[glider1]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

1, Uhm, no to the first part. We know that the basic Typhoon carried very little "armor" (though the airfame was tough). From the GA POV, it was unarmored. As Juha pointed out however, we know there were two mods designed, one with a small armor augmentation, and another which was quite serious. Now we have to know how service planes looked like, and how many were modded etc.

With the moods as you said yourself, the Typhoon had a similar scale of protection as the Fw190 which is sufficient to give significant protection against light weapons, all aircraft were vulnerable to 20mm+ but clearly IL2 and Hs129 could take more hits on average.

2, Exceptions to the rule can be made, being better for the role does not guarantee success. The Halifax was much better for night bombing, both in load capacity and navigation/aiming aids than say BoB era Do 17s, but there are cases where the Halifax did very poorly. Back to the topic, I do not think that anyone could seriously claim that any fighter bomber was better at destroying pin point targets than the Stuka.

A previous posting listed 6 bridges so failure in this role on the western front was not a one off.

3, I beg to disagree. First of all the weapons available for the Typhoon were quite unsatisfactory for many tasks. Rockets were far too inaccurate, the bombs it could carry were way too small for bigger targets, and only simple HE bombs were developed, lacking much more effective bomb types like German or Soviet AP and AT cluster bomb containers. There were no large caliber autocannons for tank destroyer operations. They could fight soft targets like trucks, which was very damaging overall indeed, but there was a serious lack of capability in CAS. Typhoons had no staying power over the Battlefield like Il-2s did. After all, it was not built for this, but pressed into a role as it wasnt very good in its original role of as fighter, and it was available, and could carry more ordonance to a decent, than the Spitfire. Its basic limitations are still appearant.

I cetainly agree that the 2TAF lacked weapons against individual tanks but this was a deliberate decision. A Tempest was trialed with 40mm but the decision taken was not to procede. Large scale tank battles with hundreds of tanks in the open as seen in the East did not happen in the west so their value was less.

Heavies couldn't close that gap, as they neither had staying power, neither could respond on a short call for support, and could only operate in pre-planned missions, for which opportunity was rarely presented. Accuracy was absymal from their dropping heights - even elite Lanc Squadrons with Tallboys had great difficulty in hitting the Tirpitz, a static target of 250x40 meter - and low altitude bombing is a stupid thing in a heavy bomber. It didn't work out for He 177 for sure, they are huge targets for AAA.

You are the first person I have known who has said that the Lancs of 617 and 19 squadron were inaccurate. I think I can say that they had an unequalled record of destroying the pin pont targets assigned to them. However you miss the reason why I said Tallboys, they didn't have to hit the target, they were earthquake bombs and a near miss was equally effective.

They always had control of the air, just like the Allies in 1944. It simply follows that the Allies could use a dedicated GA plane.

You forget that GA strikes had been going on through 1942 and 1943 with cross channel raids with Typhoons and Whirlwinds

The USMC operates the Harrier within a special scope, for them its a hybrid between an attack chopper and a fighter. The main advantage of is that it can operate from small carriers and from frehsly seized land bases, something the A-10 can't do. But compared to the A-10, its tactical qualities are in every aspect inferior. Its a useful specialist tool for a specialist force.

First I am confident that if they had wanted the A10 it could have been made carrier capable, second, the Harrier can and did operate where control of the air is not assured, the A10 cannot.

Now as for the Su 25, unlike the A-10 it is freely available to anyone with the $$ in the pockets (long live the Perestroika!), is very popular abroad and is in service in about a dozen countries. Its quite clear that there is need for such plane - this is especially true in light of current COIN operations.

So every other country in the world is now down to 12-15, so how many airforces does that leave who don't operate A10/Su25 type aircraft?
Also if there is one country in the world that appreciate the need for air support its the Israeli Air Force and what do they use?