British Sturmovik?

[marathag]

That's an inch at 90 degrees, which is pretty much impossible to do unless you're a dive bomer, and getting enough shells at the general area is difficult at best when you're firing 160 rounds per minute.

Panther's roof was 16mm, Mk IV G Roof and deck was only 10mm

At a 60 degree angle, that's about 18.5mm/11.5mm

At a 55 degree angle, that's about 19.5mm

At a 45 degree angle, that's about 23mm

At a 40 degree angle, that's about 24.9mm

At a 30 degree angle, that's about 32mm/20mm

This is very simplified, there are many more variables, like overmatching, a penetrator larger in diameter that the target plate is more effective

I'd not feel comfortable in either a Mk IV or Panther

At 500 Meters, .50 cal M2 AP will do 19mm, M20 API 21mm

Now you know why they worried about 'Jabos'

 

[joeferrito]

Plus, American fighter pilots seemed to think that their only mission was to shoot down enemy fighters, not shoot down enemy bombers, not protect their own bombers, not do (dangerous) ground support missions where even the greatest of air aces can fall prey to an enemy AA gun with a well-trained crew and good commander.

Reason #40987 why American bomber pilots hated their fighter pilot counterparts, and Reason #1 why the All Black 332nd Fighter Group never had to buy a drink during their deployment in Europe in WWII. Every American bomber squadron in Italy knew full well that the 332nd took their mission of bomber escort more seriously than any of their White counterparts.

...so we're ignoring the fact that the main objective was to annihilate the Luftwaffe to ensure Air Supremacy for the invasion, and that that only happened once Doolittle unchained the fighters from close escort and allowed them to engage the interceptors farther out? Close escort means low speed, and that does not for quick reaction to an attack make. The Tuskeegee guys certainly did have a slightly lower bomber loss rate on their escort missions but I attribute that to circumstance more than anything else. I think you'll find that most fighter pilots (when they ran into the bomber types on the ground) rarely had to buy their own drinks. The Fortess and Liberator crews loved their "little friends."

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Why the facination with cannon for Ground Attack?

Rockets and bombs are far more effective

For the Allies - put more effort into Spitfire Dive bombers (something for those MkVs to do after they are replaced with the mk VIIII eh?) - and for the rest Rockets

I know that the hit/destruction rate for AFVs was something like 5%- with only a near hit from a 250 pound bomb or a direct hit from an RP 3 would detroy a German tank but what was discovered after the war was the effect it had on the AFV crews.

It was something that was once decribed to me as 'reverse lottery effect'.

When a tank was hit - it was totalled - the tank a write off and the crew all killed.

So while statisitically the crews had little to fear from a given air attack - they had all seen or heard in graphic detail the effect 'successful' air attacks had had.

Which is why you often hear of German AFVs in WW2 being abandoned during an air attack (or on some occasions when aircraft simply over flew the unit) and it taking an hour or more for the unit to get moving again.

 

[Just Leo]

Why the facination with cannon for Ground Attack?

Rockets and bombs are far more effective

For the Allies - put more effort into Spitfire Dive bombers (something for those MkVs to do after they are replaced with the mk VIIII eh?) - and for the rest Rockets

I know that the hit/destruction rate for AFVs was something like 5%- with only a near hit from a 250 pound bomb or a direct hit from an RP 3 would detroy a German tank but what was discovered after the war was the effect it had on the AFV crews.

It was something that was once decribed to me as 'reverse lottery effect'.

When a tank was hit - it was totalled - the tank a write off and the crew all killed.

So while statisitically the crews had little to fear from a given air attack - they had all seen or heard in graphic detail the effect 'successful' air attacks had had.

Which is why you often hear of German AFVs in WW2 being abandoned during an air attack (or on some occasions when aircraft simply over flew the unit) and it taking an hour or more for the unit to get moving again.

The actual history of WWII records that RP's were the dominant aerial AT weapon of the Wallies in 1944. The actual hit/kill rate has been lowered as time goes by, for RPs, reducing the 2 percent kill ratio to 2 kills verified, at Falaise. AT cannons for aircraft really was a road not taken to an effective degree, and obvious fodder for AH fantasy. What would have been the ultimate gun in what kind of aircraft?

An American squadron of Shermans underwent a friendly fire attack by RP Typhoons, and reported their sheer terror under fire. It did slow their progress somewhat, since they had to find out that nobody was hurt and no vehicles were damaged.

 

[Delta Force]

The actual history of WWII records that RP's were the dominant aerial AT weapon of the Wallies in 1944. The actual hit/kill rate has been lowered as time goes by, for RPs, reducing the 2 percent kill ratio to 2 kills verified, at Falaise. AT cannons for aircraft really was a road not taken to an effective degree, and obvious fodder for AH fantasy. What would have been the ultimate gun in what kind of aircraft?

An American squadron of Shermans underwent a friendly fire attack by RP Typhoons, and reported their sheer terror under fire. It did slow their progress somewhat, since they had to find out that nobody was hurt and no vehicles were damaged.

Some large cannons were tested during World War II. The Henschel Hs 129 carried (depending on the variant) 30 mm MK 101 or MK 103 cannons, the 37 mm Bordkanone BK 3,7, or a semi-automatic 75 mm PaK 40. There were B-25 variants equipped with 75 mm tank cannons, and the XP-58 Chain Lightning carried four 37 mm M4 cannons before a 75 mm autocannon was selected. The Piaggio P.108A was tested with 90 mm and 102 mm cannons.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The actual history of WWII records that RP's were the dominant aerial AT weapon of the Wallies in 1944. The actual hit/kill rate has been lowered as time goes by, for RPs, reducing the 2 percent kill ratio to 2 kills verified, at Falaise. AT cannons for aircraft really was a road not taken to an effective degree, and obvious fodder for AH fantasy. What would have been the ultimate gun in what kind of aircraft?

An American squadron of Shermans underwent a friendly fire attack by RP Typhoons, and reported their sheer terror under fire. It did slow their progress somewhat, since they had to find out that nobody was hurt and no vehicles were damaged.

On the other hand it did prove a convenient excuse for German commanders post war to explain their units lack of success

 

[Delta Force]

On the other hand it did prove a convenient excuse for German commanders post war to explain their units lack of success

As opposed to terrible design and quality control?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryhavoc101
On the other hand it did prove a convenient excuse for German commanders post war to explain their units lack of success

As opposed to terrible design and quality control?

Or bad strategy, political generals in many of the best divisions & corps, the railroads & bridges bombed to uselessness, to many third rate soldiers in the infantry formations, over half the artillery horse drawn, horse drawn wagons from the supply depots...

 

[Cryhavoc101]

As opposed to terrible design and quality control?

No what I mean is in every post war not Nazi German commanders memoirs exists a "We would have gotten away with it if it were not for them pesky Jabo's" type excuse.

I dunno maybe its true - while they might not have killed many tanks they certainly zapped lots of Horses drawn wagons, trucks, trains, small ships, barges etc.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryhavoc101
On the other hand it did prove a convenient excuse for German commanders post war to explain their units lack of success



Or bad strategy, political generals in many of the best divisions & corps, the railroads & bridges bombed to uselessness, to many third rate soldiers in the infantry formations, over half the artillery horse drawn, horse drawn wagons from the supply depots...

And the effectiveness of rocket shrapnel against unarmored supply units, which did not effect armored units. Germany supply units were pretty well wrecked by fighter-bombers and without supply its hard to get the sharp end of the stick to operate

 

[Deleted member 1487]

No what I mean is in every post war not Nazi German commanders memoirs exists a "We would have gotten away with it if it were not for them pesky Jabo's" type excuse.

I dunno maybe its true - while they might not have killed many tanks they certainly zapped lots of Horses drawn wagons, trucks, trains, small ships, barges etc.

Remember the Germans won in 1939-42 because of their Stukas and LW in general.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Remember the Germans won in 1939-42 because of their Stukas and LW in general.

Battle of Kasserine Pass in early 43 - 95% of the Stuka attacks on one of the US Divisions were directed against its Artillery units.

I wonder how the pattern of the Stuka attacks through out that 1939-43 period breaks down?

 

[yulzari]

Consider. Tanks have thick frontal armour as that faces towards the ground enemy. They are not armoured against downwards fire (nor can they be if they want to be able to move and at a weight that can cross a bridge.)

Thus they can be defeated by a gun that is too weak for ground use against them.

They can be destroyed by a direct (or immediately adjacent) hit by any significant bomb or RP.

Bombs and RPs leave the base aeroplane unchanged and can be added or removed at will.

Guns are far, far more accurate. If you choose airborne guns then you msut decide if tanks are to be the principal target. If so then 30-40mm HV AP rounds will penetrate pretty well all rear and top armour and much side armour. If you go for guns for ground targets in general the artillery wisdom is that you need at least 75mm for an effective HE round against dug in troops. For soft targets a 40mm gun firing this case HE will suffice.

For the heavy gun a ROF 75mm Molins has to be the answer. For the tank attacks a Littlejohn 40mm S gun will suffice. For assorted soft targets the S gun with HE.

Experience suggests that gun attacks need extensive armouring. Bombs and RPs can be launched at a greater distance without severely compromising their lesser accuracy. Accuracy in dive bombing from dedicated aeroplanes and sights is impressive but the aeroplane is exposed to ground AA and air attack for far too long to be viable without air superiority.

Thus a successful British Sturmovik would have to follow one of two routes and one of these diverges. The first is as OTL where you add bombs and rockets to existing fighters who can defend themselves and be used as such. The other is to create a special armoured gun attack aeroplane. Either a large one to carry a 75mm Molins or a small one with two 40mm S guns. The last can be mission profiled with Littlejohn and AP when sent to attack tanks or plain with HE for softer targets.

 

[sonofpegasus]

Several designs were prepared for a dedicated ground attack aircraft to Specification F. 6/42. Probably the best known of these designs was the Bolton and Paul P100 canard winged pusher propped aircraft. Nothing came of the requirement because it was considered uneccesary to develope a new specilised aircraft type when suffiecent existing aircraft were being produced that could be adapted in to acceptable substitutes.

Bolton and Paul P100:
Specifications:
Span 40' 2" (12.2m)
Length 34' 2" (10.4m)
335 mph (571 Km/h) @ 17,000 ft (5,182m)
Proposed armament included 4 x 20mm Cannon, 2 x 40mm + 2 x 20mm canon, one 47mm Vickers cannon + 2 20mm guns.
External weapons including 8 x RP3 Rockets or 2 x 500 lb. bombs.
Power was to be supplied by a 1760 hp Rolls Royce Griffon II driving contra-rotating propellers.

 

[Just Leo]

Several designs were prepared for a dedicated ground attack aircraft to Specification F. 6/42. Probably the best known of these designs was the Bolton and Paul P100 canard winged pusher propped aircraft. Nothing came of the requirement because it was considered uneccesary to develope a new specilised aircraft type when suffiecent existing aircraft were being produced that could be adapted in to acceptable substitutes.

Bolton and Paul P100:
Specifications:
Span 40' 2" (12.2m)
Length 34' 2" (10.4m)
335 mph (571 Km/h) @ 17,000 ft (5,182m)
Proposed armament included 4 x 20mm Cannon, 2 x 40mm + 2 x 20mm canon, one 47mm Vickers cannon + 2 20mm guns.
External weapons including 8 x RP3 Rockets or 2 x 500 lb. bombs.
Power was to be supplied by a 1760 hp Rolls Royce Griffon II driving contra-rotating propellers.

Indeed an interesting proposal, seemingly based on the Miles Libellula config. The Boulton Paul P.99 twin-boom pusher could have filled the same role. The much earlier Westland Pterodactyl pusher could have also filled the bill. However, waiting for a suitable powerplant, the Griffon would have delayed the start of the development process, and waiting for the contra-props to mature would have bumped the design well into the post-war era. Taurus/Whirlwind or Gloster twin could have filled the bill during the war, were it not a matter of incentive and production capacity/priorities.

 

[sonofpegasus]

Give the Bolton and Paul P100 the Fairey monarch engine off 2000hp with contro rotating propellers then in 1943/4 you have a serous mud basher which I think the Rusians would have loved.

 

[Just Leo]

Give the Bolton and Paul P100 the Fairey monarch engine off 2000hp with contro rotating propellers then in 1943/4 you have a serous mud basher which I think the Rusians would have loved.

Government policy stated that Fairey doesn't do engine business with this government. Otherwise, good idea.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

How about the British adopt the French ground attack aircraft?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_693

 

[sonofpegasus]

That own goal by the air ministry and the RAF is well known, this an ATL so Fairet get to build their monarch, oh they allso give it decent air passage ways so it does not choke and voila you have the best 2000 pluss hp engine of the war.

 

[Just Leo]

How about the British adopt the French ground attack aircraft?]

I think Henschel built a version of the same aircraft, with more and bigger guns and a lot more armor plate, the weakest point being identical engines. I seem to recall you didn't think highly of it. The Breguet 700 might have faired better, maybe, on an earlier time frame.