Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
23-06-2012, 23:21   #31
Wibbs
Moderator
 
Wibbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nothing in life has any business being perfect
Posts: 29,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonB View Post
How much of that is because the Stuka had much easier targets and was in combat for much longer. If the allies had Stuka's and they'd put them up against these German ships and defences and air cover I don't think they'd had stood a chance.
The fact is your original contention was inaccurate about the actual "record" of the stuka and it's impact on opposing forces. As were your stats regarding bombload. As for the Beaufighter, my original point stands regarding "development as a nightfighter and the skill of it's crews making it anyway useful" . Your revised argument How much of that is because the Stuka had much easier targets and was in combat for much longer" doesn't negate the simple fact that the stuka had an enormous operational impact throughout it's deployment. Now you can argue all you like from a position of disgruntlement, but the historical facts remain about it's effectiveness as a weapon of war. End of. Better yet if you can show me another aircraft of that conflict that had as much statistical impact in the ground attack role I'd love to see it.

Last edited by Wibbs; 23-06-2012 at 23:23.
Wibbs is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
24-06-2012, 01:10   #32
Capt'n Midnight
00:00
 
Capt'n Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 46,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wibbs View Post
Better yet if you can show me another aircraft of that conflict that had as much statistical impact in the ground attack role I'd love to see it.
Different conflict and lots of things had to go right before they could get to the target but in the first year of the war in the Pacific these but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBD_Dauntless took out six Japanese aircraft carriers.

Shōhō ,Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū and Ryūjō

Very important at the start of the war.

Later on the production capacity of the US showed up when they were churning out a escort carrier every two weeks. The American's had build 50 Casablanca class escort carriers and 45 Bogue class escort carriers by the end of the way. And there were other classes of escort carriers and there were the big fleet carriers.
Capt'n Midnight is offline  
Thanks from:
24-06-2012, 01:21   #33
BostonB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,745
Apparently everything is irrelevant unless its about a Stuka! TBH I'm completely baffled why someone would want to derail a thread with top trump statistic's about an aircraft of complete irrelevance to the bombing of these ships, because not only was it not an allied aircraft, it had been withdrawn from the western theatre at this point. Bombing in WWII was in general inaccurate. One specialist aircraft does not buck that trend. If the allies had Stuka's and tried to use them to attack these ships, the aircraft would have been annihilated.

Last edited by BostonB; 24-06-2012 at 01:26.
BostonB is offline  
24-06-2012, 01:29   #34
BlaasForRafa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: BlaaCity
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonB View Post
Stuka could only operate where they had complete air cover otherwise they'd get slaughtered. Rudel was was shot down or forced to land 32 times!
Rudel flew over 2000 missions.

I'll say that again, 2000 missions. I think the odds of getting hit by anti-aircraft fire would be pretty high if you're flying that much. In early 1945 he lost his right leg when his Stuka was shot down, he rapidly recovered and went back into action flying a Fw-190D-9 in which he scored 9 kills thus becoming an air ace as well as already being an anti-tank ace.

The Stuka could still operate quite well over the eastern front right into the latter part of the war, the stukas of Kurt Kuhlmey's formation is held to have been pivotal in helping the Finnish army stop the Soviets at the Battle of Tali-Inhantala which saved the Finns from Soviet occupation.
BlaasForRafa is offline  
24-06-2012, 01:29   #35
BostonB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight View Post
Bismark had difficulty in shooting down the swordfish because they few too slowly for the fire control systems

By the end of the war the Allies had radar controlled guns, using an analog computer, firing shells with proximity fuzes.
Found this interesting thread on that...

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65
BostonB is offline  
Advertisement
24-06-2012, 01:31   #36
BostonB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,745
Found this on Stuka's.
http://www.heinzmigeod.com/stuka-group-background.php
BostonB is offline  
24-06-2012, 01:34   #37
BlaasForRafa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: BlaaCity
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonB View Post
Apparently everything is irrelevant unless its about a Stuka! TBH I'm completely baffled why someone would want to derail a thread with top trump statistic's about an aircraft of complete irrelevance to the bombing of these ships, because not only was it not an allied aircraft, it had been withdrawn from the western theatre at this point. Bombing in WWII was in general inaccurate. One specialist aircraft does not buck that trend. If the allies had Stuka's and tried to use them to attack these ships, the aircraft would have been annihilated.
No unescorted aircraft would have been able to sink these ships, JG2 and JG26 had a covering force over the flotilla constantly.

Added to that, there were something like 50 support ships sailing with the battlecruisers and Prinz Eugen that were able to put up anti-aircraft fire.
BlaasForRafa is offline  
24-06-2012, 01:53   #38
Capt'n Midnight
00:00
 
Capt'n Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 46,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonB View Post
Bombing in WWII was in general inaccurate. One specialist aircraft does not buck that trend.
by the end of the war rockets meant that most fighter aircraft could launch a fairly accurate attack roughly equivalent to a broadside from a destroyer or light cruiser.
Capt'n Midnight is offline  
Thanks from:
24-06-2012, 10:46   #39
Wibbs
Moderator
 
Wibbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nothing in life has any business being perfect
Posts: 29,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonB View Post
Apparently everything is irrelevant unless its about a Stuka! TBH I'm completely baffled why someone would want to derail a thread with top trump statistic's about an aircraft of complete irrelevance to the bombing of these ships.
I was simply making the point that dive bombing of ships was quite accurate(about as accurate as you could get at the time) and often effective and not just in one theatre as Capt'n Midnight pointed out.
Wibbs is offline  
Advertisement
24-06-2012, 11:04   #40
Jawgap
Registered User
 
Jawgap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Exiled in Meath
Posts: 6,706
I wish people would stop using wikipedia - if you are going to quote from it, at least attribute it as a source

Budiansky in Air Power describes the dedicated dive bomber as a technological dead end whose time had well passed by 1941.

Tactical airpower from then on was about the fighter-bomber, something the Germans started with their Jabos (bomb carrying Me109s), but the Allies developed to a higher level of sophistication.

The Allies never developed a dedicated fighter-bomber as such, but a lot of designs that started as interceptors proved to be formidable figher-bombers, for example the P-38, the Typhoon and the P-47. Design of fighters emphasised raw speed, which meant power which had a side benefit that payload could be increased - a P-47 could carry the same bombload as an A26.

Stukas persisted on the Eastern Front long after they had been rendered obsolete elsewhere because if the nature of the fighting there. The Soviets 'lacked imagination' - the Red Army offensives were massive, grinding and methodical based on massive concentration of firepower in the form of tanks, artillery, attack aircraft and wave-upon-wave of troops - a 'target rich environment' for any pilot.

The Stuka was not the A-10 of it's day, the A-10 was conceived and built as a ground attack aircraft, if anything it's lineage goes back to something like the P-47D.

Rudel was an exceptional pilot, but the battleship he 'sunk' was the Marat, which was at anchor and his bomb went down the funnel. Also the ship was not permanently put out of commission - 3 of her 4 turrets continued to function as an artillery battery and she was re-commissioned about 18 months later as the Petropavlovsk.

Which still supports my original contention that a well handled ship, maneuvering aggressively is a tough target to hit, even for a dive bomber. It was really only with the introduction of the Frtiz X radio guided bomb that the Luftwaffe began to have a serious impact on capital ships, but given these were often released from over 15,000ft it wasn't divebombing.

Success in the Pacific had something to do with divebombing, the type of bombs used ('proper' armour-piercing delayed action ones) and use of naval aviators (on both sides). The Luftwaffe was conceived to provided tactical support to the Heer, and took a while to build up any kind of anti-shipping / maritime capability.
Jawgap is offline  
Thanks from:
24-06-2012, 14:09   #41
Capt'n Midnight
00:00
 
Capt'n Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 46,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jawgap View Post
The Allies never developed a dedicated fighter-bomber as such, but a lot of designs that started as interceptors proved to be formidable figher-bombers, for example the P-38, the Typhoon and the P-47. Design of fighters emphasised raw speed, which meant power which had a side benefit that payload could be increased - a P-47 could carry the same bombload as an A26.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider
Produced just at the end of the war. Single (piston) engined carrier aircraft capable of carrying an 8,000 lb / 3,600Kg payload.

8,000 lb was an average load for a B17 !

and more than maximum of most 'medium' bombers earlier on
B25 Mitchell 6,000 lb

nearly twice Wellington 4,500 lb / Heinkel He 111 4,400 lb
Capt'n Midnight is offline  
(2) thanks from:
24-06-2012, 16:10   #42
Jawgap
Registered User
 
Jawgap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Exiled in Meath
Posts: 6,706
Ok, I'll qualify my earlier remark

The Allies never developed and deployed a dedicated ground attack aircraft during WWII.

The US Navy didn't deploy the Skyraider until 1947 - 19th March was the flight of the prototype according to this article.
Jawgap is offline  
24-06-2012, 20:33   #43
Capt'n Midnight
00:00
 
Capt'n Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 46,126
Re the six carriers sunk by SPD's in the first year, it could easily have been seven or more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japane...r_Sh%C5%8Dkaku
Quote:
In September 1942, a Type 21 air-warning radar was installed on Shōkaku's island atop the central fire control director, the first such device to be fitted on any Japanese carrier.
...
At Santa Cruz, on 26 October 1942, Shōkaku was again seriously damaged, taking at least three (and possibly as many as six) 1,000-lb. bomb hits from a group of fifteen Douglas SBD-3 dive bombers launched from Hornet. With ample warning of the incoming American strike, Shōkaku's aviation fuel mains to the flight deck and hangars had been drained down and she had few aircraft on board at the time of the attack. As a result, no major fires broke out and her seaworthiness was preserved. Her flight deck and hangars, however, were left in shambles and she was unable to conduct further air operations during the remainder of the battle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japane...ier_Zuih%C5%8D
Quote:
Two of Enterprise's Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers hit Zuihō with 500-pound (230 kg) bombs and damaged her flight deck enough that she could not conduct flight operations although she was not seriously damaged otherwise
Capt'n Midnight is offline  
27-06-2012, 17:07   #44
BostonB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight View Post
by the end of the war rockets meant that most fighter aircraft could launch a fairly accurate attack roughly equivalent to a broadside from a destroyer or light cruiser.

Problem with rockets was it slowed the aircraft down. If you are attacking at low level against a heavily defended target with air cover and a lot of AA, slow is what you don't want to be. If you read "The Big Show (Le Grand Cirque)" - Pierre Clostermann he describes very well, the risks in attacking such targets. Seeing the losses in other flights attacking with rockets, and also attacking targets flat out, the engine to the stops to try and survive.

I also thought that rockets weren't that successful in knocking out tanks.

Quote:
From three British studies on Panther tanks found by British forces.

From 6 June 1944 till 16 January 1945 the "cause of death" was:

Armour piercing rounds: 63
Hollow charge projectiles: 8
HE rounds: 11
Aircraft rockets: 11
Aircraft cannon: 3
Destroyed by crew: 60
Abandoned: 43
Unknown: 24
Quote:
There's one instance where a flight of Typhoons rocketed a German tank formation. They missed entirely, the rockets falling in a wood to the east of the tanks. When overrun, the British found the remains of a shattered German infantry battalion who had moved into the woods just before the attack. The rockets had literally destroyed them.
From

http://www.warandgamemsw.com/blog/53...normandy-1944/

Quote:
"Tank Killing, Anti-tank warfare by men and machines" by Ian Hogg.
I think spin stabilised rockets are much more accurate.

That said a ship is much bigger, and I could be mistaken but I think rocket attacks against ships were mainly employed when they were less well defended.
BostonB is offline  
27-06-2012, 17:14   #45
BostonB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,745
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the A10 isn't quite as useful as popular opinion likes to think of it, in recent conflicts. Its slow to get on mission, and in general they wouldn't be at low level they generally all stay at medium height away from any threats. And something like a fast jet has faster response time and more accurate with a smart bomb. Still a great jet though, and arguable has other advantages, doesn't need finished runways, lots of hard points, now has sniper pods and smart bombs etc. With some of these opinions its hard to know was it some pilots pushing their own aircraft over others etc.
BostonB is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet