Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by Juha

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

The NS37 mounted under the wings of the Il-2 3M weighed 522lbs with 50 rds. The bombload was reduced to 440lbs. When fully load, the CG moved 3.5% rearward. The a/c required considerable piloting skill and had much more demanding flight characteristics. There was also a shortage of NS37 cannons.

[Franek Grabowski]

Sorry, but 134 rockets fired with no hit is not exactly the same thing as 64 rockets fired with 3 hits. Or I do not understand maths.

[Graham Boak]

3 hits from eight aircraft doesn't seem that terrible. Actually, that's better than would be expected under combat conditions. However, one hit will kill a Panther. But how often was there an isolated single target? Think of the spread of 64 (or 200) rockets and a column or cluster of vehicles.

The statistic about failures to explode are irrelevant to anti-tank warfare, where solid-head shot is used.

[Juha]

"The statistic about failures to explode are irrelevant to anti-tank warfare, where solid-head shot is used."

Graham, that was original intention, 60lb HE against ships and 25lb solid head against tanks but after tests that was switched to 60lb HE warheads against tanks and 25lb solid head against ships and subs.

Reasons: solid head didn't have enough penetration power against Tigers and solid heads had passable underwater trajectory and were effective to hole hulls under waterline.

Juha

[Graham Boak]

Yes, gravity drop is one reason for the inaccuracy of rockets. So? No-one is actually arguing the point that they were less accurate. Wind is one reason for the inaccuracy of bombs, and affects rockets less because of the reduced time of flight. Barrel wear is one reason for the inaccuracy of guns, and affects rockets and bombs not at all. Every weapon has its advantages and disadvantages. It is the effect of the overall package that matters.

Less accurate is not the same as ineffectual. There is a spectrum in all things. It is not simply black and white but all shades of grey. Not good- throw a switch- bad but a graduation from poor to even worse. The accuracy/hit probability is but one factor: the kill probability given a hit is another. Surviving to make a second attack is a third. The amount of training required to operate a weapon successfully is another. The cost of the weapon (and platform) is yet another - not just money but manpower and logistics. The rocket rates highly on every count except the first: which is not enough to justify your comments, given the results, which are not to be measured simply in terms of punctured Panzers.

More generally, survivability is a prime factor in weapon choice - else the Army would have been sending 17 pdrs into battle mounted on open lorries.

Incidentally, I've just been reading Firestorm, in which one Typhoon pilot states that he flew lower on rocket attacks than with bombs. I suspect this is not general, but interesting.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

Incidentally, I've just been reading Firestorm, in which one Typhoon pilot states that he flew lower on rocket attacks than with bombs. I suspect this is not general, but interesting.

I think it was general with the experienced, and because of Flak.
Compare Sqn.Ldr Raymond (Cheval) Lallemont, CO of 609 Sqn; "Most of the rockets did end up short due to pilot inexperience, and because of Flak. We had to be very low to escape the accurate German Flak! That led to fear of collision with obstacles on the ground.... When they (tanks) were in the open a vertical dive was best (it obviated the gravity drop). When a tank was hiding, the only way was to go down almost straight and level, holding the aircraft very steady, particularly during the firing of the rockets until they had cleared the long launching rails. But the trick was to go as low and close as possible".

The boffins prescribed RPs as a stand-off weapon to offset the vulnerability of the unarmoured Typhoon. Battlefield conditions with Flak made that impossible with conscientious pilots. The unconscientious fired the rockets first at anything at all, and then climbed away out of range of Flak.

The wretched pilots did the best they could with the equipment they were given. Heroes all! It is not them under the microscope.

[Graham Boak]

Any weapon will be more accurate if applied close in (up to its limitations, anyway). However the way to become and remain experienced is to avoid the flak. I'm sure you are right about inexperienced pilots "shying away"; even without the flak, it is all a common enough experience, linked to a lack of practice in judging distance. Opening fire outside effective range was a normal novice reaction in aerial combat, I see no reason why air-to-ground should be any different.

However, despite Lallemand's comments, I don't believe any Typhoon delivered rockets in a dive that was actually vertical. (Other than perhaps very briefly, and that would not be conducive to good aiming.) This would have led to such an increase in speed that the aircraft would be unable to recover. It was not a specialised dive-bomber, fitted with air-brakes. Over-estimation of dive angles is another human "failing", that's one reason why it takes so long to train a good dive-bomber pilot.

It is also a bit difficult to reconcile his comments on low flying and vertical dives......

Rockets were introduced to reduce the vulnerability of the Hurricane, and by extension any fighter-bomber, not specifically the later Typhoon. They specifically replaced the 40mm gun because of the vulnerability of the attacking method and the inadequacies of the penetration. But I think we are going round in circles here.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

However, despite Lallemand's comments, I don't believe any Typhoon delivered rockets in a dive that was actually vertical. (Other than perhaps very briefly, and that would not be conducive to good aiming.) This would have led to such an increase in speed that the aircraft would be unable to recover. It was not a specialised dive-bomber, fitted with air-brakes. Over-estimation of dive angles is another human "failing", that's one reason why it takes so long to train a good dive-bomber pilot.

But I think we are going round in circles here.

No. You're not right about vertical delivery. Cheval Lallemont was specific about going vertical; "When they (Tanks) were in the open a vertical dive was best, but not all pilots could put their aircraft in such a position, since one always gains the impression within an aircraft that the dive is steeper than is really the case. I advised them to do a roll during the dive, since in a shallow dive they would feel uncomfortable when the aircraft was on its back: in a vertical dive no such gravity pull would be experienced."

As to going round in circles, I rest my case that the irretrievable error made by the RAF was to turn its face against dive bombing. Here you see Typhoon pilots forced by their conscientiousness to find an accurate way of delivering ordnance and reverting to dive-bombing. A Bombphoon couldn't deliver from the vertical because it lacked a cradle to swing the bomb outside the propeller arc.

But Lallemont was pretty special, and probably the best Typhoon practitioner. His 609 Squadron was voted the best by 2TAF for an article in 'Stars and Stripes' magazine in August 1944: Leigh-Mallory ordered his staff to make the nomination; Coningham nominated 84 Group; Bingo Brown nominated 123 Wing; and Desmond Scott nominated 609 Squadron.

[Kutscha]

There is no way the Typhoon did a perpendicular dive.

The Spitfire did dive bombing but the dive angle was 60* max and was considered a vertical dive.

Lallemont only commanded 609 from sometime in Aug to sometime in Sept 1944.

On Aug 8 the Americans called on the Typhoons to attack a small wood near the village of Le Theil. Seven double stacked Typhoons of 197 blasted the wood to pieces. Captured Germans, that survived, were eager to surrender.

So, did the USAAF, and the Soviets, also make an irretrievable error in not having dive bombers in Europe?

[Kutscha]

Must have made a mess of the approaches to the bridges.

The Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen—the last standing span over the Rhine—was captured by American soldiers of the U.S. 9th Armored Division 7 March, during Operation Lumberjack.

So not all were blown up by the Germans. The Germans tried to destroy this bridge with Me262s and Ar234s and failed dispite less AAA than what the Germans had in place. You would be whining about the terrible losses of the 2TAF.

The Soviets would have got to Berlin first, no matter what, as they were 10 times closer to Berlin than the Western Allies.