft but didn't realise you didn't know )

Brian, wasn't it the Dauntless that the French used?

Michael, Australia never used the A-24 (Army version of the Dauntless?). The RAAF were supplied with the Vultee Vengeance. However, the three squadrons which operationally flew it, only flew for a few months in New Guinea. General Kenney, Macarthur's airforce commander didn't like divebombers, so he forced the RAAF to withdraw them and the squadrons were disbanded and reformed on Liberators. The troops in the field appreciated the Vengeance's accuracy. The RAAF continued to use dive bombers though, the CAC Wirraway a trainer/liason aircraft was modified and used in the role as a light dive bomber (and again, the troops appreciated it, even if the heirachy didn't).

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

how is it funny taking a pilot that got shotdown as an example? all the great aces were shot down at least once. von richtoven, the red barron was killed in combat, he actualy was wounded earlier and still flew, because of this that somehow makes him not a good pilot?<hr></blockquote>

Richtofen was only a fair pilot, and a lousy marksman. Many of his kills were gained by picking on stragglers and cripples. He will be remembered for having the highest score of World War One, though. Doesn't make him a great pilot.

While some pilots could bring down an enemy plane with a handful of bullets, Richtofen usually had to close to point blank and fire many bursts to ensure some of his bullets hit the target.

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]</p>