Response to Glider and Juha.

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

You again raise a red herring with the question of the Ju-87 being too slow to defend itself. This became a serious matter for Deichmann only when the GAF lost air superiority. As the problem appeared for the GAF it disappeared for the RAF who began flying their Heavies in daylight for the first time. Thus no problem either for the Vengeance.

In essence, you imply that the RAF should have ordered a large and expensive fleet of Vengeance bombers in 1940, just in case they might be able to use them safely in 1945.

Surely you must have read about the limited manpower in the British armed forces. I can't wait for you to explain to us what the Vengeance air and ground crews were supposed to do until Allied troops crossed the Rhine.

Originally Posted by tcolvin

On a cost-benefit basis there was no sense in sacrificing a Typhoon plus pilot for an MG42.

Speaking of red herrings, that point might be valid if you proved that a significant number of RAF Typhoons were felled by bullets from light infantry weapons. Given enough time to research the cause of loss data, I could probably identify a few cases, but most of the writers who suggest the possibility of this happening have also failed to provide the names of any actual victims.

I would be willing to wager that bad weather killed more Typhoons than the MG 42.

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Machine guns and PAKs were beyond the capability of 2TAF's RPs and glide-bombing. 2TAF claimed and believed they could do it, but in effect were providing a bit of 5) – fire suppression. In some circumstances this was better than nothing, but because of the vulnerability of Spitfire and Typhoon to infantry weapons, support was necessarily tentative.
Artillery was protected by FLAK. 2TAF's answer was to fly mediums above the FLAK, but accuracy was poor because of height and visibility. This was the target of choice for the Vengeance when combined with simultaneous strafing by fighters to suppress the FLAK.

This is a contradiction. If the Spitfire and Typhoon were so vulnerable as you claim, it hardly seems correct to throw them into a flak suppression role.

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Hardened defences were beyond 2TAF's capabilities. Something perhaps could have been done with the Vengeance and hollow charge bombs, even if it only achieved suppression for long enough to enable movement by tanks and infantry.

The Luftwaffe had the same problem because the Stuka was useless against the heavy fortresses on the Maginot Line and Sevastopol. Even if the Junkers 87 was redesigned to carry a 5,000-lb bomb, a direct hit would not be sufficient to knock out most of the enclosed positions.

A hollow charge bomb with enough power to destroy heavy concrete and steel bunkers or U-boat pens was still limited by the ability of the pilot to place it accurately. The best bet for reducing German forts was using flame weapons just prior to infantry attacks.

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Tanks and StuGs (4) were targeted by RP Typhoons which were hopelessly inaccurate. 2TAF also used Bombphoons; I know of a half-squadron of Bombphoons attacking in vain a StuG in Kervenheim. 2TAF hadn't the equipment for destroying AFVs. They needed an airborne PAK mounted in an armoured aircraft, like the Ju-87G or Hs129B.

Repeating a delusion does not make it more believable.

There is no empirical evidence that a 75mm gun was consistently effective against the thick armor plating of the StuG III or Panzers IV, V, and VI. So why would the RAF want to bother with a wider deployment of its heavy and clumsy 40mm guns?