Impact of Allied fighter-bombers

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Tony
I am not sure what do you mean by Polish blood resources. Could you clarify?
Concerning Russian/Soviet experiences, they were actually born in Poland in 1920 when dare attacks of Polish Brisfits decimated and panicked Budenny's cavalry. Proper conclusion of this highly manouverable war were drawn and ground attack aircraft secured their place in Soviet aviation.

My whole life has been spent with a conscience about Poland, for whom we went to war and which we left in Stalin's grip. What the German enemy did to Poland was one thing, but what our Soviet Allies did was another thing entirely. My father never stopped talking about our failure towards Poland, and in Warwickshire where we lived in the 1970s there was a camp full of old Polish soldiers who walked three miles to the village church every Sunday. It was enough to make us cry.
If the British and Americans had not distorted their armed forces by following the grail of the strategic bomber, then perhaps - and this is of course a what if - a balanced and integrated all-arms force could have got to Warsaw before Uncle Joe.
The distortion caused by giving the RAF half of Britains resources was paid with in blood; the blood of Harris' aircrew, the blood of the British army, whose daily losses in Northwest Europe exceeded the daily losses in WWI, and the blood of the Poles occupied by pitiless Germans and equally pitiless Russians.
That's what I meant.

Tukhachevsky studied their invasion of Poland in 1920, but he also, remember, studied Arras 1918.

[Juha]

IIRC Finns tried first to eliminate the gunner and then
a) high side attack aiming where wing merged to fuselage because 20/MG151 ammo was capable to penetrate the side armour of Il-2 and one was able to punctuate the fuel cells and ignite the fuel or
b) shoot the plywood tail/rear fuselage to pieces.

Now Il-2 was a hard nut and not easy plane to shoot down and could absorb great amount of hits and survive but it wasn’t impossible target and sometimes it was possible to get multiple kills on one sortie.

To give some info of penetrative power of 20mm AAA
20mm AP round of Flak 30 and 38, the main light Flak guns used by Germans, was able to penetrate 20mm of homogenous armour when hitting at 30deg from vertical from 100m distance and 14 mm from 500 m.

Juha

[Juha]

Tony
you need a reality check. How many Ta152Cs or Ar(surelyDo)335s there were around at any time of war in combat formations? And can you give even one date when even 2 Typhoons was lost to enemy fighters from 2nd of Jan 45 to end of Feb 45?

Juha

[Juha]

Sorry to say but Churchill VII had six inch frontal armour.
British army had armoured divisions but they also had army tank brigades for infantry support. No army had in service during the WWII tanks which were immune to 88mm L/71, so were all top military commnders idiots or were they able to see that some 78 - 100 tons monsters would have been impractical?

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

Sorry to say but Churchill VII had six inch frontal armour.
British army had armoured divisions but they also had army tank brigades for infantry support. No army had in service during the WWII tanks which were immune to 88mm L/71, so were all top military commnders idiots or were they able to see that some 78 - 100 tons monsters would have been impractical?

I thought you'd say that - hence my disclaimer on the actual but not the relative values.
Churchill VII kept out the 50-mm Pak which killed cruiser tanks - Sherman, Cromwell, and Crusader.
The frontal armour needed to keep out the 88-mm could have been fitted on an upgraded Churchill. Take my word for it, or work it out for yourself; it was not impractical. I think I worked it out once that 10-inches or a foot was needed. A Churchill upgrade would have needed more hp (the Merlin would have done nicely) and it would have needed the beefed-up suspension system designed for the Black Prince. It was all possible, and if Montgomery had not been in command would probably have happened.
Tanks in the attack surrounded by infantry do not need heavy side and rear armour - just adequately thick frontal armour. An 88-mm in enfilade shooting through the thin side armour would then have been killed at leisure by the remaining oncoming Churchills.
The point you were making was the British had the Matilda. This point is worth making, surely, only because this slow Infantry tank was immune to the common Pak of the day - the 37-mm 'doorknocker'.
Using your own argument, the British army could have been expected to maintain its tank design so the infantry tank continued its invulnerability to the common Pak of the day, which in 1945 was the 88-mm. That was the gun all tankers feared. The Germans could not have fielded anything of larger calibre because they lacked the resources.
The 88-mm was a large target for a CAS aircraft. But in the battles I have studied, 2TAF's Typhoons did not go after it. The 88-mm was usually on a flank behind a building, invisible from the British front line. In 1918, one of the main tasks of CAS was to take out anti-tank guns. Not so in 1945. An RP Typhoon in any case had difficulty hitting a building let alone an 88-mm even if it could find it. An MG-42 could and did down a Typhoon, and there were always plenty of those (MG-42s).
Were all top commanders idiots? The British invented the tank and always had the best ones in WWI. Were they idiots then? Or were they rather fools in WWII for having the worst tanks?

[Graham Boak]

There is an excellent pair of books that give a full and at times acid account of the development of British tanks for and in WW2. There are times when it does indeed seem that those writing the requirements were foolish, and at other times clearly let down by the standards of British automotive production. I only have one of them, the second: I shall try to find the reference for you. They were published by HMSO, I recall.

One point to be remembered is the effect of the defeat of the BEF and the need to equip the remaining Army with anything available, leading to the retention in production of inferior types and almost a year of lost development. British tank design doesn't look quite so bad with a year's shift...not that this philosophical point helped the tankers.

However, the main thrust of the argument was not in favour of the kind of slow super-WW1 armoured monster you propose, which can indeed be seen in the prototype A33 and Black Prince, but for a single battle tank with a balance of armour, mobility and firepower, eventually arising as the Centurion. Tanks do not just require protection from the front - evidence for this can be seen in the up-armouring of the early Sherman for Normandy, with their applique over the vulnerable fuel tanks in the side sponsons. Tanks do not dash (or crawl) towards AT head on - at least not since futile attempts in the desert pre-Montgomery.

Most British armour could be penetrated by the 50mm PaK - similarly most German armour (still mainly the Mk.IV) by the 6 pdr. Or the heaviest by the 88mm - similarly the 17 pdr.

It is interesting to see that the Germans, who in WW2 designed for armour and firepower at the expense of mobility and reliability, changed to a more balanced tank (Leopard) postwar. They had seen the drawbacks of the armoured monsters and the advantages of a lighter design. Whereas the British followed the superb Centurion with the overweight super-gunned Chieftain, because they had seen the advantages of the heavy tank and the disadvantages of the lighter design. Both Armies/design teams had learned the lessons of history - just directly opposite ones. The Russians also abandoned their pursuit of super-heavies, despite the apparent success of the JS-2 "animal killers".

It's those awful compromises again........advantages have penalties, design is a matter of trade-offs. Tanks, aircraft, ships, cars, whatever. Stone scissors paper.....make your choice and roll your dice.

But if you really believe that a rocket couldn't hit a building, you really are misinformed. And the counterattack at Arras only stopped 7th Panzer for a day, with no effect on any other unit. Brave, and an interesting indication of what might have been achieved under other circumstances, but not by itself a roadmap for the future.

[Jon]

When engaged in fighter v fighter combat the high speed of a particular type was of little use other than allowing the faster of the two a better chance of escape if he needed to. The Typhoon and P47 in a nose down attitude were able to use this to their advantage time after time. As for rocket rails and bomb racks causing the Typhoon trouble duing air to air combat well yes of course it caused trouble, my point is that a well flown Typhoon after taking out ground targets was still an aircraft very capable of defending its self. Again the Typhoon was by far the best Fighter Bomber of WW2, the Tempest should not even be mentioned in the same breath as it was a different aircraft with a totally different role. As for the Polish argument that is lurking in the back ground here, it happened, it was in the best interest for Britain and the US, that was why it happened and i must say that i feel it was the right thing to do at the time for Britain. Call me old fashioned but i still think your own country should come first above all others.

[Juha]

Tony
"The frontal armour needed to keep out the 88-mm could have been fitted on an upgraded Churchill. Take my word for it"

Sorry Tony, I read You message in haste and misunderstood it. I'm sorry of the unnecessary outburst!

But As I wrote, max armour of Churchill VII, the best armoured Churchill, was 6inch (152mm) and the penetrative power of 88mm L/71 with the usual APCBC round, not with the better but rare APCR, was against homogenous armour plate at 30 deg from vertical, 203 mm from 100m, 185mm from 500m, 165mm from 1000m. But the clearly more common 88, that of Flak 18, 36 and 37 was able to penetrate in same situation 127, 117 and 106mm respectively and the 88mm L/56 KwK 36 of Tiger I a bit less, 120, 110 and 100mm. So the front sector of Churchill VII and VIII was already armoured against almost all German AP rounds. And with applique armour, which seems to be common in NW Europe, the noseplate of earlier Churchills seems to be just adequate to keep out APCBC round of the most common German A/T gun Pak 40 and of course those of guns of PzKpfw IV, StuG III and IV and PzJg IV etc.

"An 88-mm in enfilade shooting through the thin side armour would then have been killed at leisure by the remaining oncoming Churchills."

You really don't understand landwarfare! there is a well known case when one Churchill Sqn lost 9 tanks in a couple minutes to flank firing Jagdpanthers, BTW armed with 88mm L/71s.

"to the common Pak of the day, which in 1945 was the 88-mm."

The common Pak in 1945 happen to be 75mm Pak 40.

"In 1918, one of the main tasks of CAS was to take out anti-tank guns."

Please, give me the type of A/T gun in service in 1918.

Tony check your facts, the bitter truth is that from wrong premises the chance to get right conclusion is very near nil.

Juha

[Graham Boak]

The books I mentioned are David Fletcher's The Great Tank Scandal and The Universal Tank. The latter was published in 1993 ISBN0-11-290534-X.

I would also recommend the superb new French-authored British Tanks in Normandy, desite its lack of mention of CAS. I would give details for that too, but it has been swallowed up by the black hole in my library. It was published only last year, however, so should still be readily available..

[Juha]

On Il-2. Out of curiosity checked the best sortie result of Finnish Hawk 75 (P-36) pilot against Il-2s and it was 1 1/3 by Ltn M. Joutsen in 15th June at 12.45-13.15 sortie. And Hawk 75s were armed at time with 1-2 12.7mm mgs (+ 2-5 rifle cal mgs). And there were suitable matches in Soviet losses, 2 Il-2s from 957 ShAP. Also Hillo and Ojapalo got 1/3 each. Now all Curtiss pilots whose oppinion I know admit that Il-2 was very, very difficult plane to shoot down with rather weak armament of Hawk 75 but it wasn't impossible. The few Hawk 75s seemed to have got 5 Il-2s altogether during summer 44.

Juha