Air power in CMBB

[Soddball]

Have tried search, and it doesn't answer my question, which is:

How will air power be used in CMBB? I've been looking through the different types of planes deployed on the eastern front by Soviet and Axis forces, and ideas seem different.

For example, Soviet forces seem to have a paucity of ground-attack aircraft. Their main plane for this was the Sturmovik, and it was very good. It used bombs, rockets and cannon to achieve its objective.

The Germans also used bombs, rockets, and cannon, but also used other weaponry to devastating effect. The two that spring immediately to mind are the Heinkel He177 and Henschel HS129. The 177 was a twin-engined level bomber which was equipped with dive brakes to allow shallow dive bombing attacks. The Henschel was a ground attack craft with a heavily armoured nose and powerful firepower.

Henschel developments include 37mm gun, 50mm AT gun, 75mm Pak AT gun :eek:, and a battery of six smoothbore rocket tubes which fired down automatically when the plane flew over metal objects.

Heinkel's main AT weapon was a 75mm AT gun. 700 of various sub-types of the HE-177 served on the eastern front, and 'several hundred' Henschel 129's with heavy AT weapons also served in the same theatre.

I'd be interested to hear how ground attack aircraft will be employed in CMBB and also what the gathering feels about the above planes and whether they would be an 'interesting' addition. You can see that their numbers are not insignificant.

(Edited for minor stupidity)

[ 09-11-2001: Message edited by: Soddball ]

[Soddball]

*BUMP*ed because any answers were rather lost (understandably) on Monday. Thanks for your input.

[Schrullenhaft]

From what I can gather at this point, airpower in CMBB is going to be roughly the same as it was in CMBO. Unfortunately there will be no distinction between CAS aircraft. I believe that there will be 2 - 4 'configurations' of aircraft distinguished primarily by their weapons load. I don't know if one of these loads includes any 20-57mm guns (were there 50-57mm guns on any CAS aircraft ?).

On the other hand maybe we'll be surprised, but I think that the only difference from what I suggested above would be more 'load-outs' for the aircraft weaponry. Maybe CMII will see more differentiation between the CAS aircraft. For now it is an abstraction that may be a bit rough for some, but it is fairly appropriate for CM's scale.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]

[Mace]

You also forgot the Ju87 G1 with the twin 37mm pods...in the hands of an excellent Pilot like Rudel, they accounted for substantial Soviet tank losses during Operation Citadel.

Mace

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soddball:

For example, Soviet forces seem to have a paucity of ground-attack aircraft. Their main plane for this was the Sturmovik, and it was very good. It used bombs, rockets and cannon to achieve its objective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the number of Il-2s, their widespread employment, and their effectiveness, the use of the word 'paucity' here seems strange. But aside from that plane, there were others, the Pe-2 being the most prominent, I believe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Germans also used bombs, rockets, and cannon, but also used other weaponry to devastating effect. The two that spring immediately to mind are the Heinkel He177 and Henschel HS129. The 177 was a twin-engined level bomber which was equipped with dive brakes to allow shallow dive bombing attacks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The He-177 was a four engined aircraft. There were two engines linked together in each nacelle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Henschel was a ground attack craft with a heavily armoured nose and powerful firepower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was neither very effective nor well liked by its crews.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Henschel developments include 37mm gun, 50mm AT gun, 75mm Pak AT gun :eek:, and a battery of six smoothbore rocket tubes which fired down automatically when the plane flew over metal objects.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you have any information on the numbers of aircraft actually produced and committed to battle of these models, I would appreciate your sharing it with us. My own understanding is that these were only experimental models with very limited production for the 50mm-armed models. The downward firing rocket tubes sound like the kind of desperate wonder weapons that German engineers turned off the drawing boards by the scores in the last years of the war but in most instances were never able to make work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Heinkel's main AT weapon was a 75mm AT gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never heard of this. Once again, I would be interested to know what your source is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>700 of various sub-types of the HE-177 served on the eastern front...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which so far as I know never did anything but level bombing. The He-177 was not a successful design, mainly due to mechanical difficulties. Chiefly, the tendency of the engines to catch fire in flight and the tendency of the resulting fire to burn through the main spar causing the wing to fall off.

Curious that you fail to mention various models of the Fw-190 that were used in the ground attack role on the Eastern Front, as they outnumbered the planes you mentioned, and were far more effective.

Michael

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

The He-177 was not a successful design, mainly due to mechanical difficulties. Chiefly, the tendency of the engines to catch fire in flight and the tendency of the resulting fire to burn through the main spar causing the wing to fall off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You call that a mechanical difficulty? Pfffff.... In the hands of someone like Rudel they could still decimate the Red Army's tank hordes...

But anyway - my understanding is also that the main FBs used in the east were the Ju-87 w/37mm AA guns and the FW-190.

And the Soviet air force? Well, according to my grandfather, all they ever fielded were Ratas. Seems to have been a generic term for any Soviet plane he saw. Being a ground-pounder, I guess he was not too fussed about what kind of a plane was dropping the bombs on him.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

You call that a mechanical difficulty? Pfffff.... In the hands of someone like Rudel they could still decimate the Red Army's tank hordes...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected and humbly apologize to the ghosts of the heroically dead.

Michael

[JasonC]

The Russians made 36,000 IL-2s, and in the last year of the war and afterward, 6,000 more Il-10s, an improved version. They were one of the first aircraft fitted for air to ground rockets, by any power. A duel 37mm version was made but proved unsuccessful in practice; they stuck with the 23mm guns in the wings instead. The Russians also invented the first HEAT "bomblets" in history, explicitly for use from the IL-2. Each plane could drop 192 of the little buggers. As with all attempts to drop shaped charges, some portion wind up misses because of their impact angle, but these were effective weapons.

It was the German ground attack AC that were comparatively primitive. The best was certainly the armored, dedicated ground attack version of the FW-190, using 4 20mm cannons plus bombs. There were variants of 190s with twin 30mm cannon pods, and others with two crude 210mm rocket launchers (which were literally 210 nebelwerfer tubes field adapted to hang under the wings), but both were late war weapons and meant for use against heavy bombers.

The Germans also used the Stuka of course, usually with 2 20mm guns and bombs. They used some duel 37mm and of course some aces did very well with them, but the ordinary effectiveness of 37mm (let alone larger) guns in AC is highly exaggerated. They are comparatively low velocity cannons with low rates of fire, which make hit probabilities low at 250+ mph. Even P-39s had the things (and with better aim through the propeller hub), but it took a highly skilled pilot to hit with them consistently. Unlike higher ROF 20mm and 23mm, which hit easily.

There is also the usual inflation of all air to ground kill claims. If you listen to the pilots - anybody's pilots, down to today - they whacked everything several times over. For example, Russian IL-2 pilots claimed 580 tank kills in three particular large attacks in the battle of Kursk, alone. Anybody think they actually got that many? I sure don't. Why not? Well, try to figure out the total kills that would be consistent with that, from 36,000 IL-2s, and the Germans will run out of armor to lose, long before the Russian pilots run out of tales to tell. There is no reason to think the Stuka pilots were any more accurate (or the P-47 pilots, or the Typhoon pilots...)

[Cpl Carrot]

Thats all well and good but will they fly under the bridges

[Soddball]

Perhaps I'm being misunderstood. I don't intend to suggest that the planes I named were common, or hugely widespread. I know full well that the Russians deployed large numbers of Il-2/10 (although not immediately) and what I was trying to explain was that the Germans fielded a far greater variety of planes. That's what I meant by 'paucity'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The He-177 was a four engined aircraft. There were two engines linked together in each nacelle.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry. I always think of it as a 2-engined plane, and forget there were 2 in each nacelle.

You're right about its unpopularity - Goering forbade Heinkel's sending him any more, if I remember rightly.

I'm also aware of the effectivess of the 190 and of the Stuka (when the latter had or needed fighter cover). My aim was to raise the question about the appropriateness of AT guns on aircraft - be it 37mm on the Stuka, 50mm or 75mm on the Henschel and Heinkel, whatever. My feeling is that these weapons would add a breadth to any CM battle.

I wholeheartedly agree that there were much more common weapons of war. I didn't seek to address those, because they are partially covered by the current air power system. I did seek to question whether a larger range of aeroplanes might offer rather more depth.

Instead of feeling confident that your armoured heavy tanks can handle 20mm cannon fire from aeroplanes, the worry that you could have a 75mm round stuffed through you from above would make the boldest commander cautious.

Incidentally, if the Il-2 is to surface in CMBB (as it will in some form), should it not be deployed in pairs as a ground attack aircraft? I thought either that or as a section of 10 at 1,000 feet

[Cpl Carrot]

Found one of my books with a noce picture of a Me 410 with a 50mm cannon in the nose. Carried 21 rounds as well as standard nose armerment. However it was only used for bomber busting.

Have another picture of an He 177 with a Mk 101 cannon (can someone tell me the calibre of this?) positioned just below the nose. used for flak suppression apparntly. Looks mean.

Some where is in a box I have a book with some details about the Hs 129 with its big gun. IIRC it 'only' carried the 50mm, but I guess thats big enough to ruin anyones day

[Chupacabra]

Don't forget also lend-lease P39s. The Americans hated it, but that big-ass 37mm cannon in the front could punch through top armor wit a quickness.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Never heard of this. Once again, I would be interested to know what your source is.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs129.html for one of many.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soddball:

For example, Soviet forces seem to have a paucity of ground-attack aircraft. Their main plane for this was the Sturmovik, and it was very good. It used bombs, rockets and cannon to achieve its objective.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmm, the Soviets also used various versions of their front-line fighters, in fighter-bomber form. Most notably, the Yak-9T, which mounted a 45mm cannon firing through the propeller hub. They also utilised lend-lease equipment such as the P-39 and the P-63 Aerocobra/Kingcobra - which were extremely popular with their pilots.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The Germans also used bombs, rockets, and cannon, but also used other weaponry to devastating effect. The two that spring immediately to mind are the Heinkel He177 and Henschel HS129.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errr, they also again, like the Soviets utilised a great many fighter-bombers, primarily the BF-109 and the Fw-190, armed with primarily bombs - although they also extensively utilised cluster bombs against armoured and infantry targets. The Fw-190 was also equipped with "Panzerblitz" rockets of various calibres/types - the final version being a converted R4M with a hollow-charge warhead. In addition, they used the Ju-87 "Stuka" both as a dive-bomber and a ground-attack aircraft armed with two 37mm cannon.

The 75mm armed He-177's were used primarily for train bustng, not CAS, according to William Green's "Warplanes of the Third Reich".

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs129.html for one of many.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er, my statement which you quoted was about the He-177, whereas the URL which you provide (thanks, BTW) refers to the Hs-129. Just thought you'd like to know.

BTW, I stand by my statement that the 75mm cannon and recoilless rifle mounts were experimental. While they may at one time or another have been committed on the battlefield (the Germans tended to do that, especially toward the desperate end) they were not produced in numbers. I really doubt that the 50mm version was built in numbers that exceeded a few score, though I admit I could be mistaken about that. The 30mm I agree was common enough to be regarded as a major subtype.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soddball:

I know full well that the Russians deployed large numbers of Il-2/10 (although not immediately) and what I was trying to explain was that the Germans fielded a far greater variety of planes. That's what I meant by 'paucity'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In general, the Soviets tended to settle on a few types of armaments and then crank them out in huge numbers. The Germans kept fiddling with their designs in a nervous kind of way in the hope of achieving a technical breakthrough that would give them a significant advantage. While their arms usually were indeed superior in a one-to-one comparison, this approach meant that often production was slowed or halted for retooling. This proved not to be a war winning approach to the problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Incidentally, if the Il-2 is to surface in CMBB (as it will in some form), should it not be deployed in pairs as a ground attack aircraft? I thought either that or as a section of 10 at 1,000 feet <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since BTS has not provided propietary formations of FBs in CMBO, I don't expect them to do so in CMBB. Of course, they could always suprise me.

Michael

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[illo]

He-177A-5 (major production model) was a very good bomber. It was fast, had huge bombload and good defensive armament. Engine failures were by this model mostly sorted out. But anyways..i think it's main use was in anti shipping role with radio guided bombs/missiles.

I think He-177 is out of CMs scale because it's level bomber. What we need is ground attack aircraft.

Ju-87 divebombers and FW-190F/G were most succesfull and most used german planes

in ground attack role.

Ju87g1 with 2xBK37 (modified flak cannon which used tungsten cored ammo) under its wings wasnt any major model. It was used by Versuchskommando für panzerbekampfung(test commando for AT warfare). Rudel flew one of these and so did some of his squad mates.

Hs 129b3/Wa (the one with 75mm Pak) was in operation use by at least two units(10.Pz/Sch.G.9 and 14.Pz/Sch.G.9)

Cannon had 26 rounds wich could be fired at rate of 40r.pm

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: illo ]

[Vergeltungswaffe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Er, my statement which you quoted was about the He-177, whereas the URL which you provide (thanks, BTW) refers to the Hs-129. Just thought you'd like to know.

BTW, I stand by my statement that the 75mm cannon and recoilless rifle mounts were experimental. While they may at one time or another have been committed on the battlefield (the Germans tended to do that, especially toward the desperate end) they were not produced in numbers. I really doubt that the 50mm version was built in numbers that exceeded a few score, though I admit I could be mistaken about that. The 30mm I agree was common enough to be regarded as a major subtype.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree totally that there were very few of the heavily armed models built. I have read as few as 24 for the 75mm armed B-2.

And, not to be picky, but you very clearly stated the response I quoted about his statement that Heinkel's main AT weapon was a 75mm AT gun.

[tools4fools]

From 1939 to 1945 in the war my grandfather mentioned airplanes twice; once divebombers crushing a Russian counterattack and once a Russian night attack plane (they called those planes "fliegende Nähmaschine" - flying sewing machine - because of the sound of the small engine; I think this was a bi-plane and only used during the earlier stage of the war on the eastern front. It was used only nighttime because it was no match for modern planes) dropping a bomb after he shot at it with a MG. The bomb hit a forward guard position, but luckily the two guys who were on duty were not there. Their officer scolded the two guys for not being on duty - and forbade my grandfather shooting at the plane...

One reason why he saw very seldom airplanes (and tanks as well) might be because he was in Finnland during the late part of the war.

I think ground attack planes were rare in CM scale; they attacked more before or between battles, seldom when infantry was already fighting each other.

The Ju 88, a medium bomber, was used as ground attack plane on the eastern front as well along with Ju 87 and FW 190, which are probably the most common.

[Måkjager]

Henschel Hs 129 series.

In July 1940 Henschel began construction of 23 pre production aircraft under the designation Hs 129A-0 with service trials beginning in the Autumn of 1940.

These were of all metal construction with light metal stressed skin covering.The engine’s which were built integrally with the fuselage for additional strength had 5mm armour as protection.

The pilot sat in a cockpit which had a armoured “bathtub” for his protection, armour thickness varying from 6mm at the sides to 12mm at the front.Thick armoured glass further improved his protection but at the expense of poor visibility.

Initial pilot experiences exposed problems of poor visibility , poor handling and low engine power.

With time the Hs 129 was improved with the replacement of the underpowered Argus engines with air-cooled French Gnome & Rhone radial 14 cylinder power plants which gave an 50% increase in output.This variant was named Hs129A-1 until its designation was cancelled in November 1940.The first 16 aircraft produced were designated Hs129B-0 , the following 10 aircraft were named Hs129B-1.

Following modifications the Hs129B-1 was accepted into service. It had a standard weapons fit of 2x7.92mm MG 17 guns , each with 1000rds, 2x20mm MG 151/20 cannon with 250rds each and could also carry 2x110lb SC50 or SD2 bombs under the wings.

Field conversion kits ( Rütstaz ) further allowed additional weapon flexibility for the Hs129.

A 30mm MK101 cannon with 30 rounds of ammunition could be fitted beneath the fuselage in a streamlined gondola.

4 x 7.92mm MG 17 in a fairing beneath the fuselage with a total of 1000 rounds.

Bomb racks for 4x50kg or a single 250kg under the fuselage or 96 x 2kg SD2 bomb lets under the wings

Following on from additional service and suggestions to the RLM and Henschel modifications were made to the aircraft to enable them better withstand the harsh situations they found themselves employed in. Changes were made to the engines to aid cooling and reduce dust intake,while the fuel system had new pumps fitted to help regulate the flow of fuel.

Of the 1164 to 1267 Hs 129 aircraft built nearly 90% would be of the Hs 129B-2 variant.Standard armament remained as 2x7.92 and 2x20mm though new Rüstsatz were employed.The MK 101 was replaced by the 30mm MK103 auto cannon.This had a higher muzzle velocity than the MK 101 and a increased ammunition load of 100 rds of 30mm armour piercing shells.This weapon became standard fitting at the factory after a time.

With greater emphasis being placed on tank busting rather than CAS heavier AT weapons began to appear on the Hs129.

A modified Flak18 37mm (see pix above)gun in a gondola underneath the fuselage was an option that was employed. This weapon the BK-37 ( BK-Bordkanone-Fixed Aircraft Weapon) was the same as that was appearing on the Stuka G1/2. This weapon had a ammunition load out of 12 Wolfram AP rounds and was used to effect on the rear and sides of Soviet armoured targets.In order to save weight the lower mounted 7.92mm MGs were removed on this variant which was also designated Hs 129B-2.

The 30mm and 37mm armed Hs 129B-2 enjoyed considerable success in the AT role , but as ever the events on the ground led to calls for heavier weapons. It was this call that led to the feasibility studies to see if a modified Pak 40 could be fitted to the Hs129.

Following successful trials a total of 23 Hs129B-3 armed with the modified Pak40 entered service in late 1944.This weapon could ko all Soviet tanks that were encountered.

The recoil of the weapon was countered by the large muzzle brake and the mechanical operation was replaced by a pneumatic system.

The drum magazine held 16 rounds of 75mm ammunition which each weighed 26lbs.A cyclic rate of fire 40rds per minute allowed the pilot to fire between 3-4 rds at a target in a single pass.The BK-75 could be jettisoned in an emergency if needed. For this variant the 20mm guns were removed , though it still retained the MG17 for self defence.

As already noted by other posters there were attempts to mount exotic weapon fits to the Hs129, the Panzerblitz 70mm and 55mm antitank rockets, the 21cm and 28cm wing mounted rockets , the vertical firing Förstersonde 77mm AT mortar and the Gero flamethrower!!!!!!

I have some additional info..i will try to post it later when i have time.

Regards

Måkjager

[Soddball]

That was an excellent post, Makjager. Thanks. Would you have any info on numbers of planes, to satisfy the figure-fixated members of these boards?

[Jarmo]

FLAMETHROWER!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Very interesting thread anyway, I always wondered if the 75mm variant was a single shot weapon.

How weighty would that kind of gun system be? I know I'd like a tank with a 40rpm 75mm AT gun..

[Måkjager]

Here we go.....

The Hs 129 series was designed to give the German Armed forces a dedicated ground attack/CAS asset. It used the civil war in Spain ( 1936-39) as a testing ground for new weapons and tactics.The Condor Legion had used the He 51 and Hs 123 biplanes to attack mobile targets in Spain but found that they were unsuited to the task. In April 1937 a requirement was issued for a Schlachtflugzeug ( Ground Attack Aircraft )with 2 engines , armoured protection and cannon to be designed to operate at low level over the battle field where air supremacy had been acheived.

Particular attention was to be given to armour protection from ground AA assets , ability to operate from rough landing strips , ease of maintenance and serviceability.The Hs129 was the eventual winner of the competition. Pre-production started in autumn 1940 , constant testing and improvement followed so that by the start of 1942 the RLM ( Reich Air Ministry) felt able to commit the aircraft to their first battle.

These aircraft were Hs129B-1s and were assigned to a new Luftwaffe combat unit called Sch.G. 1. ( Schlachtgeschwader- ground attack wing) This unit was formed on the 13th January 1942 at Lippstadt , Germany.It consisted of I and II Gruppen ( Groups).

I Gruppen had the 1st , 2nd and 3rd Stafflen , II gruppen had the 5th , 6th and 7th Stafflen while the 4th , 8th and a small Stab ( Staff) rounded out the remainder of the Wing.

Each Stafflen (Squadrons) were issued with 12 aircraft each , which gave a full strenght Wing a total of around 100 HS 129s with which to mount attacks.

In early May 1942 , Hs129s of II./Sch.G. 1 deployed to the southern sector of the Ost front. The 4th and 5th Stafflen were assigned to the Crimea Peninsula , while 6th and 7th were to cover the northern shore of the Sea of Azov. At this time Sch.G 1 had 43 Hs 129B-1s ready for combat. After a time of getting to know the terrain they began attacking Soviet Motorised columns , artillery positions and emplaced strongpoints.These early missions were a success though losses were suffered due to residual engine problems( dust ) but the majority of losses were to Soviet AA fire.

In the middle of May 1942 the Hs129Bs were redeployed to help the hardpressed German footsloggers in their operations around Kharkov in the eastern Ukraine.

Here the German Army faced a numerically superior foe and the support provided to them by Sch.G. 1 was most welcome.The Hs129Bs attacked again and again with their MG 17s , MG151/20 and 50kg bombs , attacking , weakening and harassing the Soviet defenders.

Around the start of June 1942 , Stafflen 4 of .Sch.G1 began to receive the MK101 30mm cannon. Initially the pilots were skeptical about the cannon , prefering to use bombs against Soviet tanks and AFVs but they were soon won over and the 30mm gun soon became the standard AT weapon on the Hs129s. being retrofitted to the remainder of the Wings aircraft.

Area of operations for the following months to the end of the year found II./Sch.G. 1 in combat around Kharkow, Voronezh , Orel, Kursk,Morozovskaya-west and other hot points.In August 1942 the 2500th combat mission of Sch.G. 1 was flown and also the arrival of another Stafflen 13.(Pz) from JG 51 "Mölders". These 8 Hs129s fought southeast of Kharkov before moving on to Rzhev.

With the attack on Stalingrad Hs129s found themselves in the thick of the action , though with the onset of the winter and Soviet advances on and around Stalingrad their operations were hampered until finally the 6th Army surrendered. During the Battle for Stalingrad the II Gruppe operated with as little as 10 serviceable Hs129 in their desperate struggle to help breakthrough to the 6th Army.

Following on from this battle elements were withdrawn for rest and refitting. 5th Stafflen was redesignated 8./Sch.G 2 and was sent to North Africa to help combat the Allies.

1943 was to shape up to be a pivotal year for German forces engaged in combat on the Ost Front. With the realisation that the Soviets were on the rise with huge numbers of men and weapons orders were issued in early 1943 to consolidate all the Hs129s into a single command. This would allow it to be shuttled to whatever area was facing the greatest threat from massed Soviet armour attacks. A constant demand for the Hs129 support was to see an average Schlacht pilot fly between 5-12 missions a day in the Kuban sector which was to prove a morale booster to the ground troops.

With the planning of Operation Zitadelle , a key role was assigned to the pilots of the Schlacht stafflen. Four Hs129B1/2 equipped Schlachtstafflen were given the task of destroying the large concentrations of Soviet armour expected to see combat around Kursk. In the following days these 60 aircraft would destroy many Soviet vehicles but at a heavy cost , 48 of the 60 were lost.

Following Kursk in the Autumn of 1943 the RLM further reorganised and redesignated the Hs129 units.The consolidated assets were now under the command of IV.(Pz.)/SG 9 which stood for Panzerjägergruppe(Anti-Tank Group) - Schlachtgeschwader( Ground Attack group)

This unit consisted of

Stab IV (Pz.)/SG 9

10.(Pz.)/SG 9

11.(Pz.)/SG 9

12.(Pz.)/SG 9

13.(Pz.)/SG 9

14.(Pz.)/SG 9

By early 1944 these units could only muster somewhere in the region of 50 servicable Hs129, though there were up to a further 30 in service with the Rumanian Airforce. In March 1944 the Soviets advance forced the Gruppe to split...The Gruppe Stanb and 13.(Pz.)/SG 9 fell back into eastern Poland while the remainder of the Gruppe headed for Trans-Dnestra , Bessarabia and Bukovina.

In May 1944 the Wing flew its 10,000th combat mission with a total claim to that time of 1500 Soviet tanks and afvs destroyed.Up to the first half of 1944 the Luftwaffe lost 56 Hs129 in combat and a further 38 to accidents.

With the start of the Soviet offensive Operation Bagration on the 22nd June 1944 the 10.(Pz.)/SG 9 , 13.(Pz.)/SG 9 and 14.(Pz.)/SG 9 attacked the Soviet advance.They destroyed scores of Soviet armour but were unable to stop the tide. They had started the campaign with a total of 67 aircraft..this was reduced by 22 combat losses and a further 21 in accidents

With a desperate situation facing them the Luftwaffe threw in the final word in tank busting ..the 75mm armed Hs129B-3. There were 23 of these aircraft produced which were issued to the 10.(Pz.)/SG 9 and 14.(Pz.)/SG 9. and seen action in Poland and Eastern Germany in the winter of 1944/45 though there are few mentions of them in combat reports...this is understandable as many combat reports were lost.

On the 16th July one of the Hs129s most renowned pilots Hauptmann Rudolt-Heinz Ruffer (KC) was lost in combat. His final tally was 80 Soviet tanks destroyed

Production of the Hs129 stopped in September/October 1944 so as production could be concentrated on as few types as possible.On the 1st January 1945 there were only 39 Hs 129Bs still in service with the Stab IV (Pz.)/SG 9 ,10.(Pz.)/SG 9 and 14.(Pz.)/SG 9.

They continued to attack enemy forces when ever the fuel, spares and ammunition situation allowed. Hs 129Bs of14.(Pz.)/SG 9 took part in the last major armour battle around Lake Balaton in Hungary in that month, while in March 1945 10.(Pz.)/SG 9 flew combat missions that destroyed 100 Soviet tanks , 30 Assault guns , hundreds of other vehicles and 6 aircraft!!!!!!!!! Hs 129s continued to fly till the last days of the war when all supplies ran out.

As for the Gero flamethrower i could only deduce that this contraption would fire downwards and backwards with its 80 gal. of fuel. I cannot find any information on how much the PAK40 weighed in its mounting Sorry

As for numbers employed....

In August 1942 the 100th Hs 129 was delivered....and by that time 16 had been lost.

March 1943................ 331 delivered to the front....212 lost.

September 1943........560 delivered to the front....383 lost

December 1943..........664 delivered to the front.....495 lost

A total of 1267 Hs 129's are believed to have been produced...but it is not certain as the production records were lost at the end of WWII.There were also 145 repaired by Henschel from June 42 to Sept 44.

Anywhere for 200-250 Hs 129s were supplied to the ARR....Royal Rumanian Airforce from 1943 to 44. who organised them in a similar fashion to the Luftwaffe. When Rumania defected they employed 32 remaining Hs129s against the Germans..a further 13 ex Luftwaffe aircraft feel into their hand. They used these aircraft in combat upto 8th May 1945....by the end of 1945 there were 4 usable Hs 129s left as spares ran out. The last of these were scrapped in 1948.

Hope this is of some help

I recently bought Hasegawa's 1/48th scale kits of the Hs 129B-2 , Stuka Ju-87- G2 and the Hs 129B-3 and they are well worth the money....all i need to find now is M.Peggs book called Panzerjager Hs129

Regards

Måkjager

[John Kettler]

Full technical details on German aircraft gun and cannon armament including the BKs are found in the multivolume, formerly classified set of books by George Chinn called HISTORY OF THE MACHINE GUN or THE MACHINE GUN. I forget which.

Long ago, Jim Steuard (then editor and publisherof AFV-G2 magazine) briefed my IPMS chapter on German antitank aircraft, their weapons, tactics and performance. Steuard had all the tech manuals on the weapons and ammunition and spoke with authority on tactics as well. He brought with him several volumes of Chinn's magnum opus, and he showed us the amazing photos of a 75mm high velocity cannon shoehorned into what seemed to us a tiny aircraft fuselage. Unfortunately, I don't own this masterful reference set. Would be willing to bet that APG and Ft. Benning both have this comprehensive reference work in their post libraries.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[GriffinCheng+]

Måkjager, nice post of Hs-129. It is one of the first dedicated tank-buster aircraft seen service. It is one of my favourite a/c during WW2.

I remember there is a book dedicated to this but the name escapes me right now...