Ground Support Aircraft

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

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<hr></blockquote>

Well, I see Ogadai has beaten me to the punch, for the most part. Yes, it was the Dauntless. The French operated several squadrons and were quite favourable about its ability to get its bombs on target, quite close to the forward positions of their own troops.

The RAAF never operated the A-24 (I cannot even remember them even recieving any, and they did operate some odd aircraft at various times). As Ogadai related, we had the Vengeance and despite liking it, bowed to US pressure to get rid of them and replace them with Liberators, which then operated as far north as Hong Kong.

My question is why do you assume that the RAF operated in New Guinea?

The only place the RAF operated in the SW Pacific Theatre was a couple of squadrons of Spitfires, flown out of Darwin in defence of that city, flying Mk.Vb and VIII Spitfires. They were sent to Australia, much belatedly (and didn't stay long) as part of Churchill's supposed promise that the Empire would rally to Oz's defence if it was threatened by Japan. After the experience of Prince of Wales and Repulse and Singapore, it was a long time coming, they didn't arrive until early 1943 and had departed by mid-1944.

[Brian]

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

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?

<hr></blockquote>

The P-40 was used extensively in the ground-attack role as a fighter-bomber in all the theatres it was employed in, from the Aleutions through to Italy. It was still in service in several of them when the war ended too.

Smith quotes several pilot reports of their use by the Desert Air Force in Italy up until the end of the war, they also operated them extensively over the Balkans.

Just 'cause the USAAF thought they were outmoded, doesn't mean they still could perform a useful function, either in a secondary role or in another theatre where they were unlikely to encounter necessarily the best and the greatest in enemy aircraft.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

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.<hr></blockquote>

The tactics revolved more around the way in which the aircraft approached the target and operated over it, as far as I can tell from Smith (which has a lot on how the Vengeance was meant to be operated). Dive-bombers used to fly and attack in formation, whereas it seems fighter-bombers used to attack individually, adopting different approaches as the pilot determined, while the dive-bombers would peel off, one-by-one and go down the same path to the target.

As to whether or not a dive attack constituted dive-bombing is I think pretty much a question of semantics. According to Smith, whose book is the only one I've come across which seriously studies the matter of dive-bombing and dive-bombers, fighters often executed near vertical dive attacks, by war's end. Something the RAF at least had been very anti from a very early period in its development, because of worries about blacking out and so on. Fears which for the most part were found to groundless, if the pull out was executed in a timely enough fashion.

Smith BTW has an interesting picture of a USN F-4 Phantom in Vietnam executing a vertical dive attack. I suspect he started a long way up.

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]</p>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Actually engines availability and reliability was a problem. Engine average life was like 20 hours.

But you could hear engines scrape metal after just 15 hours...

But germans like to blame hitler for most of their failures. Hitler interferance was not worth much - garmans were changing design of ME262 while they were waiting for reliable engines.<hr></blockquote>

that is actualy false, i dont mean to sound like dorosh, but i am realy interested in where you read that from. Hitlers interference was worth a great deal, as is any dictators influence on the country he rules, thats why there are dictators, thats what they do, what they say goes, no debates

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

I've been trying to stay out of the Hitler discussion and keep the focus ground attack tactics---but what the heck, why not plunge in!

I'd like to suggest that the notion that "Germany would have one the war if only they hadn't had Hitler" makes no sense, for the obvious reason that there would have BEEN no war without Hitler. You can't really cherry pick here. Hitler's drive and megalomania got Germany into the war and helped fuel the early successes. AND that same drive and megalomania kept him at the helm, making a LOT of really bad decisions, after 1942, when his enemies became more numerous and better armed and experienced and, arguably, a professional military mind was now REALLY needed in command.

FDR knew how to handle this sort of situation--staying out of the nuts and bolts of the war and basically managing the war's political side, only making tie-breaking decisions between his generals and Allies when absolutely necessary. But then, he was a sane and balanced political animal who knew how to manage the reins of a democracy, who sought quality subordinates, who knew how to delegate, and who also knew his limitations.

Now if we want to take the discussion to a truly surreal level, let's ask the question: what if FDR and Hitler had traded places on, say , Dec. 10, 1941 (the day Germany declared war on the US)? Would Hitler have managed to screw up the Allied war effort enough to keep them from winning? Maybe. Could FDR have enhanced the German war effort enough to allow them to win? Maybe. But when we take a half step back from these question, we realize that we face the inconceivable.

Hitler, or someone like him, is impossible to imagine as a leader of the free world, just as FDR is impossible to imagine leading Nazi Germany. (Try to swap Hitler and Churchill--another highly effective war leader-- and you get the same surreal effect.)

Ultimately, WWII was Hitler's war. You can't take him out of German war effort because it was an effort he designed and brought into being from the ground up. Instead of blaming Hitler for losing them the war, the German generals should have been questioning the rationale for the war effort itself and their own earlier support for (or acquiecence in) Hitler's agenda. Their support of this man and his agenda helped to bring on that war--and that's where their fault lies, IMHO<hr></blockquote>

i agree, alot of his generals in fact did not want a war, and alot of others wanted one in 42, not 39.

[PJungnitsch]

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

that is actualy false, i dont mean to sound like dorosh, but i am realy interested in where you read that from. Hitlers interference was worth a great deal, as is any dictators influence on the country he rules, thats why there are dictators, thats what they do, what they say goes, no debates<hr></blockquote>

No, that's true in what I've read as well. Here's an example from 'Wings of the Luftwaffe' from Captain Eric Brown.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>While obviously proud of the Me 262, the German pilots were equally obviously somewhat apprehensive of it, especially of the two-seat night fighting version....turbojets were unreliable and had, we were told, an overhaul life of 10 hours and a total life of no more than 25 hours.<hr></blockquote>

Apparently the problem was a scarcity of alloys, for which the top priority was the new U-boat program.

The 262 was designed modularly and the engines were easy to change, which helped out somewhat.

Adding bomb shackles was a fairly minor mod (AFAIK) to a aircraft that had a lot of variants throughout its lifetime. Ie R4M rockets, 50mm cannon, RATO takeoff, and two seat radar equipped nightfighter versions.

Back to the subject of ground attack, here's a nice link to a history of German ground attack aircraft in WWII

[PJungnitsch]

A quote on what has to be the greatest ground support pilot of all time, from that link I posted:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>An aside on Rudel….by the end of the war, he had amassed an astounding reputation as the top Stuka pilot, finishing the war with more than 2,500 sorties, and credit for the destruction of 519 tanks, one battleship, one cruiser, one destroyer, 70 landing craft, four armored trains, and nine enemy aircraft…all in an aircraft judged by some to be obsolete by the start of the war. He was shot down 30 times by ground fire (never by another aircraft) and was wounded five times, including one instance where he lost his leg…and continued flying with an artificial one! The Soviets put a 100,000 ruble bounty on his head, dead or alive.<hr></blockquote>

From his book 'Stuka Pilot'

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>"In the East we have long since ceased to develop practice from theory; we do just the opposite. One can do no more than give the formation leader his assignment; how he performs it is his affair, for it is he who has to carry it out. At the present time the war in the air has become so variable that one can no longer rely on theories; only formation leaders have the necessary experience at the critical moment and are likely to make the proper decisions. It is a good thing we realized this in the East in time, otherwise it would be a sure thing that none of us would be flying any more.<hr></blockquote>

[Michael Emrys]

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

The RAAF never operated the A-24 (I cannot even remember them even recieving any...<hr></blockquote>

Hmm. I'll have to dig out some sources to check on this. My recollection is that there was a squadron or two in north Queensland that then went to Port Moresby. I have this notion that they ended up back in US service, but I thought they were originally given to the RAAF. But then of course, I may be imagining the whole thing. Have to find a reputable source on the matter...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>My question is why do you assume that the RAF operated in New Guinea?<hr></blockquote>

Did I say that? If so, it must have been a slip of the typing key. All that I know agrees with what you said about their operating in defense of Darwin, though I thought they might have gotten there a few months earlier than the dates you give. But you are likely more up on the details than I.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

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

The tactics revolved more around the way in which the aircraft approached the target and operated over it, as far as I can tell from Smith (which has a lot on how the Vengeance was meant to be operated). Dive-bombers used to fly and attack in formation, whereas it seems fighter-bombers used to attack individually, adopting different approaches as the pilot determined, while the dive-bombers would peel off, one-by-one and go down the same path to the target.<hr></blockquote>

I read once an interesting description of attack tactics used by P-51 pilots in Normandy to fox the flak. They would initiate their attack flying in one direction and then part the way in break to attack their true target. This would throw off the aim of the gunners on the ground. Not sure though how this affected their own accuracy.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As to whether or not a dive attack constituted dive-bombing is I think pretty much a question of semantics.<hr></blockquote>

Perhaps in your readings. In mine, the difference has been pretty well defined in terms of angle. Glide bombing was usually done at an angle ~30° and dive bombing more like 70° or greater. Since you bring up the Vengeance, my book on the subject mentions that the RAF used to attack at a more or less vertical angle, which gave it great accuracy.

Michael

[Richard Morgan]

Simon,

I'll meet you half way on this one. Other Germans made some real howlers: Hermann Goering (I can supply the 6th Army by air at Stalingrad) certainly springs immediately to mind. However, I think that there is considerable evidence that Hitler became markedly more irrational, as time progressed, particularly in the last two years of the war.

i agre wit yu about this iron chief sakai caracter hey ironchef we luv yr enthoosiasm and contribootans to thys baord but pleese tri to improove yr speling and grama Microsoft hav this real cool gizmos in there word programme calld spelchek and gramachek... Hang loosse

Richard

[Michael Emrys]

I don't think there is any debate that as the war progressed Hitler became even crazier and that in general his interference in military matters only increased the bloodshed to no good effect. What is disputed is the notion that Germany could have somehow won the war if only the generals had gotten together and ousted Hitler at some point (1942?). My argument would be that if the generals had ousted Hitler, and if they had been able to consolidate political control of the country, and if they had rounded up the Nazis and put them on trial and hanged them, then they might have been able to negotiate a peace with the nations they were then at war with. But even that peace would have been very unstable, as at a minimum it would have required Germany to return to its 1938 borders and largely disarm. This would have left it in a vulnerable condition with a lot of very pissed off neighbors on its borders.

Michael

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p>

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

quote:

Originally posted by Brian: The RAAF never operated the A-24 (I cannot even remember them even recieving any...

Hmm. I'll have to dig out some sources to check on this. My recollection is that there was a squadron or two in north Queensland that then went to Port Moresby. I have this notion that they ended up back in US service, but I thought they were originally given to the RAAF. But then of course, I may be imagining the whole thing. Have to find a reputable source on the matter...

<hr></blockquote>

My books are still packed from a recent move but the RAAF Museum's website has a complete list of all aircraft operated by the RAAF and its here. It does not list the Dauntless. So I suspect you must be mistaken.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Apparently the problem was a scarcity of alloys, for which the top priority was the new U-boat program.

The 262 was designed modularly and the engines were easy to change, which helped out somewhat.

Adding bomb shackles was a fairly minor mod (AFAIK) to a aircraft that had a lot of variants throughout its lifetime. Ie R4M rockets, 50mm cannon, RATO takeoff, and two seat radar equipped nightfighter versions.

Back to the subject of ground attack, here's a nice link to a history of German ground attack aircraft in WWII<hr></blockquote>

i was not debating the fact the the 262 had many teething problems, i was talking about how hitlers order to refit them as a fighter bomber delayed the project to 44 where the germand where alot more hard up for materials then they were in early 43 when they their war machine kicked it in to high gear

[Michael Emrys]

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

[/qb]

My books are still packed from a recent move...<hr></blockquote>

Same here.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>but the RAAF Museum's website has a complete list of all aircraft operated by the RAAF and its here. It does not list the Dauntless.<hr></blockquote>

Very interesting site. I'd never even heard of the Douglas Dolphin.

One of the drawbacks of having read so much over the years is that I have a lot of facts rattling around in my head that aren't necessarily connected in an orderly fashion. I am certain that I have read that the planes were in the area at about the time of the Coral Sea battle. I could, of course have been misinformed about that. The ownership of the craft is a seperate issue, and of that I could easily be mistaken.

Ah, the joys of aging...

Michael

[Scott B]

This is interesting stuff. While I don't have much to add to the Me-262/Stuka discussion, I came across a bit of text the other day and it seems particularly relevant. This is from the book, The Initial Period of War on the Eastern Front, 22 June - August 1941, which was based on the Fourth Art of War Symposium in 1987, edited by David Glantz. (Pages 337-338)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>From Brigadier General Edel Lingenthal, of Panzer Regiment 15, 11th Panzer Division:

Aircraft also provided strafing and bombing support. A special air force unit, the 8th Flieger Korps was brought up, especially trained and equipped to provide close air support. The aircraft unit sent air liaison officers to tank commanders with radios which could be installed in any tank. Thus, there were communications with higher air headquarters, with Stuka bombers, and of course with the Panzer unit company or battlegroup commander. Usually the liaison officer stayed close to the ground commander. Since he could see the same things as we could, he could react just as quickly. Sometimes the effective use of air began immediately, while in other cases it began three to five minutes later. The air liaison officer compared favorably with an artillery observer. He had the same function and effectiveness as an artillery forward observer. That was very essential for us at this time when we had no self-propelled artillery to accompany us.<hr></blockquote>

I'm very interested in learning more about the Flieger type units-- surely someone else here has more about them than I. It is interesting also to note that this armor officer was not only receiving CAS directly, but also reconnaissance and to a lesser extent aerial resupply in the opening months of the campaign in Russia. What other evidence exists suggesting that a ground commander might have more direct control over the available CAS?

Scott

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Very interesting site. I'd never even heard of the Douglas Dolphin.

<hr></blockquote>

The RAAF was pretty desperate in late 1941-early 1942, it took on charge a whole swag of different civilian aircraft until it could get its hands on something slightly more useful. The result was a collection which was a maintenance nightmare by all accounts and by mid-43 they'd been written off charge and returned to their original owners for the most part.

You'll note we also ended up operating what ever could escape from anywhere, basically as the Japanese advanced. The Do-24's were not something we'd originally purchased.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

One of the drawbacks of having read so much over the years is that I have a lot of facts rattling around in my head that aren't necessarily connected in an orderly fashion. I am certain that I have read that the planes were in the area at about the time of the Coral Sea battle. I could, of course have been misinformed about that. The ownership of the craft is a seperate issue, and of that I could easily be mistaken.

Ah, the joys of aging...

Michael<hr></blockquote>

I'm in the same boat. Unlike some, I'm a little more forgiving of that process. I last seriously studied NW Europe over 20 years ago when I used to wargame it. Since then, my interests have moved on and changed markedly, as far as Military History is concerned.

[tss]

Richard Morgan:

Somewhere, I have Galland's book "The First and the Last" kicking around.

I happened to stumble on a copy of that book on sale on a book fair last weekend, though it had quite terrible price (it was the fist Finnish paperback edition).

But anyway, now that the thread has drifted a lot I might add to the commotion by listing few pilot memoirs that I've found to be interesting (hopefully I can manage to correcly connect the German and English titles to each other):

Adolf Galland: Die Ersten und die Letzten, ("The First and the Last")

Max Immelmann: Der Adler von Lille ("The Eagle of Lille", edited by Franz Immelmann who is marked as the author in the English version)

Eino-Ilmari Juutilainen: Punalentäjien kiusana ("Double Fighter Knight", literal translation would be "Being a Nuisance for Red Pilots")

Heinz Knoke: Die Große Jagd ("I flew for the Führer", literal translation would be "The Great Hunt")

Hans-Ulrich Rudel: Mein Leben in Krieg und Frieden ("Stuka pilot")

Saburo Sakai: Samurai

von Lucke wrote:

Von Richtofen was an excellent shot --- on occasion taking down opponents with single bursts. All high scoring aces got in close before firing because those WWI crates weren't exactly stable gun platforms --- waiting until you can see the whites of the other pilots eyes insures you hit the target, and was a common tactic among veteran aces.

Also in WWII there were only few aces who could consistently hit long-range deflection shots, Hans-Joachim Marseille being the most famous of them. Few aces specialiced in very close range shooting. For example, Finnish Lauri Nissinen (32 victories) was called "Terrier" for his practice of setting his sights to 50 meters (IIRC) while most pilots had them in 150-200 meter range.

And speaking of WWI aces... Last Friday when I was waiting for few documents to be delivered at Finnish Military Archieves I skimmed through Arne Somersalo's Taisteluvuosien varrelta [he was probably the only Finn to fight on the West Front in WWI, or at least the only one to leave a written account. He volunteered, and surprisingly was accepted, in the German army after he was expelled from university] and it contained an eyewittness account of Immelmann's death. According to Somersalo he saw one day a lone Fokker fighting against a British plane when German AA started to fire into the melee. He then saw the Fokker to explode and believed it was hit by the AA. When he arrived at the crash scene he recognized the pilot by his Pour Le Merite. I have no means to establish how reliable Somersalo's report is.

- Tommi

[Michael Emrys]

As long as we are tossing pilot memoirs around, I'd like to mention my personal favorite, Wing Leader by Johnnie Johnson. There was another one by the American P-47 pilot Bob Johnson, but I can't recall the title just now, as well as readable books by "Cocky" Dundas and Stanford-Tuck. Oh, there are doubtlessly hundreds of them.

On the subject of firing from close range, Eric Hartman (mentioned earlier in this thread) once stated in an interview he gave some years before his death that he always tried to close in until his prey filled his sights. Then there was no chance of missing and every bullet and shell went home. Of course the secret is to get that close before you get spotted. His was to dive well behind his enemy and then close in on a climbing approach in his enemy's blind spot. Must have worked.

Michael

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I don't think there is any debate that as the war progressed Hitler became even crazier and that in general his interference in military matters only increased the bloodshed to no good effect. What is disputed is the notion that Germany could have somehow won the war if only the generals had gotten together and ousted Hitler at some point (1942?). My argument would be that if the generals had ousted Hitler, and if they had been able to consolidate political control of the country, and if they had rounded up the Nazis and put them on trial and hanged them, then they might have been able to negotiate a peace with the nations they were then at war with. But even that peace would have been very unstable, as at a minimum it would have required Germany to return to its 1938 borders and largely disarm. This would have left it in a vulnerable condition with a lot of very pissed off neighbors on its borders.

mabe? mabe not? it's only speculation, one example of many possibilites that could have happend but we'll never know

Michael

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<hr></blockquote>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

why did it blend what i said into what you said?, i only said mabe, mabe not on

[Lars]

Just in case you wanted a Me262 of your very own.

http://www.stormbirds.com/common/forsale.htm

Better hurry, only three left!

[Spook]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

As long as we are tossing pilot memoirs around, I'd like to mention my personal favorite, Wing Leader by Johnnie Johnson. There was another one by the American P-47 pilot Bob Johnson, but I can't recall the title just now, as well as readable books by "Cocky" Dundas and Stanford-Tuck. Oh, there are doubtlessly hundreds of them.

<hr></blockquote>

Bob Johnson's was "Thunderbolt!" which I have read, along with "Wing Leader," Bader's "Reach for the Sky," and Sakai's "Samurai."

All of whom I think have passed away now, although I don't know about Bader.

[Lars]

Bader died in 82. I met his widow, I beleive she runs an art gallery in California.

[Michael Emrys]

Reach for the Sky, though certainly about Bader, was actually written by Paul Brickhill, if memory serves.

Lars, are you sure about the date of Bader's death? I thought it was a bit more recent than that.

Michael

[Lars]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Paul Brickhill's book, Reach for the Sky, was published in 1954 and was later made into a movie. Bader's autobiography, Fight for the Sky, appeared in 1973. Douglas Bader, who was knighted in 1976, died in 1982. <hr></blockquote>

A quick Google search will turn up so much.

[l3w53r]

Dunno much bout the "organic",but thats the explanation I've read of for why there is not much heavy artillery for the soviets during ww2.

I've read that them ruskies only produced a handful of big arillery guns for ground troops becuase the red army got 'em sturmoviks.

And I think the "flying tanks" was pretty much coordinated with ground troops to become replacements for heavy artillery.

And I still have got to learn(I'm 14yrs old)but I think Germany could have won the war if Hitler didn't bomb London,instead opting to continue decimating the RAF in the Battle of Britain,giving the luftwaffe air supperiority and paving the way for England's invasion.

That way, there's only 1 front, the eastern one,then there's not gonna be much need for an alliance with japan (which means America might not go into war with germany), as the Reich controls a lot of countries and only one front where all these resources would be used on.And there will be little disruption on German industry, as there will be no airfields from which allied heavy bombers could come from to bomb germany.and getting supplies to Russia would be a bit hard, as Germany would be able to harass, or utterly stop any convoy going to russia from the atlantic.

So to me, if the Germans had won the battle of Britain, there is going to be a stronger germany, and weaker, if not non-existent allies.

whew! =)