Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.

[Juha]

Franek
"but heavier ammo could mean less ammo"
Of course, I was just thinking that 30 rounds was such a low number that the number of bigger ammo should have been at least 25 but after all Hurricane IID also had 30 rounds ie 15 rpg and Ju 87 G had only 12 rpg. So less ammo was a viable option.

"Nonetheless it would be interesting to compare effectiveness data of both Soviets and Allies (and Germans if available) in order to check how actual ground attack aircraft performed."

Yes, I agree.

Juha

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

Franek

"Nonetheless it would be interesting to compare effectiveness data of both Soviets and Allies (and Germans if available) in order to check how actual ground attack aircraft performed."

Yes, I agree.

Juha

I think most would agree this is the important question.
But aircraft effectiveness depended not just on the aircraft but on the system of which the aircraft (singular and plural) is but one element.
Therefore the elements need identifying and their interrelationships quantified.
This can only be done by examining specific examples and then aggregating the values.
But the data probably do not exist. Pilot reports are usually valueless.
Considering the significant investment required for doing such an analysis for just four days for one division, and the heavy reliance placed on war diaries, personal diaries and observation, and on war correspondent reports that were luckily available on that occasion, there cannot exist many battles that could be the subject of such an analysis.
And then it is important to compare the outcomes of battles with and without close air support.
But until some of this is done at least in part, there will be no resolution of this emotive subject, or even modification of entrenched views.

Tony

[Franek Grabowski]

You put a tank on a range and you bomb it by all means until it is destroyed. Then you count warload spend and you have effectiveness. For example it was found that only a direct hit of Soviet RS-132 rocket could destroy a tank. It was found that none of 134 fired RS-132 hit the target during the test.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

You put a tank on a range and you bomb it by all means until it is destroyed. Then you count warload spend and you have effectiveness. For example it was found that only a direct hit of Soviet RS-132 rocket could destroy a tank. It was found that none of 134 fired RS-132 hit the target during the test.

Well, that's exactly the same result obtained from an Operational Research analysis of rocket attacks on targets in the Breskens Pocket. 140 Rocket Projectiles had to be fired by Typhoons to give a 50% chance of hitting a Panther. But that was in battle conditions and not on a range without Flak, which was the test you are referring to. But the OR Report does not say whether the Panther was defended by Flak.
Intense Flak resulted in 2TAF refusing to attack heavily defended targets such as the Rhine bridges and Me262 landing strips. Effectiveness obtained on a range was irrelevant in such cases where it was nil. The Rhine bridges were never brought down by 2TAF, and were eventually destroyed by the Germans themselves.
In some cases Bombphoons dropped bombs under radar control through cloud. Then there was no Flak but it became a form of inefficient carpet bombing.
You have to take the system as employed on the battlefield, IMHO, and not results obtained on a range.

[Franek Grabowski]

Tony
If results achieved on a range have shown low efficiency, well actually no efficiency, in field it must have been worse. Then Typhoon attacks seem much more efficient that those of Il-2s. Or you deny the numbers.
Concerning Flak - I have already mentioned the attempt to destroy bridges in Jabłonna area in 1944. They were destroyed by bomb fitted Airacobras because Il-2s were unable to get through Flak and air defense.
I find discussion of other factors useless at this stage.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Tony
If results achieved on a range have shown low efficiency, well actually no efficiency, in field it must have been worse. Then Typhoon attacks seem much more efficient that those of Il-2s. Or you deny the numbers.

I don't deny the numbers but I deny your conclusion.

"It was found that none of 134 fired RS-132 hit the target during the test,"
while 140 Rocket Projectiles fired by Typhoon gave 50% chance of hitting a Panther.

These results are identical.

In other words if a Typhoon fired 134 rockets then it would be expected to miss because its chance of hitting is LESS than 50%. The IL-2 did miss with 134 rockets. The results are identical. Capiche?

What is shown is the inherent inaccuracy of rocket projectiles. That is what Rudel stated and what Operational Research and RAF tests showed, but what Typhoon pilots and 2TAF vehemently denied.

Conclusion: any aircraft firing a rocket was inefficient. Any organisation that knew rocket-firing was inefficient but insisted it was efficient is making a fraudulent claim. I rest my case!

[Kutscha]

The Rhine bridges were never brought down by 2TAF, and were eventually destroyed by the Germans themselves.

They were?

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

They were?

Yes. Schlemm's First Parachute Army grew from a single division on February 8 to 11 divisions before pulling out on March 10, 1945. He stemmed the Allied advance west of the Rhine for 31 days, inflicting 15,634 casualties on 1st Canadian Army and 7,300 casualties on 9th US Army. The Germans lost 40,000 killed and 50,000 captured.
The Germans were supplied across 9 Rhine bridges, which were blown up by the Germans only when threatened. Schlemm blew the last two bridges at Wesel on March 10th after withdrawing in good order and ensuring the Russians got to Berlin first.
Bomber Command tried to destroy the Wesel bridges. On February 16, 100 Lancasters bombed Wesel, and on the next day 298 heavies and Mosquitoes aborted a raid due to cloud. On March 6, 48 Mosquitoes of 8 Group bombed the Wesel road bridge and that night 87 Lancasters of 3 Group and 51 Mosquitoes of 8 Group bombed both bridges. Not one bridge was taken out of action.
2TAF seem to have left the bridges completely alone because of Flak. Shores & Thomas on page 443 record the Flak concentrations at Xanten, Wesel, Bocholt and Doersten which determined the routing of the medium bombers, which by this time had been banned from army support because their inaccuracy killed too many Allied soldiers. Wesel and the others were no-go areas to 2TAF which lacked the equipment to deal with them.
The inability of BC and 2TAF to destroy the Rhine bridges was such a scandal that a post-war postmortem was held into it. IIRC the RAF suggested they had made a mistake and should have used mediums. At least they kept their sense of humour.
Tony

[Juha]

""It was found that none of 134 fired RS-132 hit the target during the test,"
while 140 Rocket Projectiles fired by Typhoon gave 50% chance of hitting a Panther.

These results are identical."

Tony
How typical to You! The Typhoon case is from combat situation and Il-2 case from test. Are you claiming that ground fire had no effect to accuracy of ground attack planes?

Now there are also test on RP Typhoons. On one case against captured Panther in the middle of an open field out of 64 RP fired only 3 hit the tank. Not outstanding, I admit. British estimated that in battlefield against single tank only one out of 200 fired hit, and that some 20-30% of RP warheads failed to detonate.

Now without knowing the test conditions of the Il-2 test I would not draw conclusion on accuracies between Typhoon with RP and Il-2 with RS-132 but only suggest that you also checked how effective Ju 87 Gs were in reality, contrary to claims, against Soviet tanks. And Il-2s with 37mm cannon were not liked by pilots and they had inhered accuracy problems which you of course should know already after 35 years of study and with your pursuit of thruth. Otherwise you would not of course express definite conclusions.

Juha

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

Tony
How typical to You! The Typhoon case is from combat situation and Il-2 case from test. Are you claiming that ground fire had no effect to accuracy of ground attack planes?
Juha

Of course not. I said the results were identical. Maybe 'consistent' is more accurate, and I pointed out the difference in the test environment. Certainly the results are not inconsistent which was what Franek was saying.

Perhaps you have forgotten, or never knew, the reason 2TAF adopted the rocket projectile. It was because it allowed the pilot to stand off from the target and release his munitions from a safer distance than from a gun or a bomb. The pilot had a slightly better chance of living when he fired an RP than when he fired a gun.

The rocket projectile was inaccurate and ineffective because of its notorious gravity drop. This was inherent and made the RP ineffective. It didn't matter whether the pilot spoke German, Russian or English, or whether he flew a Hs129, IL-2 or Typhoon, or whether the RP was made in Birmingham, Essen or Tula. Rocketswere all the same - bloody useless.

Or do you have a contrary point of view? If so then spit it out, man!

Tony