New Stuka

[Lusche]

So were DB's. Personally, I think the HS-129 had more potential than some other projects they put DB's on.

More planes than just the HS-129 had to do with lesser engines than proposed, because the limited production was reserved for fighters.

[PR3D4TOR]

The Hs 129 and the Mosquito share the fact that their existence was owed due to not using much critically needed resources. Metal in the Mosquito's case, and engines for the Hs 129. The RLM demanded that the Hs 129 be powered by "unimportant" engines of low horsepower that were not being used in other designs, so the plane's production would not interfere with those deemed more essential to the war effort.

[Tank-Ace]

They had DB's for aircraft like the 210 which turned out to be a bit of a flop, and the Ar 240, and the Do 335. The list goes on.


I'm not saying that those aircraft were produced in large numbers, or individually took away significant numbers of engines, but combined, they definately could have given the Hs 129 some more hp.

[Lusche]

They had DB's for aircraft like the 210 which turned out to be a bit of a flop, and the Ar 240, and the Do 335. The list goes on.

Unlike the 129, the 210 (-> 410) was a high priority plane, and so was the 335. With a limited supply of top engines, you have to set priorities. Fighters and more important bombers went first.
As Karnak said, the only reason the 129 was being produced in the fist place was the fact that they managed to find another engine for it, without the Gnôme et Rhône it would never had been in series production at all - just for a lack of engines.

[Tank-Ace]

getting higher preformance ground attack fighters that will actually see combat into service should trump developing heavy fighters that saw rather limited use, and building pre-production fighters that clearly won't be able to be put into service in time.


Granted we DO have the advantage of hind sight, but it still should have been clear that the 335 wasn't going to be put into service before Germany surrendured.

[Rash]

Is it Stuka season yet?

[Karnak]

getting higher preformance ground attack fighters that will actually see combat into service should trump developing heavy fighters that saw rather limited use, and building pre-production fighters that clearly won't be able to be put into service in time.


Granted we DO have the advantage of hind sight, but it still should have been clear that the 335 wasn't going to be put into service before Germany surrendured.

The Soviets, oddly enough, seem to have been the only ones to have realized how important that role was.  The US and UK just hodgepodged it pushing essentially unarmored Hurricanes, P-38s, P-47s, P-51s, Spitfires and Typhoons into the role and the Germans slogged on with the Ju87 while half assed doing the Hs129.  The Ju87 wasn't built for that role anymore than the Allied fighters were.  The Japanese Ki-102 was unlikely to be particularly good in that role even though it was designed for air-to-ground work.

Only the Il-2 stands out as a success.

[Tank-Ace]

As a purpose-built ground attack plane, yeah. But I feel the Allied aircraft were better in the ground attack role due to their better ord carrying capacity.

I mean speed was their defense, where as armor was the Il-2's

a lone Il-2's guns weren't that effective against more heavily armored vehicles, and .50's or 20mm's will chew up soft skinned vehicles and light armor just as nicely.

And the ablity to haul around larger (although less efficient at anti-armor work) bombs, and rockets gave them greater flexiblity.

[PR3D4TOR]

For all the Il-2's fame and glory, the Ju 87 is in fact the aircraft that destroyed the most tanks, and sunk the most ships in all of history. It was fantastically successful as long as proper fighter cover was provided. On the other hand the Il-2's attacks were found to be so inaccurate that they had more of a psychological effect than destructive. Their bombing was particularly inaccurate.

While some attacks against large unprotected targets such as horse and truck convoys and railyards had devastating effects, attacks against dug-in point targets were usually ineffective. So much so that in late 1943 the Soviets decided to equip the Il-2 with more than a hundred PTAB bomblets turning it into a mini-carpet-bomber which increased its success somewhat. However, mostly the Il-2 was a death trap; Il-2 pilots who survived 10 missions were declared Heroes of the Soviet Union.

[Rich52]

The entire Soviet air force was structured and produced as a tactical force use to support the troops at the front. The western air forces had a different doctrine. A mostly strategic one, tho they certainly used their airframes in a tactical role too. The theory was is if they bombed essential industrys the Germans couldnt stay in the war. Of course later the doctrine was changed to include just plain killing the Germans and that would be that. The bomber war drained a lot of airframes and talent from the eastern front in order to protect the Reich as the war progressed. Most of all after Kursk when the IL2 really came into its own. A big reason for it being the Red air force fighter squadrons made the air more friendly for the Stormbirds. Made easier by the allies turning Germanys cities into infernos and tieing up so many Luftwaffe resources.

Without that would the IL2s done as well? I dont think so. But the so called Stormbird "circle of death" where a dozen or more IL2s would circle a target always having one or two of the attackers hitting it must have been terrifying.

[Oldman731]

For all the Il-2's fame and glory, the Ju 87 is in fact the aircraft that destroyed the most tanks, and sunk the most ships in all of history.

Tanks?  Who knows?  I don't buy the German claims, nor the Russians' nor the Brits' either.  Post-war analysis suggests that planes didn't kill as many tanks as they thought they did.  Nothing new there, it was true with planes v. planes as well.

As far as ships go...what about the Dauntless?

- oldman

[Karnak]

Or the Swordfish?

[PR3D4TOR]

I should perhaps have specified that it's not only warships, but all ships, and not tonnage, but numbers. The Stuka had its way with allied shipping in the English Channel, North Atlantic (long range R version from Norway) and all sorts of coastal ships along the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Baltic Sea and Barents Sea (north of Finland). It is generally accepted (including by such knowledgeable people as Barrett Tillman) that the Stuka did indeed sink more vessels (merchant marine and warships, if counting by numbers of ships sunk) than any other aircraft. The Curtis SB2C is credited the greater tonnage, and the Douglas Dauntless with the most number of warships sunk.

The Swordfish sank about 200,000 tons of shipping. More then any other British aircraft. That would be an impressive figure if it happened over a few months, as with the Fw 200 and Do 217. But it is not very impressive when spread over 6 years of warfare. About the same as the Italian SM.79 from 1940 to '43.

[Wmaker]

HS129's power loading is 3,57kg/hp compared to Il-2's 3,48kg/hp. Not a big difference.

[LCADolby]

The Swordfish sank about 200,000 tons of shipping. More then any other British aircraft. That would be an impressive figure if it happened over a few months, as with the Fw 200 and Do 217. But it is not very impressive when spread over 6 years of warfare.

Impressive for a Biplane