Placing the Fairey Battle.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

I would still like to know if you consider the P-47 a 'failed' fighter.

I do.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Would dive bombers have faired any better than the level bombers? Think not!

I would still like to know if you consider the P-47 a 'failed' fighter.

Surely what happened to the Koenigsberg is evidence dive bombers would have fared better, don't you think?

I'm sorry. I don't know about the P-47. The USAAF was different from the RAF. It was an army air force.

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Surely what happened to the Koenigsberg is evidence dive bombers would have fared better, don't you think?

I'm sorry. I don't know about the P-47. The USAAF was different from the RAF. It was an army air force.

You really think so? Better do some reading up on the conflict between the land segment and the air segment of the USAAF. The American air force fought really hard to seperate from the American Army, finally succeeding in 1947.

Maybe you should do some reading on the P-47 then.

How many times do you have to be told that about dive bombers without air superiority? They would have suffered the same fate, or even worse, than the bombers with the same, or even less, bombing results.

Franek, why do you say that?

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Franek, why do you say that?

Because Thunderbolt was an 'overpaid' plane. It was too heavy, too expensive, not very manouverable. Analysis of the first year of operations shows that they were not that successfull against the Luftwaffe, and it is really no wonder 8th AF asked them to be replaced by Mustangs as soon as possible. I do not mean it was a completelly useless aircraft, but certainly did not deserve that much propaganda as it get, at least in the fighter role.

Tony
I would strongly recommend to get accustomed to the recent publications, mainly Russian, concerning the eastern front. Certainly hordes of Half Tracks, Shermans, Jeeps, Studebakers, Airacobras and Bostons made the Red Army superior to the Western counterparts. Any qualities? Some Russians would hang butcher Zhukov by his balls. Referring to old propaganda is not the way to proper research.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

You really think so? Better do some reading up on the conflict between the land segment and the air segment of the USAAF. The American air force fought really hard to seperate from the American Army, finally succeeding in 1947.

Maybe you should do some reading on the P-47 then.

How many times do you have to be told that about dive bombers without air superiority? They would have suffered the same fate, or even worse, than the bombers with the same, or even less, bombing results.

I know all about the USAAF separating. That is irrelevant to the situation in 1942/3/4/5.

Of course you need air superiority in order to bomb without being shot down by a defending aircraft.
Gaining air superiority was the job of the RAF. The USAAF achieved it, but the RAF, which never stopped talking about its expertise, never even tried to get air superiority over the Reich. The RAF argued that a long-range fighter could never compete with a short-range fighter and so the RAF would not waste time with the Mustang.
Given this prejudiced RAF mindset, it is clear why the RAF refused to have dive-bombers. It could not even imagine how it would gain air superiority.
This was also the reason why it was a disaster for the RAF to decide on CAS.
So do you now understand the answer to your question " How many times do you have to be told that about dive bombers without air superiority?"

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Army with better equipment and better integrated all-arms - is it about Red Army?

Jawohl.

[Franek Grabowski]

And here we come to the point. You are trying to prove your points based on fragmentary or untrue publications, often not based on any primary sources. The fact is, that I am not awared of any recommendable English-language studies on the subject. Perhaps I have missed something, being not forced to read in the language only, but indeed the situation may be called dramatic, especially having in mind several pro Soviet and derogatory comments.
Certainly Soviets had some bright men or some good ideas, quite often they were able to work in simplier and effective method, but considering a more general view and longer experience in modern warfare, they were simply ineffective, human losses being most important.
Several of their designs were obsolete, ineffective or even dangerous, and get their reputation only because of years of propaganda. Il-2 is the most typical example of what propaganda could make with an average, to say the least, aircraft, but the same situation was elsewhere. More, Soviets perfectly knew of those problems and demanded more Lend-Lease.
Now you ridicule Soviet dependancy on Lend-Lease, but in the previous post you have claimed Soviets were better equipped. How it was possible if Soviets claimed they got second rate stuff?
Last but not least, I have always understood Harris was butchering the foes, but Zhukov butchered their own.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

And here we come to the point. You are trying to prove your points based on fragmentary or untrue publications, often not based on any primary sources. The fact is, that I am not awared of any recommendable English-language studies on the subject. Perhaps I have missed something, being not forced to read in the language only, but indeed the situation may be called dramatic, especially having in mind several pro Soviet and derogatory comments.
Certainly Soviets had some bright men or some good ideas, quite often they were able to work in simplier and effective method, but considering a more general view and longer experience in modern warfare, they were simply ineffective, human losses being most important.
Several of their designs were obsolete, ineffective or even dangerous, and get their reputation only because of years of propaganda. Il-2 is the most typical example of what propaganda could make with an average, to say the least, aircraft, but the same situation was elsewhere. More, Soviets perfectly knew of those problems and demanded more Lend-Lease.
Now you ridicule Soviet dependancy on Lend-Lease, but in the previous post you have claimed Soviets were better equipped. How it was possible if Soviets claimed they got second rate stuff?
Last but not least, I have always understood Harris was butchering the foes, but Zhukov butchered their own.

1. Then I can't argue with you. Until someone produces new evidence I'm stuck with the old. I have tried to read Glanz, but he just recites lists without any insight. Then there's Beevor on Stalingrad and Berlin. Who else?
2. I have a big problem accepting your claim that I have swallowed soviet propaganda about the IL-2. I have quoted Schwabedissen - who is a primary source - about German awe of the IL-2; "All German commanders describe the IL-2 as a highly useful aerplane for ground attack. Owing to its good armour plating, the plane could only be brought down by very well directed ground fire". There is another primary source - Gifford Martel. He was one of the creators of the tank, and was Military Attache in Moscow during the battle of Kursk. The Russians uniquely gave him access. He even met Stalin. This is what he wrote about the IL-2 in 'The Russian Outlook'; "The discussion (in 1943) on armoured forces ended this series of conferences with the Russians. Certain points stood out. First of all, it was clear the Russians set great store by the Sturmovik (sic) aeroplane. No other nation had developed an aircraft which was armoured in this way. Were they all wrong and the Russians right? We made further enquiries as regards casualties in these aircraft from flak. This was not very easy to assess. The troops on the Russian front were not nearly so well equipped for producing flak. This question of using armoured aircraft was clearly very important, and we decided that we must take every opportunity of studying the matter and obtaining further information".
Martel was uninformed about the Hs129B so wrong that no other nation had produced an armoured aircraft (let alone the Junkers J-1 and Sopwith Salamander which he should have known about), and his argument was incoherent because if flak was more intense in the west (which I question), then the argument for an armoured aircraft in the west would have been GREATER and not less. When Martel was called home his successor was frozen out by the Russians, so the question about the IL-2 was never pursued. It is time someone did it. Franek? You look qualified.
3. You are plain wrong about Harris. Everybody called him "Bomber Harris", except his aircrew who called him "Butcher Harris" because he butchered them. It's exactly the same with Zhukov.

[Juha]

Jukka
yes I noticed but I don't think that 4-bladed+bubble canopy made much difference on roll-rate, which IIRC AFDU valued highly at that time and had not much effect on dive and had not significant effect on zoom climb even if probably effected somewhat on climb. So IMHO 4-bladed+bubble canopy would have not affect much AFDU's conclusions maybe they would have changed the adjective.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Well, that change of adjective might have resulted in very significantly different tone.

On the CMN, Brown states:"Our job at RAE Farnborough was to determine how critical this limiting Mach number was if taken to the ultimate loss of control." And: "From these tests it was clear that the true limiting Mach number of the Typhoon was 0.79 and the true critical Mach number was 0.81." On the Tempest: "Our other great interest in the Tempest V at the RAE was in its high Mach number characteristics, and thse proved to be very similar to those of the Typhoon, except that it had a limiting Mach number of 0.81 true and a critical Mach number 0.83 true."

So, you may believe theoretical pencil pushing wankers, err Hoerners, I do believe real testing.