Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello
"My 'hidden agenda' is truth."
Is this a joke?
Very difficult to believe your statement when one thinks the number of false claims there have been in your messages.
And why still complains like this "Montgomery allowed Hobart, his brother-in-law, to take the Churchill VIIs for conversion to Crocodiles" because if you had studied Reichswald battle you should know that Crocodiles were used there to help infantry and it was probably more effective infantry support vehicle than standard Churchill Mk VII. And this is only one of a number of odd claims you have made even in your last few messages.

Juha

You believe whatever turns your crank. It's a free country.

The Crocodiles were not used in the set pieces I know about. They lost pressure after half an hour IIRC and had to retire, and the couplers suffered breakages. But more seriously they provoked an extreme reaction. Whenever they were used everything was focused on destroying them.
One Crocodile was used in Kervenheim after the main resistance was broken, but it only got 100 yards before a Panzerfaust blew the head off the tank commander whose blood-gushing body fell down into the turret. The driver, unsurprisingly, withdrew backwards - not an easy feat with a trailer. The crew were then placed on a charge for motoring out of battle.
Crocodiles were used best on their own terms for mopping up resistance away from the main battle line.
Support from 79 Armoured Division was a bit like that from 2TAF; it was negotiated the previous night and not routinely available. Crocodiles were not a battle-winning weapon, but useful in certain circumstances.
Now a Churchill immune to the 88-mm would have been a battle-winner. And the Churchill VII came close to being one.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

So how many mortars did the Stuka take out?

You still have not explained how your super duper Vengeance would survive German flak while the FBs did not.

So what tank was immune to the 88s? How would this heavy tank go cross-country when you say the light STuG could not?

You tell us about the Stuka.

The super-duper Vengeance would have been used according to circmstances, and primarily against strong-points and dug-in weapons that were holding up the advance. But since it was never used in Europe we are in what-if territory.
In cases like Hillman, which was unexpected but extremely important, there was no Flak. The super-duper Vengeances would have timed their attack with the infantry who could have got close during the dive bombing. You could not risk that with a Typhoon or Bombphoon.
In cases of set-piece attack with tanks and infantry with the artillery firing a moving barrage to a timetable across the target, the Vengeances could have watched from above and timed their strike as the barrage moved over the Flak position/s. Given armoured IL-2s the Flak could have been strafed with machine-guns and cannons.

In Kervenheim a Stug was camouflaged under a pile of old furniture and doors. It had come off the road and its tracks were seen by a section of circling Typhoons. There was no Flak. The three Typhoons fired their RPs at the pile and flew off. They missed, of course. I know this because the StuG driver wrote about it postwar. The super-duper Vengeance would have been more likely to destroy the StuG.

We discussed the feasibility in earlier postngs of up-armouring the front of the Churchill VII to give frontal immunity from the 88-mm, and reached agreement IIRC. If you're interested go back and read it. The 88-mm Pak L71 could penetrate 187-mm of vertical armour at 500 metres. The Churchill VII had 152-mm and weighed 40 tons. Adding 2 tons or 5% to all-up weight would have given 200-mm which would have done the trick. The tracks of the Black Prince would have been required to maintain or even improve flotation.

Why was the Churchill a good cross-country tank while the StuG was not? It was better in terms of ground pressure, ground clearance, trench-crossing and the height of the step it could climb because the front idler was on horns. All basic stuff.

[Juha]

Tony
So that was your reason on Crocodile
"They lost pressure after half an hour IIRC and had to retire, and the couplers suffered breakages"

But if needed Crocodile could easily jettisoned its trailer and continued as normal Churchill Mk VII minus its hull-mg.

"But more seriously they provoked an extreme reaction. Whenever they were used everything was focused on destroying them."

And the reason? Because they were so effective against dug-out infantry.

"One Crocodile was used in Kervenheim after the main resistance was broken, but it only got 100 yards before a Panzerfaust blew the head off the tank commander whose blood-gushing body fell down into the turret. The driver, unsurprisingly, withdrew backwards - not an easy feat with a trailer. The crew were then placed on a charge for motoring out of battle."

Same may had happened your "Super Churchill". In late war one great danger to tanks were the RPGs. And it was difficult to protect tanks against them and probably impossible to give protection against multiple hits in same region. And forests and towns were best places to RPG ambushes. And in ambushes you tended to aim the sides of tanks.

"The super-duper Vengeance would have been used according to circmstances, and primarily against strong-points and dug-in weapons that were holding up the advance."

Problem in thick forests was/is that it is very difficult to pinpoint enemy weapons and impossible from air. One can always try to use smoke but a clever enemy would use same coloured smokes to confuse pilots.

"In cases like Hillman, which was unexpected but extremely important, there was no Flak. The super-duper Vengeances would have timed their attack with the infantry who could have got close during the dive bombing. You could not risk that with a Typhoon or Bombphoon."

The was no forward observer, that was the problem, if there had been he could have called naval firesupport. And IIRC 1st Suffolk didn't suffer very bad casualties at Hillman, Norfolks suffered more.

"The 88-mm Pak L71 could penetrate 187-mm of vertical armour at 500 metres"

But that was with 30 deg from vertical angle. It penetrate more if hit was from right ahead. And one must also uparmour at least turret sides.

I doubt that Churchill Mk. VII had lower ground pressure than StuG III and I'm sure that StuG III with Ostkette had lower ground pressure than Mk VII.

Juha

[Kutscha]

Keep believing in your phantasy dreams.

STuG G ground pressure is 13.5psi. A Panther G is 12.8psi so it to must have been restricted to just roads.

The Churchill I had a ground pressure of 13.1psi and you want us to believe that the Mk VII weighing 2600 more lbs and with a ground pressure of 14psi could travel cross-country when the StuG, and Panther couldn't. Never mind the up-armoured Churchill at 44,600lb even with a 24" track. Yah right!!! Naturally, the mechanical reliabilty of this super heavy tank would have been superb.

Was the turret to get extra armour? How about more side armour for flank attacks?

Should it be mentioned that the Soviets did not think highly of the Churchills they recieved.

accurate CAS for taking out mortars, which were the big killers, mg42, artillery and Paks, including the Stug

You were the one making statements about using a dive bomber. So I want to know how did the Stuka do in its glory days with such targets since you are the one telling us great dive bombers are.

Sure the Vengeance from 10,000ft and up could tell with all the smoke and dust what to attack!!!

[Kutscha]

posted 11th March 2006 here by Dénes Bernád

statistics of Il-2 losses, according to Hans Seidl:

Year - Total Losses - To Enemy Action - % of Strength at Hand
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1941* - 1100 - 600 - 73.3%
1942 - 2600 - 1800 - 34.2%
1943 - 7200 - 3900 - 45.0%
1944 - 8900 - 4100 - 46.6%
1945** - 3800 - 2000 - 27.3%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 23600 12400 70.3%
* presumably from June 22 [D.B.]
** until May 10

Therefore, over 50% of losses [not counting the 'worn out' category] was due to enemy.

So tell us again how well the Il-2 would do.

[Franek Grabowski]

I do not know what Churchill tank has to Airacobra, but there is no doubt that licence production was not possible in the UK for technical reasons. The aircraft is overestimated and Soviet data clearly show it was no surgical hit and run aircraft. Apart of that one must have in mind that British industry was not that very modern and it was not capable to build aircraft in demanded quantities, so RAF relied on large part on US deliveries.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Keep believing in your phantasy dreams.

STuG G ground pressure is 13.5psi. A Panther G is 12.8psi so it to must have been restricted to just roads.

The Churchill I had a ground pressure of 13.1psi and you want us to believe that the Mk VII weighing 2600 more lbs and with a ground pressure of 14psi could travel cross-country when the StuG, and Panther couldn't. Never mind the up-armoured Churchill at 44,600lb even with a 24" track. Yah right!!! Naturally, the mechanical reliabilty of this super heavy tank would have been superb.

Was the turret to get extra armour? How about more side armour for flank attacks?

Should it be mentioned that the Soviets did not think highly of the Churchills they recieved.

You were the one making statements about using a dive bomber. So I want to know how did the Stuka do in its glory days with such targets since you are the one telling us great dive bombers are.

Sure the Vengeance from 10,000ft and up could tell with all the smoke and dust what to attack!!!

StuG G had a ground pressure of 13.5 psi on the road and 9.7 psi at bogging point. Figures for Churchill VII were 13.1 and 8.6.
The Churchills did bog on occasion, but they did so slowly allowing the crews to stop, reverse and try somewhere else. Since the line was advancing those that bogged could be recovered. The Germans lost StuGs that bogged. But the fact was that StuGs stuck to the roads, and changed their ambush position frequently. Without a turret they needed hard standing to align the gun. The Churchills went slowly across country.
The Germans were as surprised in 1945 about the ability of the Churchill to go cross country as they were when they appeared on Longstop Hill in North Africa in 1943. And the Germans said so in both cases.

That's how it was in 1945. Believe it or not, it's up to you.

The Soviets received Churchill I and II, IIRC. You're right; they certainly didn't want Churchill VII.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I do not know what Churchill tank has to Airacobra, but there is no doubt that licence production was not possible in the UK for technical reasons. The aircraft is overestimated and Soviet data clearly show it was no surgical hit and run aircraft. Apart of that one must have in mind that British industry was not that very modern and it was not capable to build aircraft in demanded quantities, so RAF relied on large part on US deliveries.

I seem to remember hearing that Beaverbrook and Stalin discussed an IL-2 production licence during a Kremlin dinner in October 1941. Do you know about that?

In any case, why did the Russians, and particular Stalin, have such faith in the aircraft? And weren't most of them destroyed by LW fighters rather than Flak?

[Juha]

Tony
"The Soviets received Churchill I and II, IIRC."

They got Mk IIIs and IVs, I think. Ie with 6pdr gun. And in all pictures I have seen they had that 20 mm appliqué armour in place. 35 were at Kursk and some were used against Finland in June 44.

"Since the line was advancing those that bogged could be recovered."

Haven't You read the history of 6th Guard Armoured Brigade? According to it rather many of its Churchills bogged down so badly in Reichswald that they were never recovered. Maybe after the war by scrap metal dealers but not by 6th Guards. If you have studied this 35 years it surprising that you don't have knowledge on that.

"The Crocodiles were not used in the set pieces I know about."

Either You have Your own definition to set piece or you have missed a lot of them.

Juha

[Kutscha]

But the fact was that StuGs stuck to the roads, and changed their ambush position frequently. Without a turret they needed hard standing to align the gun.

Traverse (degrees) Manual (10° L, 10° R) Elevation (degrees) -6° to +20°

Must have been miles and miles and miles of roads on the Eastern Front and no boggy ground to get stuck in. How did the StuG ever manage?