Response to Glider and Juha.

[Nick Beale]

I suggest you take a look at the experiences of the Ju 87s sent against the Remagen bridge in daylight. They missed and they lost many aircraft to Flak.

Summarised from Heinz Jirousek's »Flieger Schicksal immer noch nicht geklärt« (Jägerblatt, February/March 1991) regarding an action by NSG 1 on 8 March 1945:

"Late afternoon (while still light) Ju 87s approach Remagen at low level from the south east, in the face of heavy AA defence. Two were shot down immediately while two more pulled away smoking over the [Erpeler] Ley. A further attack was similarly a failure.

NSG 1 losses: 3 missing from 1. Staffel; 1 from 2. Staffel; 1 from 3. Staffel. One a/c each from 1. and 2. crashlanded at base with the crews unhurt."

NSG 2 fared no better when they tried it, incidentally. In fact the German bridge-busting efforts in 1944–45 were hardly a triumph: Ranville, Pontorsson, Nijmegen (damage inflicted at least), Remagen, Stolzenau, Lauenburg. Granted a Mistel got one Oder Bridge (Steinau?) but that was it IIRC.

BTW there's talk in this thread of a Ju 87 with an 1800 kg bomb — can you imagine how slowly that would fly? Sonderverband Einhorn tried the same load on Fw 190 F-8s but rapidly gave up in favour of 1000 kg weapons.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I suggest you take a look at the experiences of the Ju 87s sent against the Remagen bridge in daylight. They missed and they lost many aircraft to Flak.

Without doubt these attacks were unsuccessful, but I think the point is rather how what weapons system/doctrine is better suited for such task in general (rather than in single cases). A lone 109E Jabo finished off a cruiser for example at Crete in 1941, but it was a lucky hit, and would make a very exceptional case for Jabo effectiveness. They had their place of course, and planes dropping bombs were certainly better than planes dropping no bombs.

BTW there's talk in this thread of a Ju 87 with an 1800 kg bomb — can you imagine how slowly that would fly? Sonderverband Einhorn tried the same load on Fw 190 F-8s but rapidly gave up in favour of 1000 kg weapons.

The SC 1800 was one of most widely used bombs on the Eastern Front. I have a table somewhere about the number of bombs dropped, and the SC 1800 was indeed dropped in insane numbers (not only by Stukas, as 111s, 88 etc. were also well capable of carrying them). As for the speed loss, it was a big bomb for sure, but I am not sure OTOH if it had any more serious effect on speed than the other common load of three 1x500 + 2x250 kg(or2x500kg) bombs. As for the 190F, the SC 1800 was possible, but honestly a quite a bit of an (impressive) overload for such a small fighter, not only due to weight but also because of limited ground clearance with such an enormous bomb, whereas the Stuka was much bigger and could handle it well.

Secondly the Stuka was slow in cruise, no matter what it carried, generally trotting around at 250 km/h or so. The bombing runs from steep or later in the war, more gentle dives were made at high speed though.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The SC 1800 was one of most widely used bombs on the Eastern Front. I have a table somewhere about the number of bombs dropped, and the SC 1800 was indeed dropped in insane numbers (not only by Stukas …

But there is no record of it ever being dropped by the Ju 87-equipped NSG units in the West or in Italy, log books and operational reports never speak of a weapon larger than 500 kg that I am aware of.

I was making the point that whatever the virtues of the Ju 87, neither it nor anything else the Luftwaffe had in the late war period was a reliable weapon against bridges.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

But there is no record of it ever being dropped by the Ju 87-equipped NSG units in the West or in Italy, log books and operational reports never speak of a weapon larger than 500 kg that I am aware of.

I would say that this is most likely an effect of NSG targets in the West. Marching coloumn and relatively light targets do not call for an 1800 kg bomb.

I was making the point that whatever the virtues of the Ju 87, neither it nor anything else the Luftwaffe had in the late war period was a reliable weapon against bridges.

Aye, bridges are difficult targets, as they are hard to hit and also to destroy. I would think that the weapons available were suitable, but the task would be still difficult and impossible to guarantee. This is especially true as the lack of trained personnel and fuel made the use of the most effective weapons like, ie. apart from the Stuka the conventinal bombers and controlled gliding bombs were near impossible and suicidal, in face of Allied air superiority.

[yogybär]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The SC 1800 was one of most widely used bombs on the Eastern Front. I have a table somewhere about the number of bombs dropped, and the SC 1800 was indeed dropped in insane numbers (not only by Stukas, as 111s, 88 etc. were also well capable of carrying them).

This is indeed extremely surprising for me, i.e. as
- pictures with SC1800 loaded on planes or lying around are very rare
- all KTBs / Leistungsbücher / .. I know don't contain such entries.
I was under the impression that SC250 and SC50 were most widely used. I'd be happy to see the table you mention.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I would say that this is most likely an effect of NSG targets in the West. Marching coloumn and relatively light targets do not call for an 1800 kg bomb.

But they also attacked the bridges at Nijmegen, Remagen and Stolzenau.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by yogybär

This is indeed extremely surprising for me, i.e. as
- pictures with SC1800 loaded on planes or lying around are very rare
- all KTBs / Leistungsbücher / .. I know don't contain such entries.
I was under the impression that SC250 and SC50 were most widely used. I'd be happy to see the table you mention.

My wrong, it seems my memory is failing me; managed to find the table, it certainly wasn't used in insane numbers, but still, in surprising numbers I'd say. Of course most targets did not require it.

As per the an 1 April 1940 document about what bombs to be used against what targets, steel bridges called for SD 1000 or SC 1800 from high altitude attack from apprx. 1000 m altitude, no delay; beton and stone bridges for SD 500 or PC 1000 from high altitude or diving attacks, apprx. 1000, with delay fuse.

Below is the monthly avarage of SC 1800 and other types in Q3 1941 and Q1 1942: roughly 50 were dropped per month. OTOH the PC 1000 was indeed used in large numbers. Source u/k; I pulled it off from a forum years ago.

[Juha]

Hello Kurfûrst
as you can see from message #6 in this thread, at least some CAS Typhoons had substantial extra armour, more specifically according to older message by Chris Thomason 26th July 2007 17:11, see:Impact of Allied fighter-bombers (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=9525)

Quote: “…the Typhoon was armoured. Mod 346 (55 lbs of fixed armour) and 347 (496 lbs of removable armour) were introduced in spring 1944. I am not sure of the exact disposition of this armour but photos show trial installations of sheet armour applied to the cockpit sides and floor and around the radiator…”


Juha

[Juha]

Hello again, Kurfürst
thanks for the bombtable, it is very interesting.

Juha

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello Kurfûrst
as you can see from message #6 in this thread, at least some CAS Typhoons had substantial extra armour, more specifically according to older message by Chris Thomason 26th July 2007 17:11, see:Impact of Allied fighter-bombers (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=9525)

Quote: “…the Typhoon was armoured. Mod 346 (55 lbs of fixed armour) and 347 (496 lbs of removable armour) were introduced in spring 1944. I am not sure of the exact disposition of this armour but photos show trial installations of sheet armour applied to the cockpit sides and floor and around the radiator…”


Juha

Thanks for the heads up. The key sentence seems to be (continued): "...Nor do I know to what extent this armour was employed on operations. However many photos of Typhoons from D-day onwards show stencilling on the radiator fairings - "This fairing is armoured" - as a warning to groundcrew who might be removing the fairing.'"

If it was present, common etc. it would certainly make them as armored as say 190F Schlacht planes (400 kg or about 850 lbs iirc), protecting engine, pilot from below, sides from small caliber fire.