Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum  

Go Back   Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum > Discussion > Allied and Soviet Air Forces

Allied and Soviet Air Forces Please use this forum to discuss the Air Forces of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #39  
Old 26th June 2010, 13:52
Juha's Avatar
Juha Juha is offline
Alter Hase
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,448
Juha is on a distinguished road
Re: RAF and dive-bombing.

Hello Tony
Dive-bombing wasn’t the answer to flak losses. Here during summer 44 Stukas of I./SG 3 of the Gef.Vb Kuhlmey flew at least 1.199 sorties, dropped appr. 540 tons of bombs and lost 17 planes plus 11 badly dam, when Fw 190Fs of 1./SG 5 the Gef.Vb Kuhlmey flew at least 507 sorties, dropped 232,7 tons of bombs and lost 8 planes and 1 badly dam. Targets were similar, almost all losses to flak. In fact because pilots of 1./SG 5, having operated before in Arctic region, were unused of the massive AA protection of a Soviet main offensive had to learn from bitter experience that repeated low-level attacks on same target were suicidal, their losses per sortie were lower than those of Ju-87s after they had adjusted their tactics to the environment. Ju-87s were better bridge-busters but both were capable of that and there was days when only fighter-bombers could do that because of cloud base. But as I wrote in the end Germans gave up their efforts to keep Tali bridges down and concentrated to attacks against troop concentrations near front line.

Il-2s did drop bridges, but they were not best tools for that because of light bomb-load they could carry. The armour had its pros and cons. As a tank-killer it had at least some successes against Germans but none of appr. 40 tanks and StuGs Finns lost during summer 44 was lost to VVS. Of course Il-2 was effective against soft transport vehicles and open-topped SPWs and SP-guns, which Finns didn't have but a few AA-tanks, none lost, but same is true to fighter-bombers.

On Douhetism, I can understand why RAF adopted it, it needed something to justify its independence during the lean years after WWI, and before the invention of radar there was justification to the say “bomber will always get through”. So, I can accept the adoption of Douhetism as a selling slogan, but IMHO the top RAF leadership should have seen clearer the need of specialised army support beyond Lysander sqns. In this we agree.

What else without too much help from hindsight, IMHO to make possible to some Typhoon sqns to be armed with 40mm “S” gun when engaged to A/T work. Possibly to mdify some Vengeances back to dive-bombers and train a couple sqns to use them as dive-bombers when in spring 44 it began to look like that the capacity of LW to challenge Allied air-superiority over Normandy would have been less than feared. I cannot see that that would have been made a big difference, maybe in V-2 hunt but German AAA over Holland was inentirely different category than Japanese over Burma.

Juha
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Friendly fire WWII Brian Allied and Soviet Air Forces 803 8th July 2023 15:47
107 Sqn RAF david.owens7@virgin.net Allied and Soviet Air Forces 13 23rd October 2019 00:40
9 April 1945: Me 262 claimed damaged by 617 RAF Squadron Lancaster gunner Roger Gaemperle Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces 0 3rd August 2009 12:49
Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra. tcolvin Allied and Soviet Air Forces 158 22nd August 2007 12:12
Thunderbolts and Mustangs versus the Jagdwaffe (split topic) Ruy Horta Allied and Soviet Air Forces 98 9th August 2007 16:22


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:44.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, 12oclockhigh.net