Charles Lindbergh in Germany

[David Wilma]

I watched an interview with the author or Hitlerland who
documented the rise of Hitler through the eyes of
Americans. One eyewitness was Charles Lindbergh
whose trip to Germany was orchestrated by Military
Attaché Truman Smith as an intelligence mission. Was
the intelligence portion of this trip productive at all?
Did the U.S./Allies learn anything useful from Lindbergh's
managed tour of Luftwaffe bases and factories?

Dave Wilma
www.DavidWilma.com

[Don Phillipson]

"David Wilma" <David...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f26d2e74-fbcd-4da8...@googlegroups.com...

> . . . Charles Lindbergh

> whose trip to Germany was orchestrated by Military
> Attaché Truman Smith as an intelligence mission. Was
> the intelligence portion of this trip productive at all?
> Did the U.S./Allies learn anything useful from Lindbergh's
> managed tour of Luftwaffe bases and factories?

"Useful" needs more precision (to whom, for whom etc.)
which the dates suggest.
1. The USA was up to 1940 not a member of any alliance.
US policy was strict neutrality, viz. non-involvement in any
actual or potential US war.
2. German policy up to 1939 was to seize particular bits
of territory (e.g. Austria, Bohemia) by swift action while
deterring other powers from intervention. Publicity was
one of the agents of deterrence, viz. demonstrations of
German military capacity (especially Luftwaffe and tanks).
This included welcoming British tours of factories. air force
stations and naval ports.
3. Even before Hitler's repudiation (1935) of the Versailles Treaty,
British intelligence was generally aware German armed forces
were rearming contrary to Versailles conditions -- hence the
Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 (probably the last
formal attempt at settlement by League of Nations methods
as new in the 1920s.) But RAF intelligence sought to
supplement or verify Luftwaffe publicity (#2) by its own secret
investigations (F.W. Winterbotham, Sidney Cotton) throughout
the 1930s.

A technical point that tests the usefulness of Lindbergh's
impressions (right or wrong) is German development of
dive-bombers (especially the Ju.87.) It appears both
US and RAF air commanders were mistakenly unimpressed
viz. neglected dive bombing until convinced by its effectiveness
in 1940 (France) and 1942 (against the Japanese navy.)
But the Ju.87 was known to have been inspired by Ernst
Udet's purchase of two Curtiss F8C Helldiver biplanes
(years before Hitler came to power.) Ju.87 squadrons
flew in Spain but it appears US and UK air commanders
paid no attention to this novelty. Hindsight is no help.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[David Wilma]

On Friday, June 22, 2012 7:03:33 AM UTC-7, Don Phillipson wrote:

> A technical point that tests the usefulness of Lindbergh's
> impressions (right or wrong) is German development of
> dive-bombers (especially the Ju.87.) It appears both
> US and RAF air commanders were mistakenly unimpressed
> viz. neglected dive bombing until convinced by its effectiveness
> in 1940 (France) and 1942 (against the Japanese navy.)
> But the Ju.87 was known to have been inspired by Ernst
> Udet's purchase of two Curtiss F8C Helldiver biplanes
> (years before Hitler came to power.) Ju.87 squadrons
> flew in Spain but it appears US and UK air commanders
> paid no attention to this novelty. Hindsight is no help.

What difference would have another assessment of dive
bomber development have made? Was there some
adjustment or deployment by the RAF or the French air
force that could have countered this weapon? Was there
something the ground forces could have done differently
in those few years before 1940?

IIRC in 1943 the the Stukas had their way with the
U.S.Army in Tunisia because of a shortfall in U.S. fighter
and AAA assets. By that time the Stukas were no
secret.

[Don Phillipson]

"David Wilma" <David...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:a3e832a0-c0ed-4ab5...@googlegroups.com...

>> . . . German development of
>> dive-bombers (especially the Ju.87.) . . Ju.87 squadrons

>> flew in Spain but it appears US and UK air commanders
>> paid no attention to this novelty. Hindsight is no help.

> What difference would have another assessment of dive
> bomber development have made? Was there some
> adjustment or deployment by the RAF or the French air
> force that could have countered this weapon? Was there
> something the ground forces could have done differently
> in those few years before 1940?

Probably not, because of RAF general policy and methods
before the war.
1. Division of responsibility between Bomber Command,
Fighter Command and "Army Co-Operation." The only
thing the RAF did excellently was the organization of
homeland defence against daytime bombing (Battle of
Britain.)
1b. The RAF never practised fighter escort of bombing raids
which in 1939-41 failed in daylight (catastrophic casualties) and
at night (seldom finding designated targets.)
1c. "Army Co-Operation" gave the BEF no significant
help in France in 1940.

2. The only prewar British dive bomber was the Blackburn Skua,
developed for the Fleet Air Arm, which was part of the RAF
1924-1939. A Skua sank a KM cruiser by dive bombing 9 April 1940,

3. In North Africa the Desert Air Force (under Coningham)
improvised successfully, co-ordinating fighters and bombers
in relation to army and naval needs, cf. adaptation of Hurricanes
to carry bombs and cannon. The DAF thus became the model
for 2nd Tactical Air Force (NW Europe 1944-45) and was a
principal reason Tedder was appointed Eisenhower's
deputy SACEUR.

We have no reason to suppose DAF methods could have
been planned or rehearsed in Britain before the war because
of the gulf between offensive and defensive doctrine, both
implicitly assuming the RAF did not really need the RN or the Army.

[dumbstruck]

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/NaziR
Above is the excellent hitlerville video. So the lindbergh
Angle grabbed you, and not the account of american
Helen h talking hitler out of blowing his brains out when
Notifying adolph about the police coming to arrest him
After the putch?!? (Ignore capitalization of first letter per
Line... it is an artifact of living with forum line length filter)

And did you already realize the repeated claims by visitors
>From the us that hitler in person came across as awkward
and effeminate the 1920s, and even in 1930s could could
Act gentle enough to charm influential old ladies? Well, i guess
i had heard that and even wondered if he had a momma's
Boy act, based on his reported worship of his mother.

Anyone have a youtube link to some of the quiet seduction
portion of his speeches vs the ranting climax? I noticed he
Did this on the secret recording of him twisting the arm of a
Finnish minister, and i have heard his dramatic silence tricks
in public speeches. Even the us visitors of the book called
Him a master in public speaking... not just the clown we see
in clips.

[David Wilma]

The accounts of individual Americans are interesting and
even entertaining. After all the Hitler and Nazi scholarship
they seem only to underscore the complexities of the Nazi
rise to power. According to the author interviews he is
interested in what did they know and when?

(I'm reading a bio of Ulysses Grant and the reactions of
eyewitnesses to his character is also quite mixed. But he
was remarkably successful in several areas.)

[dumbstruck]

On Monday, June 25, 2012 5:16:16 AM UTC-10, David Wilma wrote:
> (I'm reading a bio of Ulysses Grant and the reactions of
> eyewitnesses to his character is also quite mixed. But he
> was remarkably successful in several areas.)

Yeah, probably innovators like Grant, Hitler, and maybe Patton are
on an alternate wavelength, waiting for pivot points of timing and
unconventional opportunities where they can make a difference...
meanwhile not suffering fools too gladly or eccentrically not blending
in. I noticed that in a technical realm, where we would present our
brilliant project to an expert who would demolish it based on some
weird factor out of left field. Even though he was right, he gained
the reputation of a kook vandalizer. Contrast that with the failed
generals in the US african campaign; I bet they were good get-along
guys that had been promoted since they inspire confidence in downtime.

Back to Hitlerville, I can't wait to read it's coverage of how the long knife
evening appeared at the time. I wouldn't have been disturbed by the
execution of SA thugs who were the main target, but the fringe executions
should have raised a huge, sinister warning flag. To kill waiters of Hitler's
favorite restaurant (because of what they knew about his dead girlfriend)
or democracy heros of the Weimar... that did get notice in Shirers diary
and hopefully others realized the third reich was more than the ordinary
authoritarian eurostate. Oh, also if they realized Hitler had talked his way
past overwhelming SA force (the big truck of armed SA) to do the killing -
this suggests drive and focus to the point of madness.

P.S. the line length filter on this forum triggers big editing and re-editing
challenges and delays, especially on mobile devices. Can't it just autowrap?

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

You are right. During wartime, people who would have failed in the
military rose due to competence and a willingness to act outside the
box.

I've done some research on the US Submarine Service, and it's clear many
of the successful submarine comanders- "Mush" Morton, Dick O'Kane,
"Donc" Donaho, Roy Davenport- wpould have been peacetime failures,
relegated to backwater assignments or early seperation.

--
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. "--

Frank Zappa

[dumbstruck]

On Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:39:29 PM UTC-10, David Wilma wrote:
> Did the U.S./Allies learn anything useful from Lindbergh's
> managed tour of Luftwaffe bases and factories?

Wow, I just read that a similar tour for the leading French airforce expert
around the same time presented early German attempts at radar, among
other things. Speer says in his Spandau Diaries that Hitler ordered Milch
to show all in order to intimidate France into not resisting, and testified
to that at Milch's eventual N. trial.

Man, Spandau Diaries is an unexpectedly fascinating read... be warned
to put me on your delete list now or else get more trivia from it. Speer
no longer plays the gentleman nazi, and can be downright catty about
both the allies and his peers (who he plays funny dirty tricks on). Presents
the most believable portrait of Hitler I think, intended to contradict the
stereotype circa 1975.

[dirk...@gmail.com]

dumbstruck wrote:

> Man, Spandau Diaries is an unexpectedly fascinating read... be warned
> to put me on your delete list now or else get more trivia from it.

And be warned that Speer was a cunning imposter and all he has ever written after the war, including on toilet paper, should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I've not read the Spandau Diaries myself, but does he mention his hidden
treasure of stolen art (which he sold immediately after being released)?

/dirk

[David Wilma]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:15:48 AM UTC-7, dirk...@gmail.com wrote:
> dumbstruck wrote:
>
> &gt; Man, Spandau Diaries is an unexpectedly fascinating read... be warned
> &gt; to put me on your delete list now or else get more trivia from it.

Has any serious historian taken Speer to account for his version of events?
I remember when his first book came out and it was regarded as the
definitive story of Hitler's inner circle. I have seen much on this NG about
Speer's poor credibility, but has anything been published in book for or in
journals?

[Stephen Graham]

On 7/13/2012 3:10 PM, David Wilma wrote:

> Has any serious historian taken Speer to account for his version of events?
> I remember when his first book came out and it was regarded as the
> definitive story of Hitler's inner circle. I have seen much on this NG about
> Speer's poor credibility, but has anything been published in book for or in
> journals?

There's been a reasonable amount. One place to start would be Gitta
Sereny's _Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth_
(http://www.amazon.com/Albert-Speer-His-Battle-Truth/dp/0679768122).

[dirk...@gmail.com]

M. Schmidt, Albert Speer: The End of a Myth
Dan van der Vat, The Good Nazi; The Life and Lies of Albert Speer

/dirk

[dumbstruck]

On Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:39:29 PM UTC-10, David Wilma wrote:

> Did the U.S./Allies learn anything useful from Lindbergh's
> managed tour of Luftwaffe bases and factories?

Ok, in the book itself it describes 4 lindbergh visits which
had all kinds of fruitful side effects. Forget specific factiods
being relayed back to govt... they later said gee, we should
have listened to you. The visits and the star struck response
of goering and company disolved an intell wall the us embassy
had been facing.

So there was ongoing payback that just got better and better.
An informal stuff, like lindy spreading the word about awesome
factory features that us needs to emulate... told to civilians.
The us berlin embassy was almost alone in having no spy
budget and needed social connections with the luft which they got.

This book has countless amazing anecdotes based on unpublished
memoirs, which arent verifiable. Kind of hard mishmash to absorb,
but interesting.

[Bay Man]

"David Wilma" <David...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:a3e832a0-c0ed-4ab5...@googlegroups.com...

> IIRC in 1943 the the Stukas had their way with the
> U.S.Army in Tunisia because of a shortfall in U.S. fighter
> and AAA assets. By that time the Stukas were no
> secret.

By 1943 they were totally outdated. The Germans withdrew the Stuka from the
Battle of Britain in 1940 because of the heavy losses. The Stuka was fine
when there was no heavy AA or decent fighters around.

With decent AA about, even on ships, the Stuka was easy meat as their attack
was predictable - a vertical dive. Using them in any attempted invasion of
the UK would have been a wipe out for them. Their success against heavy AA
and decent fighter cover is limited. Because there was no better
replacement, the Stuka continued to be produced until 1944. By 1945 it was
rarely used.

[Bill Shatzer]

Bay Man wrote:
> "David Wilma" <David...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:a3e832a0-c0ed-4ab5...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> IIRC in 1943 the the Stukas had their way with the
>> U.S.Army in Tunisia because of a shortfall in U.S. fighter
>> and AAA assets. By that time the Stukas were no
>> secret.
>
>
> By 1943 they were totally outdated. The Germans withdrew the Stuka from
> the Battle of Britain in 1940 because of the heavy losses. The Stuka
> was fine when there was no heavy AA or decent fighters around.
>
> With decent AA about, even on ships, the Stuka was easy meat as their
> attack was predictable - a vertical dive.

I don't think that necessarily correct. The Ju 87s did fine against the
RN off Crete with acceptable losses in proportion to the damage inflicted.

For instance, in the May 23rd attack near Crete by I/StG 2 on three RN
destroyers, HMS Kelly and Kashmir were sunk and HMS Kipling damaged for
the loss of only a single Ju 87 - with a second damaged and written off.

Shipboard AA was pretty pathetic for all countries during the early part
of the war. The introduction of radar fire direction and later proximity
fuses changed that but through at least 1942 or 1943, shipboard AA fire
didn't down many attacking dive bombers - or bombers period. The
Japanese incurred the loss of only three bombers in exchange for sinking
HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales.

[Bill]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:28:53 -0400, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu>
wrote:

>Bay Man wrote:
>> "David Wilma" <David...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:a3e832a0-c0ed-4ab5...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> IIRC in 1943 the the Stukas had their way with the
>>> U.S.Army in Tunisia because of a shortfall in U.S. fighter
>>> and AAA assets. By that time the Stukas were no
>>> secret.
>>
>>
>> By 1943 they were totally outdated. The Germans withdrew the Stuka from
>> the Battle of Britain in 1940 because of the heavy losses. The Stuka
>> was fine when there was no heavy AA or decent fighters around.
>>
>> With decent AA about, even on ships, the Stuka was easy meat as their
>> attack was predictable - a vertical dive.
>
>I don't think that necessarily correct. The Ju 87s did fine against the
>RN off Crete with acceptable losses in proportion to the damage inflicted.
>
>For instance, in the May 23rd attack near Crete by I/StG 2 on three RN
>destroyers, HMS Kelly and Kashmir were sunk and HMS Kipling damaged for
>the loss of only a single Ju 87 - with a second damaged and written off.
>

In fact the three ships had driven off multiple air attacks before but
had run out of AA ammunition.

[Bay Man]

"Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message
news:k29ad6$vee$1...@dont-email.me...

> Bay Man wrote:
>> "David Wilma" <David...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:a3e832a0-c0ed-4ab5...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> IIRC in 1943 the the Stukas had their way with the
>>> U.S.Army in Tunisia because of a shortfall in U.S. fighter
>>> and AAA assets. By that time the Stukas were no
>>> secret.
>>
>> By 1943 they were totally outdated. The Germans withdrew the Stuka from
>> the Battle of Britain in 1940 because of the heavy losses. The Stuka was
>> fine when there was no heavy AA or decent fighters around.
>>
>> With decent AA about, even on ships, the Stuka was easy meat as their
>> attack was predictable - a vertical dive.
>
> I don't think that necessarily correct. The Ju 87s did fine against the RN
> off Crete with acceptable losses in proportion to the damage inflicted.

The Ju87 pilots did learn of course after Dunkirk. And they did have some
success as you outlined. But overall as the war went on they were easy meat.
The Ju87 was not successful at Dunkirk where many ships were static. Most
ships sunk were static.

Where there was some decent air cover, and not even by top line fighters,
they tended to be blasted out of the skies, as the Battle of Britain proved
and later against Soviet planes. Brits AA at Malta had a decent record
against Stukas. The Ju87 was withdrawn from operations over Malta altogether
in mid 1942. The Germans used the Ju87 as they never had much of an
alternative because as the war went on they were not coming out with any
decent planes merely adapting existing designs. Even the new jet was dire
and underdeveloped. The German economy was not up to pouring out new
designs. The Fw190 adapted for ground attack, again an adaptation of an
existing plane and a compromise, largely replaced the Stuka.

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/5/12 10:28 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Shipboard AA was pretty pathetic for all countries during the early

> part of the war. ...through at least 1942 or 1943, shipboard AA fire

> didn't down many attacking dive bombers - or bombers period.

It did rather better during the Pacific carrier battles of August and
October 1942.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/6/12 6:28 AM, Bay Man wrote:
> The Fw190 adapted for ground attack, again an adaptation of an existing
> plane and a compromise, largely replaced the Stuka.

But the same thing can be said about the P-38, the P-47, the P-51, the
Corsair, the Typhoon and even the Spitfire just to name a few. All of
those saw duty as ground attack aircraft. While the Luftwaffe can be
harshly judged for a number of things, adapting the Fw-190 to other
roles hardly seems like one of them.

Michael

[Bay Man]

"Michael Emrys" <em...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:V_CdnULhENm3MdXN...@posted.olypeninternet...

No one is judging them harshly. They had to mend and adapt as they never had
the resources to do otherwise.

The initial requirement of the Typhoon was for a high altitude big and fast
fighter with a large HP engine. Initial tests were not good at high level
but it proved very good at low level so was designed further to suite that
role and even ground attack. You can say it pretty well from the outset it
was a low level plane as that was its role on being introduced in combat.
Fast ground attack planes meant they didn't need much armour as the speed
meant they were difficult to shot down. The Hurricane was adapted to ground
attack in the desert, and was reasonably successful, however the lack of
underbelly armour meant it was shot down too often - it never had the
massive powerful engine of the Typhoon to speed away from ground fire.

The FW 190s were doing low level raids on the southern English coast, until
the Typhoon was introduced and knocked them out of the skies chasing them
back over the channel or over the land. The Luftwaffe stopped the raides.

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/6/12 8:59 AM, Bay Man wrote:
> They had to mend and adapt as they never had the resources to do otherwise.

But what I am trying to get you to see is that that is what the Allied
airforces did also. Their situation was a little bit different in that
once air supremacy had been achieved, many of those fighters were no
longer needed in that role. Since they were still rolling off the
production lines, it was desirable for a new role be found for them.

Michael

[Bill Shatzer]

http://www.navyhistory.org.au/the-loss-of-hms-kelly/

Mountbatten didn't mention any shortage of ammunition and indeed noted
that, "all guns continued to fire until the guns' crews were actually
washed away from their guns" - which would indicate they had ammunition
to fire right up to the time the ship sank.

Had he experienced any shortage of ammunition, you'd think he'd mention it.

According to Mountbatten's account, those "multiple air attacks"
consisted of a solo unsuccessful Do 215 attack near sunrise and an
equally unsuccessful attack by three more Do 215s forty minutes later.

Two low intensity air attacks by four aircraft seem unlikely to have
exhausted the destroyers' available ammunition.

At 0800 hours, the Stukas showed up - and rather quickly sank two out of
the three destroyers. If they had well and truly "run out of AA
ammunition", one wonders how they managed to shoot down the single Ju 87
they did succeed in downing.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

The P-51 was originally the A-36 Apache- a low-level attack aircraft,
and some continued under that designation throughout the war.

--
"We the unwilling, led by the unknowing, doing the unnoticed for the
ungrateful, have done so much for so long with so little that we can now
do almost anything with virtually nothing."--

Unknown

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <k29ad6$vee$1...@dont-email.me>, ww...@NOcornell.edu (Bill

Shatzer) wrote:

> The Ju 87s did fine against the
> RN off Crete with acceptable losses in proportion to the damage
> inflicted.

Most of the casualties at Crete came after RN ships ran out of AA ammo.

Ken Young

[Bay Man]

"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4552-504...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...

> The P-51 was originally the A-36 Apache- a low-level attack aircraft,
> and some continued under that designation throughout the war.

The P-51 was originally the British Mustang which was not a low level ground
attack aircraft. It performed better at lower levels because of the
limitations of Allison engine. Performance was far better at higher attitude
and general speed when the RR Merlin was fitted.

[Bill Shatzer]

Padraigh ProAmerica wrote:

> The P-51 was originally the A-36 Apache- a low-level attack aircraft,
> and some continued under that designation throughout the war.

No, the original was the British ordered Mustang I of which which two
were diverted to the USAAF under the designation XP-51. The Mustang IA
and Mustang II followed of which 57 and 275 were requisitioned by the
USAAF under the designations P-51 and P-51A respectively.

The A-36 came about only in 1942 after both the XP-51s and P-51s had
been delivered to the USAAF and the Mustang Is and IAs to the RAF.
(Possibly the Mustang IIs and P-51As as well but I'm not quite sure of
the chronology there.)

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> "Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:4552-504...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...

> > The P-51 was originally the A-36 Apache- a low-level attack aircraft,
> > and some continued under that designation throughout the war.

> The P-51 was originally the British Mustang which was not a low level ground
> attack aircraft.

Nor was it British; it was ordered by the British.

Mike

[Bay Man]

"Michael Emrys" <em...@olypen.com> wrote in message

news:aNednYB70K89StXN...@posted.olypeninternet...

Michael, the Allies did not have surplus aircraft, but as you pointed out
they were adopted for other roles as the war went on and as operational
conditions changed a plane designed as a fast interceptor fighter can only
be a compromise when adapted for ground attack.

However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made a
specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka - they never
had the resources or diverted resouces to lame projects like a poor jet
plane. The US had the Thunderbolt, the Soviets had the Shturmovik and UK had
the Typhoon. All were dedicated ground attack and tank buster planes,
knocking out all the heaviest of German tanks.

[Bay Man]

"David Wilma" <David...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:8fdb891f-569a-4cde...@googlegroups.com...

> On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:15:48 AM UTC-7, dirk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> dumbstruck wrote:
>>
>> &gt; Man, Spandau Diaries is an unexpectedly fascinating read... be
>> warned
>> &gt; to put me on your delete list now or else get more trivia from it.
>
> Has any serious historian taken Speer to account for his version of
> events?

Adam Tooze holds Speer in total contempt. In my view he should have been
hung.

Speer knew Germany could not produce the arms needed to compete with the
massive industrial output of the UK, US and USSR. Speer kept telling Hitler
and Germany in general that he could. He hid did wonders to keep Germany
industry going but on plans made by others and he took the credit.

In 1943, all the German Generals knew Germany could not win the war, yet
Speer was saying they could, prolonging the inevitable and causing 100,000s
of lives to be lost for no reason.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
news:k2cdd4$rqp$1...@dont-email.me...

> Michael, the Allies did not have surplus aircraft, but as you pointed out
> they were adopted for other roles as the war went on and as operational
> conditions changed a plane designed as a fast interceptor fighter can only
> be a compromise when adapted for ground attack.

Like the P-47 and Typhoon for example.

> However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made a
> specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -

Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.

> they never had the resources or diverted resouces to lame projects like a
> poor jet plane.

No actually, they did not divert ground attack design resources to the
jets. And the working Me262 had an edge over allied fighters until the
end of the war.

> The US had the Thunderbolt, the Soviets had the Shturmovik and UK had the
> Typhoon. All were dedicated ground attack and tank buster planes, knocking
> out all the heaviest of German tanks.

The IL-2 was definitely meant as an army support bomber, the P-47 was
a fighter optimised to fight above 20,000 feet with its turbo supercharger.
The Typhoon was meant as an interceptor but had engine problems for
much of its first 12 to 18 months of service and performed badly at
altitude.

Meantime the Typhoon and P-47 "designed as a fast interceptor fighter
can only be a compromise when adapted for ground attack" Furthermore
the results of examining the battlefields indicates in the west the attacks
rarely destroyed tanks. I do like the way the dedicated ground attack
P-47 was carrying so much supercharging and also doing most of the
8th Air Force escort missions until mid to late 1944. The Typhoon was
made to work as ground attack, given its problems when used as an
interceptor.

Short of deploying USN dive bombers or the Vultee Vengeance the
western allies did not have any dedicated ground attack design.

The Fw190F and G were ground attack aircraft, better than the P-47
in that they were optimised for low altitude, and better than the
Typhoon as they had radial engines. There were around 6,600 F
and G models produced, twice the number of Typhoons and about
half the number of P-47s.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message

news:k2b7b3$2j9$1...@dont-email.me...

> The A-36 came about only in 1942 after both the XP-51s and P-51s had been
> delivered to the USAAF and the Mustang Is and IAs to the RAF. (Possibly
> the Mustang IIs and P-51As as well but I'm not quite sure of the
> chronology there.)

The two XP-51 were accepted in August and December 1941.
NA-73 Mustang I production August 1941 to July 1942.
P-51 or Mustang IA production July to September 1942, two of these
were accepted as XP-51B in August.
A-36A production October 1942 to March 1943.
P-51A or Mustang II production March to May 1943.

There was 1 P-51B accepted in April 1943, another in May then
production was stepped up, 20 in June, 91 in July and 170 in August.

The first P-51C was accepted in August 1943.

2 XP-51, 620 Mustang I, 140 P-51, 310 P-51A, 2 XP-51B, 500 A-36A

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message

news:k2cefb$1h3$1...@dont-email.me...

> Adam Tooze holds Speer in total contempt. In my view he should have been
> hung.

Or alternatively "Bay Man" holds Speer in total contempt and is once again
conscripting Tooze for some sort of credibility.

> Speer knew Germany could not produce the arms needed to compete with the
> massive industrial output of the UK, US and USSR.

Quite correct.

> Speer kept telling Hitler and Germany in general that he could.

Actually no, he was the one pointing out the production gap, and like the
rest of the German system came to hope quality would offset quantity.

> He hid did wonders to keep Germany industry going but on plans made by
> others and he took the credit.

Given Speer was in office for over 3 years that is a long time to be running
on other people's plans. Simply put Speer benefitted from early war
investment and late war urgency, he also was competent. After all he
did wonders, correct?

> In 1943, all the German Generals knew Germany could not win the war, yet
> Speer was saying they could, prolonging the inevitable and causing
> 100,000s of lives to be lost for no reason.

I really like this, all thousands of German generals? Have the documents I
presume? I also like the way Hitler was powerless to stop Speer continuing
the war. If all the Generals were sure the war was lost perhaps they should
have done something?

[mi...@aim.com]

Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:

> plane. The US had the Thunderbolt, the Soviets had the Shturmovik and UK had
> the Typhoon. All were dedicated ground attack and tank buster planes,

Uh, the Thunderbolt wasn't a "dedicated ground attack" plane, unless bomber
escort is considered a "ground attack" duty.

And the Germans built the Henschel 129.

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:

> Short of deploying USN dive bombers or the Vultee Vengeance the
> western allies did not have any dedicated ground attack design.

What about the A-26 Invader?

It was definitely designed for ground attack.
It could also do medium altitude level bombing,
so it might be considered "not dedicated", but
that seems a little technical, as nearly all
A-26 missions were ground attack.

And while most of the A-26's operation was
post-war, it served in action from 1943, so
it was a WW II plane.

Also, what about the DB-7/A-20/Boston?
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

[Bay Man]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...

> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:k2cdd4$rqp$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> Michael, the Allies did not have surplus aircraft, but as you pointed out
>> they were adopted for other roles as the war went on and as operational
>> conditions changed a plane designed as a fast interceptor fighter can
>> only be a compromise when adapted for ground attack.
>
> Like the P-47 and Typhoon for example.

The Typhoon entered services a low level, ground attack, plane despite its
initial design brief.
The highly successful Soviet Shturmovik (flying bathtub) was designed at the
outset and commenced operation as a ground attack tank buster.
The Thunderbolt was intially a heavy fighter but due to being less
manouverable than say the Spitfires and Me109, it role was changed. The
ground attack P-47s weree pretty only for that role.

>> However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made a
>> specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -
>
> Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
> or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.
>
>> they never had the resources or diverted resouces to lame projects like a
>> poor jet plane.
>
> No actually, they did not divert ground attack design resources to the
> jets. And the working Me262 had an edge over allied fighters until the
> end of the war.

The Me262 was a waste of resouces and German pilots - it killed more Germans
than allied planes.

[Bay Man]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...

> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:k2cdd4$rqp$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> Michael, the Allies did not have surplus aircraft, but as you pointed out
>> they were adopted for other roles as the war went on and as operational
>> conditions changed a plane designed as a fast interceptor fighter can
>> only be a compromise when adapted for ground attack.
>
> Like the P-47 and Typhoon for example.

On introduction the Typhoon was a low level ground attack plane. Its speed
meant it could also intercepted fast German fighters.

>> However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made a
>> specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -
>
> Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
> or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.

That never replaced the Suka merely working alongside it.

>> they never had the resources or diverted resouces to lame projects like a
>> poor jet plane.
>
> No actually, they did not divert ground attack design resources to the
> jets.

Resources used for Jet could have been used for more practical planer
applications, rather than a mere prototype thrown into combat.

> And the working Me262 had an edge over allied fighters until the
> end of the war.

Its impact was so minimal it was not worth talking about - but the resources
to make the dog could have been used to better effect elsewhere.

>> The US had the Thunderbolt, the Soviets had the Shturmovik and UK had the
>> Typhoon. All were dedicated ground attack and tank buster planes,
>> knocking out all the heaviest of German tanks.
>
> The IL-2 was definitely meant as an army support bomber, the P-47 was
> a fighter optimised to fight above 20,000 feet with its turbo
> supercharger.
> The Typhoon was meant as an interceptor but had engine problems for
> much of its first 12 to 18 months of service and performed badly at
> altitude.

Read my others posts on the Typhoon.

[Bay Man]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...

> Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
> or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.

This was very poor plane with very poor handling, manoeuvrability and just
about everything else. The Soviet Il-2, was the largest produced plane ever
made. 860 is small change for planes that were not used much because they
were so bad. Only midget pilots could fit into the Hs-129. 6,500 Stuka
were made to give an idea. The Germans used unsuitable French engines they
got hold of in the Hs-129 as they were short of engines - their industry
could not make enough as they were short of resources.

[Tronscend]

Hi,

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> skrev i melding
news:k2gho9$g3r$1...@dont-email.me...

.....

>>> they never had the resources or diverted resouces to lame projects like
>>> a poor jet plane.
>>
>> No actually, they did not divert ground attack design resources to the
>> jets.
>
> Resources used for Jet could have been used for more practical planer
> applications, rather than a mere prototype thrown into combat.
>
>> And the working Me262 had an edge over allied fighters until the
>> end of the war.
>
> Its impact was so minimal it was not worth talking about - but the
> resources to make the dog could have been used to better effect elsewhere.
>

FWIW and IIRC, Albert Speer agrees with you, in his memoirs.
The Gr�FaZ micromanaging design decisions didn't help, either.

T

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

I am rolling the two non replies into one.

First the short one.

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message

news:k2ggik$a37$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...
>> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>> news:k2cdd4$rqp$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> Michael, the Allies did not have surplus aircraft, but as you pointed
>>> out they were adopted for other roles as the war went on and as
>>> operational conditions changed a plane designed as a fast interceptor
>>> fighter can only be a compromise when adapted for ground attack.
>>
>> Like the P-47 and Typhoon for example.
>

> The Typhoon entered services a low level, ground attack, plane despite its
> initial design brief.

No actually, it entered service as a fighter, mainly a bomber destroyer,
but saw little action because of engine problems. It also faced the problem
even the bombers were flying higher than early in the war.

The Typhoon was made to work as a fighter bomber. Following on from
the Hurricane. The Hurricane IId and IV were meant as low level ground
support types. The Typhoon became their replacement.

> The highly successful Soviet Shturmovik (flying bathtub) was designed at
> the outset and commenced operation as a ground attack tank buster.

So a motherhood statement.

> The Thunderbolt was intially a heavy fighter but due to being less
> manouverable than say the Spitfires and Me109, it role was changed.

You really do not know much about WWII do you? The P-47 was
replaced in the 8th Air Force by the longer range P-51, though the role
was reversed when the P-47N appeared, look up Pacific P-47 operations.
In Europe, like the P-38, it was used as a fighter bomber as the P-51 took
over escort operations. The change had nothing to do with the P-47
versus Bf109 manoeuvrability.

In the first 6 months of 1944 the USAAF fighters in the ETO claimed
some 2,500 kills, about half of which were by P-47s.

> The ground attack P-47s weree pretty only for that role.

I gather you have never bothered to read about the many 9th Air Force
P-47 high altitude escort operations in 1944. Nor a history of the P-47.

So tell us all what changed between the P-47 escort and the P-47 ground
attack version? Did they take the supercharger out? Did the hard points
only get wired for bombs, not bombs or tanks?

What was the change? They were all P-47D, the M was faster than the
P-51D, but only one group used them, the N was a long range version
that served in the Pacific.

By the way the answer is there was no change. The P-47 was one of
the best high altitude fighters and stayed that way. The 9th Air Force
often used a mixture of drop tanks and bombs to give loiter ability.

>>> However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made a
>>> specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -
>>
>> Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
>> or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.

You see this totally contradicts the Bay Man claim, so time to ignore it.

>>> they never had the resources or diverted resouces to lame projects like
>>> a poor jet plane.
>>
>> No actually, they did not divert ground attack design resources to the

>> jets. And the working Me262 had an edge over allied fighters until the
>> end of the war.
>

> The Me262 was a waste of resouces and German pilots - it killed more
> Germans than allied planes.

Ah, you mean something like the Typhoon for example when it came to
killing pilots?

I presume you have a list of German pilots killed in Me262 accidents and
it is higher than the 180 to 200 aircraft the western allied aircraft the
Me262s shot down? Or do you count pilots killed when their aircraft was
shot down as well?

In reality the Me262 was probably worth it to the Germans, firstly the
aircraft
it shot down, secondly the extra escorts the allies felt they needed, so
keeping
those fighters from other missions and finally the amount of bombs devoted
to
Me262 production and airfields.

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message

news:k2gho9$g3r$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...
>> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>> news:k2cdd4$rqp$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> Michael, the Allies did not have surplus aircraft, but as you pointed
>>> out they were adopted for other roles as the war went on and as
>>> operational conditions changed a plane designed as a fast interceptor
>>> fighter can only be a compromise when adapted for ground attack.
>>
>> Like the P-47 and Typhoon for example.
>
> On introduction the Typhoon was a low level ground attack plane. Its speed
> meant it could also intercepted fast German fighters.

On introduction the Typhoon lacked minor things like bomb racks, they
were fitted later. It was designed as and meant to be a fighter, like the
Hurricane, in fact the Hurricane replacement.

Typhoon production started in June 1941, 28 built by the end of the year.

Sydney Camm made the proposal to fit wing racks to Typhoons on 7
November 1941. Following on the success of the Hurricane fighter
bomber.

Number 56 squadron received Typhoons in September 1941, or a year
before the fighter bomber idea was to be tried but problems with the engine
meant it also retained Hurricane II until March 1942. Then came 266
squadron receiving Typhoons in January 1942 but also retaining Spitfires
until June 1942. Next was 609 squadron which received Typhoons in
April 1942.

The first Typhoon offensive operation was on 20 June 1942.

The RAF Air Staff sanctioned two trial Typhoon fighter bomber squadrons in
July 1942, for formation in September. Some 300 Typhoons had been built
by the end of June 1942.

As for the interception of German fighter bombers doing tip and run raids on
England, that is what the initial Typhoon operations were largely about.
The
Spitfire XII was built for the same task, it was actually the official
response
to the Fw190 low altitude performance.

>>> However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made a
>>> specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -
>>
>> Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
>> or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.
>
> That never replaced the Suka merely working alongside it.

Ah the non answer, just ignore the claim the Hs129 did not exist, and
announce it did not replace the Ju87. The Fw190 replaced the Ju87,
with some help from the Hs129.

>>> they never had the resources or diverted resouces to lame projects like
>>> a poor jet plane.
>>
>> No actually, they did not divert ground attack design resources to the
>> jets.
>
> Resources used for Jet could have been used for more practical planer
> applications, rather than a mere prototype thrown into combat.

Translation Bay Man invents history. The Me262 was quite a good
airframe, the engines were the problem..

So tell us the better options.

>> And the working Me262 had an edge over allied fighters until the
>> end of the war.
>
> Its impact was so minimal it was not worth talking about - but the
> resources to make the dog could have been used to better effect elsewhere.

The threat of the Me262 played a major part in 8th Air Force thinking
in 1944 and operations in 1945.

So tell us all where could the resources have been used better?

>>> The US had the Thunderbolt, the Soviets had the Shturmovik and UK had
>>> the Typhoon. All were dedicated ground attack and tank buster planes,
>>> knocking out all the heaviest of German tanks.
>>
>> The IL-2 was definitely meant as an army support bomber, the P-47 was
>> a fighter optimised to fight above 20,000 feet with its turbo
>> supercharger.
>> The Typhoon was meant as an interceptor but had engine problems for
>> much of its first 12 to 18 months of service and performed badly at
>> altitude.
>
> Read my others posts on the Typhoon.

You see when unable to answer pretend the answer is somewhere else.
The rest is text that was considered to be unanswerable.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-...@news.eternal-september.org...

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Short of deploying USN dive bombers or the Vultee Vengeance the
>> western allies did not have any dedicated ground attack design.
>
> What about the A-26 Invader?

The B-25 with solid noses? The Beaufighters? Mosquitoes?

> It was definitely designed for ground attack.

As far as I know it did not have the sort of light arms protection built
into the design like the IL-2 and Hs129.

> It could also do medium altitude level bombing,
> so it might be considered "not dedicated", but
> that seems a little technical, as nearly all
> A-26 missions were ground attack.

No, in WWII they were mainly like the missions of the A-20 they
replaced, medium level bombing. Indeed the 9th Air Force wanted
some transparent nose A-26 as they had to use A-20s as lead aircraft
on A-26 missions.

Post war came more emphasis about ground attack and strafing.

> And while most of the A-26's operation was
> post-war, it served in action from 1943, so
> it was a WW II plane.

There were a whole 7 production examples of the A-26 built in 1943,
operations began in November 1944.

> Also, what about the DB-7/A-20/Boston?

Then a definition of ground attack seems to be needed. I go with a
design meant to spend time at low level over the battlefield. Meant to
intervene at the front line or just beyond, one that considers protection
from small arms fire an important point. Alternatively a dive bomber
for pinpoint targets.

[Mario]

Geoffrey Sinclair, 16:29, domenica 9 settembre 2012:

> The Fw190F and G were ground attack aircraft, better than the
> P-47 in that they were optimised for low altitude, and better
> than the Typhoon as they had radial engines.

Why radial engines are better for a ground attack aircraft?


--
H

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/9/12 7:28 AM, Bay Man wrote:
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...
>
>> Hs-129.
>

> This was very poor plane with very poor handling, manoeuvrability and
> just about everything else.

More or less true, but it did exist, which is the point.

See, the point is that you make statements that are not true, and when
that is indicated to you, you try to shift your ground and pretend that
you said something else. And it is not a sometimes thing. Virtually
every time you enter a discussion you do this. It is not a way to win
respect.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/9/12 8:38 AM, Mario wrote:
> Why radial engines are better for a ground attack aircraft?

In practice it was found that radial engines could still work--i.e.,
bring their pilots home-even when entire cylinders had been blown off.
Once the cooling system of liquid cooled engines had been penetrated,
all the coolant would leak out in a matter of minutes if not seconds, at
which point the engines would overheat and seize up.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/7/12 6:21 AM, Bay Man wrote:
> ...the Allies did not have surplus aircraft...

I never used the word 'surplus' nor intended to be understood as such.
What I said and what I meant was that once air supremacy had been
achieved over the battlefield, fighters which had been designed and
intended to achieve air superiority were no longer needed in that role.
That meant that provided they could actually fulfill other roles, such
as ground attack, they could be shifted onto those missions. Some
fighters by virtue of having air cooled engines were more desirable for
ground attack than those having more vulnerable liquid cooled engines.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/9/12 7:30 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> Then a definition of ground attack seems to be needed. I go with a
> design meant to spend time at low level over the battlefield. Meant to
> intervene at the front line or just beyond, one that considers protection
> from small arms fire an important point. Alternatively a dive bomber
> for pinpoint targets.

Where does the Fairy Battle fit in all this? Is it not to be considered
a dedicated ground attack aircraft? Did the pre-defeat French have a
dedicated ground attack aircraft? I know they had a reasonably good
light bomber or two, but I am uncertain exactly what their intended
roles were.

Michael

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message

news:k2i3n4$jrm$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...
>
>> Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
>> or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.
>
> This was very poor plane with very poor handling, manoeuvrability and just
> about everything else.

You see "Bay Man" said the Hs129 did not exist, so now it is time to
announce it was not very good, so bad in fact it does not count.

The "Bay Man claim",

"> However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made a
> specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -"

Wrong.

The engines were the main problems. They gave a combined 1,400 HP
versus the 930 hp of the original Argus engines but had problems handling
dust and battle damage.

> The Soviet Il-2, was the largest produced plane ever made.

Or the Bf109, it depends on how accurate the statistics are.

> 860 is small change for planes that were not used much because they were
> so bad.

You see the non existent plane had nearly 900 examples built, but that
has to be considered small, the fiction requires it. So for example
3,300 Typhoons is a big number, but around 900 is insignificant.

Meantime the Hs129 served in Schlachtgeschwader 1, 2 and 9, as
an important type for those units, but was not used by SG3, 4, 5,
10 and 77. Not used much is a term meaning "Bay Man" wants
to wish very hard the aircraft did not exist.

> Only midget pilots could fit into the Hs-129.

Incorrect. Things like a new canopy were fitted to the B production
models, increasing space, along with the more powerful engines.

> 6,500 Stuka were made to give an idea.

Try 5,700 1938 to 1944 but then the need of the minute is to over state
Ju87 production. Note the 6,500 makes the 3,300 Typhoons look
rather small, doesn't it?

> The Germans used unsuitable French engines they got hold of in the Hs-129
> as they were short of engines - their industry could not make enough as
> they were short of resources.

You see the Bay Man idea is the Germans were short of resources, so
they never built a dedicated ground attack aircraft except the Ju87.
Trouble is the Hs129 existed and was used.

Equally troubling is those short of resources Germans were using French
engines, you know, making use of the available resources, like an engine
production line already in place. Instead it is decided it was a failure to
use the French engines.

Presumably all the other aircraft built in France etc. are a another example
of bad Germans, rather than use of available resources.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email,

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Mario" <ack...@ack.ack> wrote in message
news:504cab33$0$17950$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

They tended to keep working longer if hit. Worse for the liquid cooled
engines was the cooling system ,which could be disabled by minor
damage and was often quite a large target. The P-51 and Spitfire
radiator position for example.

[Bill]

Because you can blow lumps off of them and they keep working.

[mi...@netscape.net]

Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...
> > "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> > news:k2cdd4$rqp$1...@dont-email.me...

> The Typhoon entered services a low level, ground attack, plane despite its
> initial design brief.

This is wrong; the Typhoon was used to protect the British coast against
FW 190 runs, in 1942. The clever reader will note that this is NOT a "ground
attack" role.

Mike

[mi...@netmapsonscape.net]

Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:

> > Like the P-47 and Typhoon for example.

> On introduction the Typhoon was a low level ground attack plane. Its speed

On introduction, it was a fighter.

YOu're simply wrong again.

Mike

[mtfe...@aim.com]

Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...

> > Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
> > or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.

> This was very poor plane with very poor handling, manoeuvrability and just

That's because it was designed as a ground assault plane, not a fighter,
unlke the Typhoon.

See how that works?

Mike

[Bay Man]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message

news:xaqdnVi6zP64CtHN...@westnet.com.au...

>> The Typhoon entered services a low level, ground attack, plane despite
>> its initial design brief.
>
> No actually, it entered service as a fighter, mainly a bomber destroyer,

But low level the high altitude problem was noticed in the testing. You get
to know more about WW2.

>> The Thunderbolt was intially a heavy fighter but due to being less
>> manouverable than say the Spitfires and Me109, it role was changed.
>
> You really do not know much about WWII do you? The P-47 was
> replaced in the 8th Air Force by the longer range P-51,

Which was better at high level bomber protection and engaging manoeuvrable
German fighters.

>> The ground attack P-47s were pretty well only for that role.

>
> I gather you have never bothered to read about the many 9th Air Force
> P-47 high altitude escort operations in 1944. Nor a history of the P-47.

Again...The ground attack P-47s were pretty well only for that role.

>>>> However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made a
>>>> specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -
>>>
>>> Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
>>> or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.
>
> You see this totally contradicts the Bay Man claim, so time to ignore it.

The plane was a dog with few made and used. They only made it because they
had some captured French engines.

>> The Me262 was a waste of resouces and German pilots - it killed more
>> Germans than allied planes.
>
> Ah, you mean something like the Typhoon for example when it came to
> killing pilots?

No the me262. Read avove. Itn is easier that way.

> In reality the Me262 was probably worth it to the Germans,

It wasn't at all. It took resouces that were needed in proven aircraft
designs.

>>>> they never had the resources or diverted resouces to lame projects like
>>>> a poor jet plane.
>>>
>>> No actually, they did not divert ground attack design resources to the
>>> jets.
>>
>> Resources used for Jet could have been used for more practical plane

>> applications, rather than a mere prototype thrown into combat.
>
> Translation Bay Man invents history.

Translation. You have poor comprehension.

>>> And the working Me262 had an edge over allied fighters until the
>>> end of the war.
>>
>> Its impact was so minimal it was not worth talking about - but the
>> resources to make the dog could have been used to better effect
>> elsewhere.
>
> The threat of the Me262 played a major part in 8th Air Force thinking
> in 1944 and operations in 1945.

Again...Its impact was so minimal it was not worth talking about - but the

resources to make the dog could have been used to better effect elsewhere.

> So tell us all where could the resources have been used better?

Read Wages of Destruction. That might give you a clue.

> The Fw190F and G were ground attack aircraft, better than the P-47
> in that they were optimised for low altitude, and better than the
> Typhoon as they had radial engines.

There is no proof that radial engiens performced any better than water
cooled engines.

[Bay Man]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message

news:pNqdnQlfSsfkJNHN...@westnet.com.au...

The frontal area of a radial engine is "massive" to an in-line engine,
making it an easier target.

[Bay Man]

<mi...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:k2i9da$dfm$1...@haven.eyrie.org...

I mentioned that in another post. Its low level performance and speed shot
the FW-190s out of the sky. Its role was twofold, low level and ground
attack.

[Bay Man]

"Michael Emrys" <em...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:apidnQuVgsoDIdHN...@posted.olypeninternet...

Converted fighter doing ground attack were always compromise. The Typhoon
got away with little armour because of its speed. There is no proof that
water cooled engined planes were less vulnerable than radial.

[Bay Man]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message

news:w9mdnRdt9pb_JNHN...@westnet.com.au...

> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:k2i3n4$jrm$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...
>>
>>> Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
>>> or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.
>>
>> This was very poor plane with very poor handling, manoeuvrability and
>> just about everything else.
>
> You see "Bay Man" said the Hs129 did not exist,

Garabage.

> The "Bay Man claim",
>
> "> However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made a
>> specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -"
>
> Wrong.

The Hs-129 NEVER replaced teh Stuka. Also being a very poor plane it was not
used much.

>> 860 is small change for planes that were not used much because they were
>> so bad.
>
> You see the non existent plane had nearly 900 examples built,

Which were blown out of the sky and then parked up

>> Only midget pilots could fit into the Hs-129.
>
> Incorrect.

The cockpit was tiny.

>> The Germans used unsuitable French engines they got hold of in the Hs-129
>> as they were short of engines - their industry could not make enough as
>> they were short of resources.
>
> You see the Bay Man idea is the Germans were short of resources,

They were. Do some reading on ths, inseatd of making things up.

> Equally troubling is those short of resources Germans were using French
> engines, you know, making use of the available resources, like an engine
> production line already in place.

Like an unsuitable engine because they never had the resources to design and
build a proper engine. The Hs-129 was a rushed mockup.

[Bay Man]

<mtfe...@aim.com> wrote in message news:k2i9h8$dhg$1...@haven.eyrie.org...

The Hs-129 was just a bad make-shift design using outdated French engines.

Read up on the Typhoon.

[mi...@netmapsonscape.net]

Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> <mi...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:k2i9da$dfm$1...@haven.eyrie.org...
> > Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> >> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...
> >> > "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> >> > news:k2cdd4$rqp$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> >
> >> The Typhoon entered services a low level, ground attack, plane despite
> >> its
> >> initial design brief.
> >
> > This is wrong; the Typhoon was used to protect the British coast against
> > FW 190 runs, in 1942. The clever reader will note that this is NOT a
> > "ground
> > attack" role.

> I mentioned that in another post.

Wait, so in one post you mention it was introduced as a coastal patrol plane, and in
another you mention it was introduced as a ground assault aircraft?

You realize these are different roles, do you not?

So, which post did you scrwe up?

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

So, you NOW admit the Germans DID produce a ground assault aircraft?

And since it was DESIGNED as ground assault, not as a fighter, craft, what difference
does it make if the engines were "outdated French" or not?

> Read up on the Typhoon.

You mean the plane designed to be a fighter, and converted to ground assault?

Why, everyone else here seems to have that straight....

Mike

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/9/12 2:31 PM, Bay Man wrote:
> There is no proof that water cooled engined planes were less vulnerable
> than radial.

That statement is completely wrong. You are always admonishing others
who disagree with you to read something or other, but it is you who
needs to do some reading. Pilots of both radial and inline engined
planes are in agreement on this issue and many of them have written to
this effect. You have a lot of opinions and nearly all of them are
flawed, some very badly.

Michael

[Bill Shatzer]

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> "Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote in message

- snip -

>>What about the A-26 Invader?

- snip-

> As far as I know it did not have the sort of light arms protection built
> into the design like the IL-2 and Hs129.

While perhaps not on the scale of the Il-2, the A-26 did incorporate
some considerable armor.

http://napoleon130.tripod.com/id808.html

[Bill Shatzer]

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:k2i3n4$jrm$1...@dont-email.me...

>>The Soviet Il-2, was the largest produced plane ever made.

> Or the Bf109, it depends on how accurate the statistics are.

I believe that honor belongs to the Cessna 172 with over 43,000 being
built, eclipsing both the Messerschmitt and the Ilyushin.

[Bay Man]

<mi...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
news:k2j2t8$pbv$1...@haven.eyrie.org...

> You realize these are different roles, do you not?

Both are low level and they realised the plane could do both roles. Pay
attention please.

[mi...@netmapsonscape.net]

Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> <mi...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> news:k2j2t8$pbv$1...@haven.eyrie.org...

> > You realize these are different roles, do you not?

> Both are low level

Well, no, they aren't. One is a ground assault role, and the other is fighting
other planes.

Please pay attention.

> and they realised the plane could do both roles.

Which indicates it wasn't a designed ground craft.

Pay attention, please.

Mike

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Michael Emrys" <em...@olypen.com> wrote in message

news:7PmdnRTJzrBoJ9HN...@posted.olypeninternet...

> On 9/9/12 7:30 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> Then a definition of ground attack seems to be needed. I go with a
>> design meant to spend time at low level over the battlefield. Meant to
>> intervene at the front line or just beyond, one that considers protection
>> from small arms fire an important point. Alternatively a dive bomber
>> for pinpoint targets.
>
> Where does the Fairy Battle fit in all this? Is it not to be considered a
> dedicated ground attack aircraft?

If you believe the RAF documentation as of 1939 the Battles were
part of Bomber Command and meant to attack Germany. By 1940
they were the bomber support for the B.E.F. but in an interdiction
role, there was no training by either the army or air force to use them
at the battle front, even assuming a static army.

> Did the pre-defeat French have a dedicated ground attack aircraft?

There may have been some obsolete types still around but the French
candidate in 1939 would be the Breguet 690 series, the 691 AB2, which
became the 693 after an engine change, it actually used the same engines
as the Hs129.

Loire-Nieuport LN41, 410 and 411 were navy dive bombers, plus
there were some Vought V-156 Vindicators

> I know they had a reasonably good light bomber or two, but I am uncertain
> exactly what their intended roles were.

Essentially it seems the Breguets were meant to intervene at the front
line but ran into the fact German AA was better than expected.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message
news:k2jpfq$3mk$1...@dont-email.me...

True, I keep forgetting about the civil types, and in particular the lighter
civil types.

How different were the first and last Cessna 172?

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message

news:k2j15t$a7p$2...@dont-email.me...

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pNqdnQlfSsfkJNHN...@westnet.com.au...
>> "Mario" <ack...@ack.ack> wrote in message
>> news:504cab33$0$17950$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

>>> Why radial engines are better for a ground attack aircraft?
>>
>> They tended to keep working longer if hit. Worse for the liquid cooled
>> engines was the cooling system ,which could be disabled by minor
>> damage and was often quite a large target. The P-51 and Spitfire
>> radiator position for example.
>
> The frontal area of a radial engine is "massive" to an in-line engine,
> making it an easier target.

And the radials tended to be shorter, the volume was about the same,
and that is what matters when it comes to hits over all target angles.

As noted some of the liquid cooled engines could have a considerable
amount of piping that are vulnerable to slight damage.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message

news:k2j1qi$e1c$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:w9mdnRdt9pb_JNHN...@westnet.com.au...
>> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>> news:k2i3n4$jrm$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:eoOdnb4VSNKNldfN...@westnet.com.au...
>>>
>>>> Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
>>>> or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.
>>>
>>> This was very poor plane with very poor handling, manoeuvrability and
>>> just about everything else.
>>
>> You see "Bay Man" said the Hs129 did not exist,

deleted text,

"so now it is time to
announce it was not very good, so bad in fact it does not count."

> Garabage.

Bay Man has been rereading the Bay Man claims.

People can read the claims and see what is going on.

>> The "Bay Man claim",
>>
>> "> However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made
>> a
>>> specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -"
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> The Hs-129 NEVER replaced teh Stuka.

Ah so that is supposed to mean the Germans never made a ground attack
aircraft, or that the Hs129 was not designed to replace the Stuka? The
Ju87 was replaced as the ground attack aircraft by a combination of the
Hs129 and Fw190. The Ju87 was out of the day ground attack business
in 1944, the Hs129 continued to the end of the war.

The Hs129 was meant as the ground attack aircraft, the Ju87 was in fact
the stop gap in the role, taking over from the Hs123. Later the advantage
of a fighter bomber meant the Fw190 was adapted.

> Also being a very poor plane it was not used much.

Incorrect, it was major equipment for three of the ground attack
Geschwaders and served in Africa but mainly in the east.

deleted text,

"The engines were the main problems. They gave a combined 1,400 HP
versus the 930 hp of the original Argus engines but had problems handling
dust and battle damage."

>>> 860 is small change for planes that were not used much because they were
>>> so bad.
>>
>> You see the non existent plane had nearly 900 examples built,

deleted text,

"but that
has to be considered small, the fiction requires it. So for example
3,300 Typhoons is a big number, but around 900 is insignificant.

Meantime the Hs129 served in Schlachtgeschwader 1, 2 and 9, as
an important type for those units, but was not used by SG3, 4, 5,
10 and 77. Not used much is a term meaning "Bay Man" wants
to wish very hard the aircraft did not exist."

> Which were blown out of the sky and then parked up.

Fascinating, the parking up occurred in May 1945. The aircraft was in
use from 1942 to the end of the war.

An aircraft that was not used much and parked up was blown out of
the sky as well, that must be a remarkable aircraft.

>>> Only midget pilots could fit into the Hs-129.
>>
>> Incorrect.

deleted text,

"Things like a new canopy were fitted to the B production
models, increasing space, along with the more powerful engines."

> The cockpit was tiny.

Now we move from midget pilots to tiny cockpit.

The Bay Man figures for Ju87 production did not make the reply, they were
wrong so time to pretend they were not given.

>>> The Germans used unsuitable French engines they got hold of in the
>>> Hs-129 as they were short of engines - their industry could not make
>>> enough as they were short of resources.
>>
>> You see the Bay Man idea is the Germans were short of resources,

deleted text,

"so they never built a dedicated ground attack aircraft except the Ju87.
Trouble is the Hs129 existed and was used."

> They were. Do some reading on ths, inseatd of making things up.

Apparently Bay Man is worried other people might take the Bay Man
job of making things up. So time to reply to a phrase or two and hope
no one notices.

>> Equally troubling is those short of resources Germans were using French
>> engines, you know, making use of the available resources, like an engine
>> production line already in place.
>
> Like an unsuitable engine because they never had the resources to design
> and build a proper engine.

You mean like all those DB, BMW etc. engines? Like rather than simply
reinventing the wheel they used the resource they did have, a French
engine? One used on the French ground attack aircraft? That the
planned Hs129C wanted a 1,000 HP class engine?

> The Hs-129 was a rushed mockup.

A mockup now gets blown out of the sky.

Design called for in April 1937, development contract awarded in September
1938, main rival a ground attack version of the Fw189, first flight 26 May
1939. Cockpit visibility was poor and the aircraft was underpowered, faults
also in the Fw189. Production of the A model started in July 1940, only 12
built before switching to the B model with the more powerful French engines
with production continuing until August 1944.

See the book Henschel Hs129 by Denes Bernad (there are accents above
the first e and the a for those using non English search strings). The book
notes that probably a thousand Hs129 were built, there were around 1,168
Werke numbers issued but they include over 100 in various stages of
production that were scrapped when the production line was shut down
plus for airframes destroyed by bombing.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message

news:k2j0pk$857$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:xaqdnVi6zP64CtHN...@westnet.com.au...
>
>>> The Typhoon entered services a low level, ground attack, plane despite
>>> its initial design brief.
>>
>> No actually, it entered service as a fighter, mainly a bomber destroyer,

deleted text,

"but saw little action because of engine problems. It also faced the
problem
even the bombers were flying higher than early in the war.

The Typhoon was made to work as a fighter bomber. Following on from
the Hurricane. The Hurricane IId and IV were meant as low level ground
support types. The Typhoon became their replacement."

> But low level the high altitude problem was noticed in the testing.

I see, that fact the Typhoon had good low level performance is supposed
to mean we can ignore yet another Bay Man invented fact. It must help
the fiction to delete anything that contradicts it.

I do suppose you are aware in 1941 the RAF was worried about how it
could fight at 40,000 feet?

> You get to know more about WW2.

Not from Bay Man, that is obvious.

>>> The Thunderbolt was intially a heavy fighter but due to being less
>>> manouverable than say the Spitfires and Me109, it role was changed.
>>
>> You really do not know much about WWII do you? The P-47 was
>> replaced in the 8th Air Force by the longer range P-51,
>
> Which was better at high level bomber protection and engaging manoeuvrable
> German fighters.

Actually the P-47 had the better altitude performance, the advantage of
turbo versus mechanical supercharging. Next comes the fact the P-47D
was quite good fighting in the vertical, had a better climb rate than
the P-51, when it came to turning the P-51 was about 10% better but
the P-47 accelerated faster.

See America's Hundred Thousand by Francis Dean for detailed comparisons.

The P-51 had a longer range and that was what the 8th Air Force wanted.

"though the role
was reversed when the P-47N appeared, look up Pacific P-47 operations.
In Europe, like the P-38, it was used as a fighter bomber as the P-51 took
over escort operations. The change had nothing to do with the P-47
versus Bf109 manoeuvrability.

In the first 6 months of 1944 the USAAF fighters in the ETO claimed
some 2,500 kills, about half of which were by P-47s."

>>> The ground attack P-47s were pretty well only for that role.
>>
>> I gather you have never bothered to read about the many 9th Air Force
>> P-47 high altitude escort operations in 1944. Nor a history of the P-47.

Deleted text

"So tell us all what changed between the P-47 escort and the P-47 ground
attack version? Did they take the supercharger out? Did the hard points
only get wired for bombs, not bombs or tanks?

What was the change? They were all P-47D, the M was faster than the
P-51D, but only one group used them, the N was a long range version
that served in the Pacific.

By the way the answer is there was no change. The P-47 was one of
the best high altitude fighters and stayed that way. The 9th Air Force
often used a mixture of drop tanks and bombs to give loiter ability."

> Again...The ground attack P-47s were pretty well only for that role.

I see, Bay Man is into chanting rather than reason. Hence the need to
delete what does not fit the fiction.

>>>>> However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made
>>>>> a specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -
>>>>
>>>> Hs-129. Twin radial engines, armoured against ground fire. Some 860
>>>> or so built between 1942 and 1944 according to the USSBS.
>>
>> You see this totally contradicts the Bay Man claim, so time to ignore it.
>
> The plane was a dog with few made and used. They only made it because
> they had some captured French engines.

Translation, the plane was in combat for three years, anything up to 1,000
built and seems to have been liked by the pilots, but was handicapped by
fragile engines.

And the Hs129A was being made before the French engines became
available.

>>> The Me262 was a waste of resouces and German pilots - it killed more
>>> Germans than allied planes.
>>
>> Ah, you mean something like the Typhoon for example when it came to
>> killing pilots?
>
> No the me262. Read avove. Itn is easier that way.

I presume the non reply is designed to sound authentically confused.

You do know how many kills were claimed by Typhoon pilots?
The Typhoon and Tempest Story by Thomas and Shores lists the kill
and probable kill claims, and has an entry for each pilot in any shared
claims, the list is under 5 pages long. It covers about 250 kill claims
and a good working estimate would be around half were actual kills.

The Me262 shot down around 180 to 200 western allied aircraft,
mostly 4 engined bombers.

deleted text,

"I presume you have a list of German pilots killed in Me262 accidents and
it is higher than the 180 to 200 aircraft the western allied aircraft the
Me262s shot down? Or do you count pilots killed when their aircraft was
shot down as well?"

>> In reality the Me262 was probably worth it to the Germans,

deleted text,

" firstly the aircraft
it shot down, secondly the extra escorts the allies felt they needed, so
keeping those fighters from other missions and finally the amount of
bombs devoted to Me262 production and airfields."

> It wasn't at all. It took resouces that were needed in proven aircraft
> designs.

Try this, when you look at the Me262 combat performance in 1945
you see a more effective fighter than the piston engined types, it
shot down aircraft more per sortie and probably had a better
survival rate.

So tell us all which of the proven combat designs should have been
produced more in late 1944 and early 1945?

deleted text, to next >

"On introduction the Typhoon lacked minor things like bomb racks, they
were fitted later. It was designed as and meant to be a fighter, like the
Hurricane, in fact the Hurricane replacement.

Typhoon production started in June 1941, 28 built by the end of the year.

Sydney Camm made the proposal to fit wing racks to Typhoons on 7
November 1941. Following on the success of the Hurricane fighter
bomber.

Number 56 squadron received Typhoons in September 1941, or a year
before the fighter bomber idea was to be tried but problems with the engine
meant it also retained Hurricane II until March 1942. Then came 266
squadron receiving Typhoons in January 1942 but also retaining Spitfires
until June 1942. Next was 609 squadron which received Typhoons in
April 1942.

The first Typhoon offensive operation was on 20 June 1942.

The RAF Air Staff sanctioned two trial Typhoon fighter bomber squadrons in
July 1942, for formation in September. Some 300 Typhoons had been built
by the end of June 1942.

As for the interception of German fighter bombers doing tip and run raids on
England, that is what the initial Typhoon operations were largely about.
The Spitfire XII was built for the same task, it was actually the official
response to the Fw190 low altitude performance."

>>>>> they never had the resources or diverted resouces to lame projects
>>>>> like a poor jet plane.
>>>>
>>>> No actually, they did not divert ground attack design resources to the
>>>> jets.
>>>
>>> Resources used for Jet could have been used for more practical plane
>>> applications, rather than a mere prototype thrown into combat.
>>
>> Translation Bay Man invents history.
>
> Translation. You have poor comprehension.

No, I have a good grasp of history and know Bay Man invents history.

>>>> And the working Me262 had an edge over allied fighters until the
>>>> end of the war.
>>>
>>> Its impact was so minimal it was not worth talking about - but the
>>> resources to make the dog could have been used to better effect
>>> elsewhere.
>>
>> The threat of the Me262 played a major part in 8th Air Force thinking
>> in 1944 and operations in 1945.
>
> Again...Its impact was so minimal it was not worth talking about - but the
> resources to make the dog could have been used to better effect elsewhere.

Again Bay Man retreats to chants rather than cope with reality.

deleted text,

"The threat of the Me262 played a major part in 8th Air Force thinking
in 1944 and operations in 1945."

>> So tell us all where could the resources have been used better?
>
> Read Wages of Destruction. That might give you a clue.

Clearly Bay Man has not understood Wages of Destruction, as
various people have pointed out.

deleted text,

"You see when unable to answer pretend the answer is somewhere else.
The rest is text that was considered to be unanswerable.

Meantime the Typhoon and P-47 "designed as a fast interceptor fighter
can only be a compromise when adapted for ground attack" Furthermore
the results of examining the battlefields indicates in the west the attacks
rarely destroyed tanks. I do like the way the dedicated ground attack
P-47 was carrying so much supercharging and also doing most of the
8th Air Force escort missions until mid to late 1944. The Typhoon was
made to work as ground attack, given its problems when used as an
interceptor.

Short of deploying USN dive bombers or the Vultee Vengeance the
western allies did not have any dedicated ground attack design."

>> The Fw190F and G were ground attack aircraft, better than the P-47
>> in that they were optimised for low altitude, and better than the
>> Typhoon as they had radial engines.

deleted text,

" There were around 6,600 F
and G models produced, twice the number of Typhoons and about
half the number of P-47s."

> There is no proof that radial engiens performced any better than water
> cooled engines.

Actually there is any amount of proof, and by the way in WWII the coolant
tended to be glycol, not water, or a mixture of the two.

[Mario]

Geoffrey Sinclair, 17:58, lunedￜ 10 settembre 2012:

Are ILEs heavier than REs?


--
H

[Bill Shatzer]

Mario wrote:

- snip -

> Are ILEs heavier than REs?

It all depends on the particular engine.

Obviously, a hulking 2000 hp P&W R-2800 radial is going to weigh more
than a 600 hp Ranger V-770 inline and a monster 2150 hp Napier Sabre
inline is going to weigh more than a 700 hp Bristol Pegasus radial.

During the WW2 era, both types were capable of obtaining power/weight
ratios of 1.0 hp/lb or better.

As an aside, both air cooled inlines (i.e. Argus As 10s) and liquid
cooled radials (i.e. WWI-era Salmsons) were built although those were
the exceptions and generally radials were air cooled and inlines used
liquid cooling.

[Bill Shatzer]

The airframe remained basically unaltered but just about everything else
(wings, engine, cockpit, landing gear, empennage, etc.) has evolved.

But then, the 1945 Bf 109K didn't have that much in common with the
original 1935 Bf 109 V1 either.

[Bay Man]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message

news:6L6dnYlNHvx7kdPN...@westnet.com.au...

>> The Hs-129 NEVER replaced the Stuka.

>
> Ah so that is supposed to mean the Germans never made a ground attack
> aircraft,

Not one that replace the Stuka. The Hs-129 was a desperate plane that did
not do what it was supposed to do, for a desperate country. The FW-190
replaced the Stuka.

[Bay Man]

<mi...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
news:k2kpnc$i4d$1...@haven.eyrie.org...

> Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
>> <mi...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:k2j2t8$pbv$1...@haven.eyrie.org...
>
>> > You realize these are different roles, do you not?
>
>> Both are low level
>
> Well, no, they aren't. One is a ground assault role, and the other is
> fighting
> other planes.

Both are done at low level.

> Which indicates it wasn't a designed ground craft.

It was. The design changed during development because of the test results.
The Typhoon NEVER went to operation as a high altitude fighter.

[Bay Man]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message

news:966dndmYs7jikdPN...@westnet.com.au...

>> The frontal area of a radial engine is "massive" to an in-line engine,
>> making it an easier target.
>
> And the radials tended to be shorter,

Radials were a bigger target.

[Bill]

As a general rule, with ground attack aircraft, the people shooting
at them tend to be really happy if they actually hit the aircraft,
never mind bothering to aim for the engines...

[mi...@netmapsonscape.net]

So the FW-190 wasn't a good plane?

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> <mi...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> news:k2kpnc$i4d$1...@haven.eyrie.org...
> > Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> >> <mi...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> >> news:k2j2t8$pbv$1...@haven.eyrie.org...
> >
> >> > You realize these are different roles, do you not?
> >
> >> Both are low level
> >
> > Well, no, they aren't. One is a ground assault role, and the other is
> > fighting
> > other planes.

> Both are done at low level.

So are troops drops; doesn't mean a good design for that is a good design for
ground assault. Different roles.

> > Which indicates it wasn't a designed ground craft.

> It was.

It wasn't. You're wrong.

It was designed to combat the FW190s that were outclassing the Spitfires. It was
just a failure at that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Typhoon

"In 1941 the Spitfire Vs which equipped the bulk of Fighter Command
squadrons were outclassed in combat with the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 and were
suffering heavy losses. The Typhoon was rushed into squadron service
(with Nos. 56 and 609 Squadrons) in summer 1941 in an attempt to counter
the Fw 190. This decision proved to be a disaster, and several Typhoons
were lost to unknown causes. Subsequently, the Air Ministry began to
consider halting production of the Typhoon."

> The Typhoon NEVER went to operation as a high altitude fighter.

Well, it was simply a failure at that.

Pay attention.

Mike

[Mart van de Wege]

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> writes:

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message

> news:xaqdnVi6zP64CtHN...@westnet.com.au...
>
>>> The Typhoon entered services a low level, ground attack, plane
>>> despite its initial design brief.
>>
>> No actually, it entered service as a fighter, mainly a bomber destroyer,
>

> But low level the high altitude problem was noticed in the

> testing. You get to know more about WW2.

>
>>> The Thunderbolt was intially a heavy fighter but due to being less
>>> manouverable than say the Spitfires and Me109, it role was changed.
>>
>> You really do not know much about WWII do you? The P-47 was
>> replaced in the 8th Air Force by the longer range P-51,
>
> Which was better at high level bomber protection and engaging
> manoeuvrable German fighters.
>

Really?

I suppose you also subscribe to the idea that the Spitfire was more
manoeuvrable than the Me109 during the Battle of Britain?

As any read of a fighter pilot's memoirs will tell you, manoeuvrability
is more than just turning radius. Bob Johnson describes it very well in
his memoirs as Thunderbolt pilot: the German fighters had in fact
inferior manoeuvrability, the Jug easily outperformed them in rate of
roll and vertical manoeuvring.

It took a pilot with knowledge of the strong points of the airframe to
use it to maximum effectiveness, but that is true of all fighters.

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

[David H Thornley]

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

> The P-51 had a longer range and that was what the 8th Air Force wanted.
>

The P-51 was also a rather inexpensive aircraft, and that may have been
another factor. The P-47, while available in greater numbers at first,
was more expensive.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message

news:k2ldk4$7ms$1...@dont-email.me...

> Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> How different were the first and last Cessna 172?
>
> The airframe remained basically unaltered but just about everything else
> (wings, engine, cockpit, landing gear, empennage, etc.) has evolved.

I would actually count the wings as part of the airframe.

> But then, the 1945 Bf 109K didn't have that much in common with the
> original 1935 Bf 109 V1 either.

Yes, similar for all types being in long term production, I was curious
about how much had changed. Sort of how much the name was kept for
marketing purposes.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message

news:k2lluc$umk$3...@dont-email.me...

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:6L6dnYlNHvx7kdPN...@westnet.com.au...

firstly the deleted Bay Man claim

"However what I am trying to get you to see is that Germany never made
a specifically designed ground attack plane to replace the Stuka -"

which of course is wrong.

>>> The Hs-129 NEVER replaced the Stuka.
>>
>> Ah so that is supposed to mean the Germans never made a ground attack
>> aircraft,

deleted text,

"or that the Hs129 was not designed to replace the Stuka? The
Ju87 was replaced as the ground attack aircraft by a combination of the
Hs129 and Fw190. The Ju87 was out of the day ground attack business
in 1944, the Hs129 continued to the end of the war.

The Hs129 was meant as the ground attack aircraft, the Ju87 was in fact
the stop gap in the role, taking over from the Hs123. Later the advantage
of a fighter bomber meant the Fw190 was adapted."

> Not one that replace the Stuka.

Actually it did, along with the Fw190.

> The Hs-129 was a desperate plane that did not do what it was supposed to
> do, for a desperate country.

Actually it was a plane that worked and did the job it was intended for,
better engines would have helped the reputation. And it was designed
and first flew long before Germany became desperate.

> The FW-190 replaced the Stuka.

You see Bay Man simply deletes what does not fit. As deleted the Ju87
was replaced in the day ground attack units by the Hs129 and Fw190.
Not just the Fw190.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message

news:k2lluc$umk$2...@dont-email.me...

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:966dndmYs7jikdPN...@westnet.com.au...
>
>>> The frontal area of a radial engine is "massive" to an in-line engine,
>>> making it an easier target.
>>
>> And the radials tended to be shorter,

deleted text,

"the volume was about the same,
and that is what matters when it comes to hits over all target angles."

> Radials were a bigger target.

Oh good, please now quote the dimensions of the radial engines, length
width, height, total volume and show how much bigger they were than
the in line engines. Bay Man must have the dimensions to hand to
make such a claim.

Meantime others can note the reality that the radials were usually wider
but shorter, leading to similar weights and volumes to inline engines of
the same sort of power.

[Bay Man]

"Mart van de Wege" <mvd...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:86r4q95...@gaheris.avalon.lan...

>> Which was better at high level bomber protection and engaging
>> manoeuvrable German fighters.
>
> Really?
>
> I suppose you also subscribe to the idea that the Spitfire was more
> manoeuvrable than the Me109 during the Battle of Britain?

I am not quite sure who is answering who in this thread now. But to the
above point. The Spit was more manoeuvrable. It could pull out of a dive
which would rip the wings off a bf109. When the carburettor problem was
solved and later fuel injection was introduced on the RR Merlin. the Spit
was highly manoeuvrable.

> As any read of a fighter pilot's memoirs will tell you, manoeuvrability
> is more than just turning radius. Bob Johnson describes it very well in
> his memoirs as Thunderbolt pilot: the German fighters had in fact
> inferior manoeuvrability, the Jug easily outperformed them in rate of
> roll and vertical manoeuvring.

There are conflicting claims.

[Bay Man]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dhns48pspts6t1gfh...@4ax.com...

That still does not detract from the point that the front area of a radial
engine was massive in comparison to an in-line engine with a greater change
of receiving a front hit from bullet. Look at the bulbous width of the P-47
giving pig looks compared to the slim in-line fighters of Spitfire, Mustang,
etc. The P-47 was a much bigger target all around because of the massive
radial engines.

There is no evidence that radial engines were a safer bet. The US were
contemptuous of the Mustang when give two models by the Brits and NAA to
assess, as per the contract when the Brits used US companies to make their
planes. They ignored the planes and left them in the corner of a hangar for
months on end because they never had radial engines and had cannon.

The ii-2 had an in-line water-cooled engine. Early variants of this plane
were slow and vulnerable to fighter attack. Later models were faster, but
they never had the speed of the Typhoon to run out of trouble or actually
engage fighters. Which raises the question. Is it better to have speed
rather than armour in a ground attack plane? The ii-2s had the underbelly
armour as structural saving weight, so a well designed plane. With a more
powerful engines it would have been far more successful. The ii-2s were used
as fighters attacking slow bombers, transports and reccie planes.

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <k2j1qi$e1c$1...@dont-email.me>,

xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man) wrote:

> Like an unsuitable engine because they never had the resources to

> design and build a proper engine. The Hs-129 was a rushed mockup.

Like the Me323, the Arado 232B, and Go244 it was an effective use of
captured resources. The prototype Hs 129 had 2 450hp Argus engines
fitting 750hp Gnome and Rhone engines improved performance. It was by
the way designed before the war started with the first prototype flying
in 1939. The aircraft was actually ordered in 1938 to replace the Hs
123. Considering the production model the Hs 129B did not enter service
until 1941 it does not seem rushed.

Ken Young

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <6L6dnYlNHvx7kdPN...@westnet.com.au>,

gsinc...@froggy.com.au (Geoffrey Sinclair) wrote:

> or that the Hs129 was not designed to replace the Stuka?

Sorry it was intended to replace the Hs 123 which actually stayed in
service until the last one was scrapped or destroyed in 1944. The Hs 129
was ordered in 1938 before the gun armed Stukas were designed. The
problem is that dive bombing is not identical to ground attack. The
first version of the Stuka designed to use guns rather than bombs was
the Ju87D.

I think the problem Bayman has is that he is confusing dive bomber with
ground support aircraft. Dive bombers were effective against strong
points and shipping, they were not that good against tanks or troops.
The Ill 2 and the Typhoon got rockets.

Ken Young

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kfOdnXvQDaKSbdPN...@giganews.com...

> In article <6L6dnYlNHvx7kdPN...@westnet.com.au>,
> gsinc...@froggy.com.au (Geoffrey Sinclair) wrote:
>
>> or that the Hs129 was not designed to replace the Stuka?
>
> Sorry it was intended to replace the Hs 123 which actually stayed in
> service until the last one was scrapped or destroyed in 1944.

The original Luftwaffe ground attack/army close support aircraft was
the Hs123 and it did live on as a night raider, following the example
of the Red Air Force. So as of 1937/38 the idea was an update of
the Hs123.

The reality is though by 1938/39 the Ju87 was the aircraft meant to do
close army support while the twin engined bombers did interdiction. I
also note the distinction was not rigid, but the shorter range of the Ju87B
meant it was considered as front line or just beyond, which is what most
of its missions were 1939 to 1943. It could deliver bombs accurately
against static defences while the need for anti tank aircraft seems to be
unappreciated pre war.

The Hs129 was to be the dedicated ground attack aircraft and as far
as I can tell meant to replace the Ju87 in the role. Something the poor
engines and the rise of the fighter bomber meant was effectively shared
with the Fw190F and G.

> The Hs 129
> was ordered in 1938 before the gun armed Stukas were designed.

The Hs129 prototypes were ordered in 1938, the gun armed Ju87 ran
parallel to the gun armed Hs129, a 30mm gun in a gondola versus the
twin 37 mm for the Ju87. A concession to the increased importance
of tanks and the relatively open terrain in the east.

The Ju87G arrived at the front in mid 1943.

> The
> problem is that dive bombing is not identical to ground attack. The
> first version of the Stuka designed to use guns rather than bombs was
> the Ju87D.

Yes, however close support is more than anti tank, the majority of
targets are strong points, dug in guns, soft skinned vehicles and infantry.
The 37mm guns under the wings of the Ju87G are well known, the
under wing machine gun and cannon packs for the Ju87D less so.

> I think the problem Bayman has is that he is confusing dive bomber with
> ground support aircraft.

No, try a rewrite of history.

> Dive bombers were effective against strong
> points and shipping, they were not that good against tanks or troops.
> The Ill 2 and the Typhoon got rockets.

The rockets were not that accurate. Essentially the ideal close support
aircraft carries bombs that can be dropped accurately to eliminate strong
points, machine guns or cannon for strafing and are effective against tanks.
Even if that means external racks carrying mission dependent weapons.

Plus be protected against small arms fire, is flak resistant and can survive
in at least partially contested airspace.

[Bill]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:22:26 -0400, "Bay Man"
<xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:

>That still does not detract from the point that the front area of a radial
>engine was massive in comparison to an in-line engine with a greater change
>of receiving a front hit from bullet.

As a general rule the people directly in front of a radial engined
ground attack aircraft have other things on their minds than noting
that it's a big engine and they should shoot at it.

I understand that statistically the P-47 was the most successful
Allied fighter in the European region and very few were shot down
compared to numbers deployed...

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/11/12 7:20 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> ...the radials were usually wider but shorter, leading to similar

> weights and volumes to inline engines of the same sort of power.

And we must not forget to include the volume occupied by the cooling
system of inline engines.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/11/12 7:22 AM, Bay Man wrote:
> That still does not detract from the point that the front area of a
> radial engine was massive in comparison to an in-line engine with a
> greater change of receiving a front hit from bullet.

Only if it is being fired at from head on. During any sort of combat,
including ground to air AA, the bulk of the fire on average is coming
from some other angle. Particularly, fire coming from the ground is apt
to strike some undersurface of the aircraft, wings, tail, or fuselage.

Michael

[Bay Man]

The II-2 had armour under the in-line engine.

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/11/12 4:32 PM, Bay Man wrote:
> The II-2 had armour under the in-line engine.

Bully. That suggests that the Soviet designers had a much better idea of
where the fire would be coming from that you do.

Michael

[Rich]

On Sep 11, 7:32 pm, "Bay Man"
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:

> Michael Emrys wrote:
> > Only if it is being fired at from head on. During any sort of combat,
> > including ground to air AA, the bulk of the fire on average is coming
> > from some other angle. Particularly, fire coming from the ground is
> > apt to strike some undersurface of the aircraft, wings, tail, or
> > fuselage.

Michael, you are working against a faith-based worldview...you may as
well be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for
all the good it might do you.

> The II-2 had armour under the in-line engine.

Yes it did, designed to be sufficient to defeat most direct rifle
caliber hits up to about 12.7mm, after that it got rather dicier. It
would normally survive single 20mm strikes or multiple glancing
strikes as well as glancing strikes from up to single 37mm rounds.
Multiple direct 20mm hits and direct hits by one or two 37mm rounds
almost invariably would take down the aircraft. Meanwhile, until 1944
it was highly vulnerable to enemy fighter aircraft...originally it had
no rear gunner and no armor other than the pilots seat back that
protected against attacks from slightly above and behind. Then, when
the gunner was added, the poor mans lifespan was rather short, seven
times as many gunners as pilots were killed in the Il-2. Eventually,
in 1943 they added rear armor, which when added to the weight of the
gunner and gun changed the CG so radically the aircraft became
notoriously unstable, as is reflected in the late war non-combat loss
rates. That was partly solved at the end of the war by the
introduction of a larger area wing and then the whoile shebang was
replaced by the Il-10 redesign.

The upshot was the Il-2 was about the most deadly aircraft to be flown
in the war...to its own crew.

Il-2 Losses Total/1941/1942/1943/1944/1945
VVS
Air combat: 2,557/47/169/1,090/882/369
AA fire: 4,679/101/203/1,468/1,859/1,048
On the ground: 109/13/14/40/34/8
Unknown causes/did not return (combat): 3,414/372/1,290/917/569/266
Total combat losses: 10,759/533/1,676/3,535/3,344/1,691
(28.9% of all Soviet aircraft losses)
Naval Aviation combat losses: 807/0/66/128/362/251
Non-combat losses (approximation from rounded totals)
12,014/567/858/3,537/5,194/1,858
Total losses: 23,580/1,100/2,600/7,200/8,900/3,800

Losses as a percentage of average annual on hand strength was roughly
1941 - 73.3%
1942 - 34.2%
1943 - 45.0%
1944 - 46.6%
1945 - 27.3%

7,837 pilots and gunners of Il-2 were recorded as killed during the
war (gunners at 7 times the rate of pilots)

There was one Il-2 loss per 53.5 combat sorties, compared to one Yak
or La fighter loss per 104.5 sorties or one Il-4 or Pe-2 bomber loss
per ~ 80 sorties

90% of damaged Il-2 were repaired

34,943 Il-2s were produced during the war plus 1,211 Il-2U trainers; a
grand total of 36,154.
Thus, the overall loss rate of the Il-2 and Il-2U was roughly
65.2%...nearly two-thirds were lost, about one-third to combat. A
rough count of the Hs 129 indicates that 296 were lost to enemy action
from March 1942 to January 1945, so about the same.

By the by, the Hs123 was built to replace the He 50, the prototypical
German dive bomber, and was intended as an interim aircraft until the
introduction of the Ju 87. It then, like the He 50, reverted to the
World War I Schlacht role, again as an interim aircraft, but this time
as an army cooperation close support aircraft. You see, the Hs 129 was
***designed*** to be the intended aircraft to fulfill the Schlacht
role. That was very different from the Sturzkampf mission. The first
was intended as a low-altitude, primarily gun and light fragmentation
bomb armed aircraft whereas the second was a precision bombing
aircraft.

I will now return you to your regularly scheduled fantasy.

[mi...@netmapsonscape.net]

Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> "Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dhns48pspts6t1gfh...@4ax.com...

> > As a general rule, with ground attack aircraft, the people shooting
> > at them tend to be really happy if they actually hit the aircraft,
> > never mind bothering to aim for the engines...

> That still does not detract from the point that the front area of a radial
> engine was massive in comparison to an in-line engine with a greater change

^^^^^^^

> of receiving a front hit from bullet.

Which, of course, implies that the in-line engine would be much longer viewed
from any sort of angle compared to the radial engine.

Mike

[Bay Man]

<mi...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
news:k2os1a$k4d$1...@haven.eyrie.org...

A ground attack, or anti-shipping, plane is more prone to be hit from the
front.

[Michael Emrys]

On 9/12/12 6:24 AM, Bay Man wrote:
> A ground attack, or anti-shipping, plane is more prone to be hit from
> the front.

Oh, and in which comic book did you learn that?

Michael

[Bill]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:52:06 -0400, Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com>
wrote:

The people directly in front of a ground attack aircraft have
distractions...

The people at the side can concentrate on shooting at the thing...

[Bill Shatzer]

Well, I seem to recall Sgt Rock (of Easy Company) (1) gunning a Stuka
out of the sky with his trusty Thompson. That was a frontal shot if I'm
remembering correctly. :-)

(1) Or perhaps it was Sgt Fury (of the Howling Commandos). With
advancing age, these things tend to blur together.