Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?

[Juha]

Hello
correction to info on Poland's AA weaponry. Poland had in Sept 1939 306 40mm Bofors AAA guns, 110 WWI wintage 75mm AAguns and 44 modern 75mm AA guns.

[Graham Boak]

My point was that any lack of success (should that be comparative lack of success?) of the IL 2 in the maritime attack role can be placed at the lack of suitable weaponry rather than any failings in the aircraft. A lack that could have been made up fairly quickly, had it occurred to the right people at the right time.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

Now they used fighter bombers in WWII and LW used them in Spanish Civil War, He 51s.

On Poland's AA defences, IIRC they had some 380 40mm Bofors AA guns etc.

"army had been abandoned by the RAF at Dunkirk."
Now I'd say that that is a one-sided statement when one thinks the air combats over Dunkerque.

"IL-2 were bombers which could survive over the battlefield and not fighter-bombers which could not survive..."

Now Il-2 losses were very heavy and without better fighter escorts would have been even disasterous because Bf109 with gun gondolas or Fw190 could shoot them down, I'll not say easily but without too much difficulties. And Il-2s were vulnerable to AAA fire from 20mm upwards. Of course they were "harder" targets than fighter bombers and were practically invulnerable to rifle and 7 - 8mm mg fire which could be deadly to fighter-bombers. But on other hand fighter-bombers were less vulnerable to enemy fighters.

1. He51s were used to drop bombs, IIRC, in the Spanish Civil War after they were retired as frontline fighters. Instead of being scrapped they were turned into bombers. By that time bombers like the Battle and Blenheim, Do17 and He111 outperformed the He51. The He51 was no longer a fighter. That was how the Typhoon became a so-called fighter-bomber. It had inadequate performance at altitude for a fighter so should have been scrapped.
2. But do you know how the Polish Bofors performed? Were they a factor on the Bzura? I believe they were not. On the other hand it is possible that the destruction of the Polish army on the Bzura was not due to the LW but to Wehrmacht artillery. That was the conclusion of Operational Research when 2-TAF's claims in the Falaise Pocket in 1944 were checked. This would probably not have been done on the Bzura so we'll never know. But the LW believed its intervention on the Bzura had been significant.
3. The army from Alanbrooke down to the squaddie believed they had been abandoned by the RAF at Dunkirk. Whether it was true or not, I leave it to the experts to determine. But the army believed it and campaigned strongly for an army air corps equipped with dive-bombers. They might even have succeeded if Montgomery had not pulled the rug from under Alanbrooke by agreeing with Tedder that the RAF was delivering good tactical support in North Africa, which remains debateable. The compromise was 2-TAF.
4. Agreed the IL-2 needed fighter protection. All bombers did. But so did the Typhoon on the rare occasions when it encountered Bf109 and Fw190. The RP rails reduced the Typhoon's performance and it could not defend itself from the air, while its lack of armour made it vulnerable to ground fire. It was grossly inaccurate in ground attack with rockets according to contemporary Operational Research. It was therefore good for nothing.

[Juha]

Hello Tcolvin
“Typhoon… could not defend itself from the air…”

IIRC Typhoon pilots claimed some 16 fighters during the Normandia campaign.

“It was grossly inaccurate in ground attack with rockets according to contemporary Operational Research. It was therefore good for nothing.”

Now, Typhoon was much less effective against tanks that claimed but so was also Il-2.
The main effect of attack planes against tanks was they effectiveness against soft-skinned vehicles and trains so they hindered badly the supply of POL and ammo and they hindered also movements of armoured formations. Why You think the Ardennes offensive in Dec. 44 was timed for a bad weather period?
And only fraction of Heer was armoured, attack planes ability to hinder artillery was very important because Heer’s defensive plans were based on artillery fire and lesser extent to mg-fire.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by leonventer

Hi tcolvin,

It appears you didn't pick up on it, but John Vasco's message above contains a self-effacing reference to his own fine book, "Messerschmitt Bf 110 Bombsights over England: Erprobungsgruppe 210 in the Battle of Britain", published by Schiffer in 2002, ISBN 0764314459. (An earlier edition was published by JAC in 1990.)

The revised edition is available from Amazon and Schiffer for about $50.

Leon Venter

Thanks for that, Leon.
I have Chris Goss' book published in 2003, "LW Fighter-bombers Over Britain". He described the experience of Erprobungsgruppe 210. And Chris quotes Galland's conclusion that, "apart from their nuisance value, (the Jabos) achieved very little of any military value". The same conclusion applies IMHO to the subject of Chris' book, the tip-and-run attacks in 1942/3 developed by Frank Liesendahl who, by the way and IIRC, developed his appetite for ground attack after killing Poles on the Bzura.
It is Galland's judgment that needs detailed analysis if the subject is to be advanced. I gather this has not occurred, either because the data does not exist, or it would take too long to assemble, or no one believes it would add much to our knowledge.
It has always seemed to me that because British Flak was so undeveloped in 1940, that conditions for fighter-bombers were as ideal as they would ever be after the Polish campaign. This did not apply to Russia; LW pilots who overflew Moscow said they got a far hotter reception than they ever did over London. But even with little Flak the fighter-bombers achieved little over Britain. And as for 2-TAF, who flattered the LW by imitating it in 1944/45, they were done for by the lethal German Flak.

Tony

[Kutscha]

tcolvin, the Tiffie made some 247 claims including 3 Me262s, 55 Me109s and 94 Fw190s. Not bad for a ground pounder.

How would you rate the P-47 which also had no extra armour?

The LW made 90-100 claims against RAF a/c (May 27-30) so how did this happen if there was no RAF in the area of Dunkerque?

See Tony Wood's claim list at the bottom of the link, http://jg26.vze.com/

[Juha]

Hello Graham
sorry, I had to take the twice a week sauna session before answering.
On IL-2 successes on anti-shipping role. I cannot remember how the sinkings by Soviet naval aviation divided between ac types but IIRC Bostons/Havocs were clearly most successful type maybe Il-4s/DB-3Fs second but our Russian friends surely know this better.
My point still is that the 700 kg? armour weight was too much in anti-shipping role. 8 - 12mm armour kept out rifle calibre bullets, maybe halved, one must remember that wings, rear fuselage and tail were unarmoured, the effects of 20mm AAA, and somewhat reduced the effects of 37 - 40mm AAA. But it probably didn't give any meaningful protection against 4" - 5" AA fire, which was the principal AA weapon of naval units. That's my point.

[CJE]

Tony,
Jabos were definitely of little military value.
However, they achieved one thing: they pinned down part of the Fighter Command which would have been more useful elsewhere, in particular over Malta.
Moreover, their raids had a good influence on the morale of the Germans as they gave the illusion that the Luftwaffe was still on the offensive in the West. Their low loss rate was also good for propaganda purposes.

Chris

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by CJE

Tony,
Jabos were definitely of little military value.
However, they achieved one thing: they pinned down part of the Fighter Command which would have been more useful elsewhere, in particular over Malta.
Moreover, their raids had a good influence on the morale of the Germans as they gave the illusion that the Luftwaffe was still on the offensive in the West. Their low loss rate was also good for propaganda purposes.

Chris

Chris.

Agreed, and a fair summing up. It will also serve for me as an epitaph for this thread.

You could have added Singapore where the absence of a strong Fighter Command, which was kicking its heels in Britain, contributed, and unlike Malta, to unmitigated disaster.

Tony

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

The RP rails reduced the Typhoon's performance and it could not defend itself from the air, while its lack of armour made it vulnerable to ground fire. It was grossly inaccurate in ground attack with rockets according to contemporary Operational Research. It was therefore good for nothing.

Except of course for all the damage it inflicted on the Germans. When I've located it, I'll post a deciphered German message about the effects of Typhoon attacks on Panther tanks.

If you care to read the deciphered traffic you will find a rich strand of evidence from the German side about the disruption caused by these and other "good for nothing" Allied fighter bombers. I posted four pages of this material elsewhere on TOC a few months ago, for example.