Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Beale
Morale effect was maybe a consideration but what you seem to ignore is disruption. Allied air power severely restricted the mobility of German ground forces throughout the NW Europe campaign and the movement of supplies to the front. A tank is just as dead without fuel and shells as it would be from a direct hit.
Question 1: did this "more suitable aircraft" exist and if so what was it?
Question 2: do you think the German Schlachtgeschwader in the East were a waste of time too?
|
Nick, I don't ignore the need for disruption. Disruption would have been increased with better equipment.
But back to basics in an attempt to answer your question about suitable aircraft.
Any aircraft design is suitable only in relation to a felt need.
The army's needs were to destroy a) tanks, b) emplaced Pak/mortar/105-mm field guns/MG42 c) soft-skin vehicles providing re-supply d) bridges, and e) concrete hardened strongpoints.
Each need had a different solution.
Tank busting required a flying Pak like Rudel's Ju87, the He129 or Hurricane IIC.
Emplaced Pak/MG42/mortar/artillery, bridges, concrete etc strongpoints needed to be destroyed by HE delivered vertically for accuracy. The best dive bombers were the Vengeance and Ju87.
Destruction of soft-skinned vehicles and troops caught in the open needed attacking with an armoured plane carrying cannon and/or machine guns like the Il-2.
All the aircraft should be low-maintenance and able to operate from grass strips, and should be piloted by soldiers with personal acquaintance with the people they are supporting and who will get fast feedback about their effectiveness.
And to gain and maintain air superiority to protect them all you need high performance fighters which optimise speed and manoeuverability. This comes only by making them flimsy and operating from paved runways.
What is unsuitable is a failed air superiority fighter fitted with RP suffering from gravity drop, or with bombs which cannot be delivered vertically, and which can be brought down by any Landser wielding an MG42 or even a rifle - let alone the mass of Flak of 20-mm and 37-mm calibre manned by determined and skilfull LW personnel. And you don't want a failed air superiority fighter like the Typhoon having to operate from paved runways miles from the front line, piloted by those with no knowledge of the infantry they are supposed to be supporting, whose success criterion is the dropping of ordnance in the general direction of the enemy, and who never have to answer to anyone whose life depends on their actions, and with an engine described as a fitter's nightmare.
Concerning the East I do not have an informed opinion. But I do know they used different equipment, and a lot of it like the Katyusha, the IL-2, the Pe2, the T-34 and JS1 were very good. And I do know that IL-2 pilots were under command of the army. So if the gun they were told to destroy continued firing they had to return until the job was done. That raised their game.