Mehrzweckpanzer instead of Panther?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
One big potential what if that is air related is if the potential of the Hs123 is recognized earlier in the war, production isn't halted, rather ramped up after 1940. Had the HS129 been dumped and the Hs123 retained and expanded, it would have been the ideal CAS/anti-tank aircraft given how robust, easy to fly/make/maintain in the field, light, cheap, usable in all weather conditions (with enclosed and armored cockpit as was planned for the HS123C version), and able to dive bomb with small bomb and bomblets that would have taken out Soviet AFVs without needing to resort to rockets and the like. It was in effect a better Hs129, just already in service. They could have made hundreds or even thousands per year they were so cheap and easy to make ... Keeping that thing around would be ideal for the Eastern Front

will confess to limited knowledge on tank warfare/doctrine but with huge (?) numbers of CAS/anti-tank aircraft wouldn't they be able to rely more on casemate/tank destroyer type vehicles and SPGs?
 

Deleted member 1487

will confess to limited knowledge on tank warfare/doctrine but with huge (?) numbers of CAS/anti-tank aircraft wouldn't they be able to rely more on casemate/tank destroyer type vehicles and SPGs?
Why would that follow?
 
You can't put the same people in Fighters who were OTL tossing shells into 88mm cannons, older guys, Hitler Youth teens and even Soviet volunteers from POW camps

AAA was not just about tossing shells in the guns. Flak arm of the Luftwaffe employed more than 500 000 personel already in early 1940, while having 3500 heavy and 9500 light cannons. With, say, 8 men on a heavy gun, and 6 on the 20-37mm that will return 28000+57000=85000 men as gun crews. More than 400 000 was employed in C&C, logistics, as trainers and trainees.
One wants the guns actually count? Then they need to be manned by trained and experienced men. The AA artillery is not some kind of glorified kindergarten for non-frontline-men, but serves a purpose of blunting enemy bomber attacks to the point the attacker can't sustain the losses. Whenever the Allied air forces could not sustain losses it was because the fighter arm of Luftwaffe took their measure. Whether it was Polish, French, Soviet or American AF.
We can also look at what tool was used by the UK to blunt Luftwaffe in 1940 - fighters, not AAA.
If there is plenty of non-combat but reasonably healthy people looking for assignment, send them to the factories. LW tried to replace seasoned crews with other men from early 1943 on, the result of not just that mistake was that number of heavy shells to kill an aircraft went from 4000 in 1942 to 16000 (16 thousand) in 1944.
 
will confess to limited knowledge on tank warfare/doctrine but with huge (?) numbers of CAS/anti-tank aircraft wouldn't they be able to rely more on casemate/tank destroyer type vehicles and SPGs?

Why would that follow?

my understanding the casemate type AFVs were forced into role(s) they were not originally designed for, at least on Eastern Front? and are at obvious disadvantage against vehicle with turret since they would be oriented in one direction?

however if they were equipped with numerous CAS/anti-tank aircraft both to observe and attack the enemy they might not be at such fatal disadvantage?

then something like Weser or even armored RSO, which were produced in huge numbers and low cost without turrets, could be used (more.) those were only type of AFVs produced in numbers even approaching Soviet or other Allied numbers.
 

Deleted member 1487

my understanding the casemate type AFVs were forced into role(s) they were not originally designed for, at least on Eastern Front? and are at obvious disadvantage against vehicle with turret since they would be oriented in one direction?
Yeah late in the war the Germans tried to use assault guns to replace turreted AFVs because they needed as much firepower for their Panzer divisions as possible, as there simply wasn't enough turreted AFVs being produced to make good losses; as it was assault guns were 25% cheaper than turreted AFVs so they used them. It was a disaster because assault guns cannot really do what turreted vehicles can...at least not until the 1960s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103

however if they were equipped with numerous CAS/anti-tank aircraft both to observe and attack the enemy they might not be at such fatal disadvantage?
By the time you'd have to give up on turreted AFVs for more assault guns then you're not going to have enough CAS aircraft to do what you are suggesting. Turreted AFVs were just too versatile to give up on before you have to.

then something like Weser or even armored RSO, which were produced in huge numbers and low cost without turrets, could be used (more.) those were only type of AFVs produced in numbers even approaching Soviet or other Allied numbers.
The RSO AT gun was a failure, which is why it was never really made/used. The Hetzer was the only viable solution to the problem of lack of mobility of towed AT weapons. Even that needed less frontal armor to avoid overburdening the chassis and needed to be conceived of years earlier to make use of the chassis. Had it entered production in 1942 they could have replaced all infantry division AT battalions with Hetzers by 1944 and dramatically increased their AT abilities, while making use of an otherwise obsolete chassis.
 
my understanding the casemate type AFVs were forced into role(s) they were not originally designed for, at least on Eastern Front? and are at obvious disadvantage against vehicle with turret since they would be oriented in one direction?

however if they were equipped with numerous CAS/anti-tank aircraft both to observe and attack the enemy they might not be at such fatal disadvantage?

Yeah late in the war the Germans tried to use assault guns to replace turreted AFVs because they needed as much firepower for their Panzer divisions as possible, as there simply wasn't enough turreted AFVs being produced to make good losses; as it was assault guns were 25% cheaper than turreted AFVs so they used them. It was a disaster because assault guns cannot really do what turreted vehicles can...

By the time you'd have to give up on turreted AFVs for more assault guns then you're not going to have enough CAS aircraft to do what you are suggesting. Turreted AFVs were just too versatile to give up on before you have to.

was not proposing giving up turreted AFVs just an allocation of production that accepts reality they can never approach Allied production numbers but might close the gap with mixed force "1 - 2 -3" of CAS aircraft/assault guns/proper tanks.

the assault guns could use damaged hulls also? as well captured guns?

what was historical plan? to accept the ratio of AFVs and rush improved (and larger) models into combat to compensate?
 

Deleted member 1487

During the BoB, Britain have had 3 times less heavy AAA than it was the case with Germany. With difference that British guns actually contributed in the Battle, unlike most of the German pieces.
The Flak arm played second fiddle even to the Kriegsmarine in the attack onn Poland, and then again in the invasion of Denmark and Norway. It was LW aircraft & men, plus Heer of course, that kicked French & Low Countries out of the war, and UK out of the continent. Not Flak. LW fighter arm was a show stopper for daylight RAF bombing raids. Similar situation against Soviet Union, plus Yugoslavia and Greece.
Once fighters failed, beacuse they could not fight the 3-front war, AAA was of no help, all 10 000 (ten thousand) of heavy pieces in 1944, bombers wreaked havoc. Allies even strafed and bombed while being well in the range of the light Flak.

If Germany wants to invest a fortune in air defense, invest more in fighters.
https://www.amazon.com/Flak-German-...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1303099435&sr=1-1
You should really read the above book. I agree that the Germans should have been investing more into fighters than bombers from 1942 on, but there is a limit of what you can do there and FLAK is a necessary investment from 1941 on. Perhaps less 88s of the pre-1941 variety and more of the 105s though.

Ju 87 also served in 1944, so did the Fw 189 and Hs 129.
Hs 123 will add some capability to the LW. Expecting it to bear the brunt of frontline fighting is unrealistic IMO, not against the Soviet juggernaut after Kursk.
The Ju87 was much heavier and more expensive than the Hs123, plus more vulnerable to ground fire and the 'dedicated' CAS versions were just less successful in that role than the Hs123. The HS129 never lived up to spec. The FW189 was a recon aircraft...so despite the one attempt to compete with Henschel for the CAS contract it was not used for that.
The HS123 would add a ton of CAS capacity to the Luftwaffe very cheaply, Richthofen, who is the source for my focus on it, thought they should never have

You know as well as I do that Hs 129 was powered by air-cooled engines, be that radials or V12s (non-combat worthy version).
If you think that low flying biplanes were that survivable, I won't bother debating that belief.
Richthofen consider the HS123 the best CAS option in 1943:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2011/06/hs-123-and-its-odd-success.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_123#World_War_II_.28Eastern_Front.29
During the initial drive, the unit participated in action along the central and northern parts of the front, including a brief time in support of the fighting around Leningrad, and participating in the battles for Bryansk and Vyazma. The first weeks revealed problems associated with using the Bf 109E which was plagued by undercarriage and engine problems in the fighter-bomber role. Its liquid-cooled inline engine was also more vulnerable to small arms fire than the Hs 123's radial.

The winter brought hardship to all German forces in Russia, and the pilots in the open cockpits of the Henschels suffered accordingly. Despite this, they took part in the Battle of Moscow. In January, the unit was re-designated as the first dedicated ground attack wing (in German Schlachtgeschwader 1, SchlG 1). The Hs 123 became a part of 7./SchlG 1.

This "new" unit participated in operations in Crimea in May 1942, after which it operated on the southern sector for some time, participating in the Second Battle of Kharkov and going on to take part in the Battle of Stalingrad. In the meantime, the small number of operational Hs 123 continued to slowly dwindle. Aircraft had been salvaged from training schools and even derelict dumps all over Germany to replace losses.[3] The aircraft that had supposedly replaced the Hs 123, the Ju 87, also started to be assigned to ground support units, leaving tactical bombing to newer aircraft.


The greatest tribute to the Hs 123 usefulness came in January 1943 when Generaloberst Wolfram von Richthofen, then commander-in-chief of Luftflotte 4, asked whether production of the Hs 123 could be restarted because the Hs 123 performed well in a theater where mud, snow, rain and ice took a heavy toll on the serviceability of more advanced aircraft. However, the Henschel factory had already dismantled all tools and jigs in 1940.[3]


After taking part in the Battle of Kursk, SG 1 returned to Crimea, and there during late spring 1944, they finally gave up the aircraft that had served all over Europe from Spain to Leningrad. 7./SG 1 traded its last Hs 123s in mid-1944, for Ju 87s, a type that was to have replaced it back in 1937.

As to the HS129 you're right, I was confusing the proposed upgraded Italian liquid cooled engines with the French ones they actually used. Nevertheless it had serious problems with dust clogging the French engines and them being unarmored so being destroyed by rifle bullets very often...unlike the HS123 with armored cockpit. Also the Hs129 was severely underpowered with it's low capacity left over French engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129#Hs_129_B-1

Basically - let's use the worst pilots, flying the worst aircraft and expect results? Thanks, but no thanks.
Enclosed cockpit != armored cockpit. For that Hs 123 so frugal with fuel, I'd love to see proof.
Again Richthofen thought it was a great plane for the Eastern Front, see above. All descriptions I've read of the Hs123 say the C-series was armored; the picture of the model I included is a poor representation of pictures of the C-series I've seen in books, the cockpit was clearly armored in those pics.
 

Deleted member 1487

was not proposing giving up turreted AFVs just an allocation of production that accepts reality they can never approach Allied production numbers but might close the gap with mixed force "1 - 2 -3" of CAS aircraft/assault guns/proper tanks.
I'm arguing against the increase of StuGs to turreted vehicles. If they need more SP AT guns just make the Hetzer.

the assault guns could use damaged hulls also? as well captured guns?
Maybe with the damaged hulls, I don't see why not with captured guns, but limited ammo would reduce their utility.

what was historical plan? to accept the ratio of AFVs and rush improved (and larger) models into combat to compensate?
The historical plans were quite muddled and it depended on a lot of Hitler's delusions, meddling, and production at any one time. By late war they were putting the best equipment with the newest units to compensate for lack of experience and training (dumb move) and were filling out existing Panzer divisions with old equipment and forming Panzer battalions with StuGs because they could be made faster and more cheaply than Pz IVs.
 
I haven't posted in the thread, but believe me when I say I do drop in from time to time to see what's going on and to learn more :p

I believe ee means that tanks in WoT have a much, much higher survivability than they did in real life - in reality, most of the shells in that game should have an explosive filler, which would detonate inside the vehicle, spraying shrapnel everywhere and usually knocking out a tank on the first penetrating hit. You can see this kind of effect in action here in War Thunder, which actually tries to simulate the effect of that detonation inside the vehicle. You can see just how bad things would actually be fifteen seconds in, when a shell penetrates the front plate of the Jagdpanzer and detonates in the middle of the fighting compartment, instantly killing three crew members and knocking the vehicle out of action, even though in WoT that would have just been a minor decrease in hit points. There are other things; both WoT and War Thunder have had to make some concessions for gameplay reasons, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, believe me :p

Good point!!! Ah see, your correct, I admit WOT is unrealistic. I remember slightly thinking about tanks unable to survive one shot briefly a few months ago while playing WOT but information drifts in and out of my head so much, I don't know what I know and don't know. The video is awesome by the way, demonstrates it perfectly.

Check out Steel Fury: Kharkov 1942, since I believe that's meant to be a pretty good simulation of WW2 tank action, but it's getting on a little nowadays and I wouldn't be able to vouch for the authenticity of it personally...however, the IL-2 Sturmovik series of games seems to be much more modern and is getting a detailed simulation of tank action, too! :D

The Red Orchestra games also have some pretty excellent tank gameplay, but they are primarily an infantry series of games, I'd say.

I check these out thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
https://www.amazon.com/Flak-German-...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1303099435&sr=1-1
You should really read the above book. I agree that the Germans should have been investing more into fighters than bombers from 1942 on, but there is a limit of what you can do there and FLAK is a necessary investment from 1941 on. Perhaps less 88s of the pre-1941 variety and more of the 105s though.

I'm using the data from Westerman's work several years now :)
Germany neede both bombers and fighters. Deciding on less Flak in mid-30s, that gives maybe 1500 heavy and 5000 light by late 1939/early 1940, would've saved penty of resources, that can be siphoned in other means to wage war. I'd also favor the early introduction of 30mm instead of 20mm pieces, so the cut on the numbers of light pieces donesn't kill the defensive firepower of ground units that much.


The Ju87 was much heavier and more expensive than the Hs123, plus more vulnerable to ground fire and the 'dedicated' CAS versions were just less successful in that role than the Hs123. The HS129 never lived up to spec. The FW189 was a recon aircraft...so despite the one attempt to compete with Henschel for the CAS contract it was not used for that.
The HS123 would add a ton of CAS capacity to the Luftwaffe very cheaply...

Reason why I've mentioned other slow aircraft is to point out to the notion that one does not to go overboard with re-introduction of obsolete gear.
The Ju 87 carried 2-3-4 times the ordnance of Hs 123. It was not 2-3-4 times more expensive, and one will use 2-3-4 times less of pilots to carry same bomb load. Basically - it is/was far cheaper to lug a required bomb load using the Ju 87s than Hs 123s.
The Hs 129 was a child of the failed requirement (initially 900 HP for an armored aircraft that was to carry reasonable armament suit - really, RLM???), it become a decent aircraft after the captured engines were installed.

As to the HS129 you're right, I was confusing the proposed upgraded Italian liquid cooled engines with the French ones they actually used. Nevertheless it had serious problems with dust clogging the French engines and them being unarmored so being destroyed by rifle bullets very often...unlike the HS123 with armored cockpit. Also the Hs129 was severely underpowered with it's low capacity left over French engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129#Hs_129_B-1

The proposed Italian V12 engines were also air cooled.
The unarmored engine compartment was also a feature of Hs 123. A proposed armored cockpit != armored engine comartment, if that was proposed anyway

Again Richthofen thought it was a great plane for the Eastern Front, see above. All descriptions I've read of the Hs123 say the C-series was armored; the picture of the model I included is a poor representation of pictures of the C-series I've seen in books, the cockpit was clearly armored in those pics.

I've browsed through both German and English-language Wikipedia, there is no mention of armored cockpit in either. Armored cocpits don't have such big glass-covered areas.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm using the data from Westerman's work several years now :)
Germany neede both bombers and fighters. Deciding on less Flak in mid-30s, that gives maybe 1500 heavy and 5000 light by late 1939/early 1940, would've saved penty of resources, that can be siphoned in other means to wage war. I'd also favor the early introduction of 30mm instead of 20mm pieces, so the cut on the numbers of light pieces donesn't kill the defensive firepower of ground units that much.
Agree on the 30mm cannon, like the Kugelblitz was supposed to have, but due to production/supply inertia replacing ground 20mm is not possible in the war. Otherwise agree to disagree on FLAK.


Reason why I've mentioned other slow aircraft is to point out to the notion that one does not to go overboard with re-introduction of obsolete gear.
The Ju 87 carried 2-3-4 times the ordnance of Hs 123. It was not 2-3-4 times more expensive, and one will use 2-3-4 times less of pilots to carry same bomb load. Basically - it is/was far cheaper to lug a required bomb load using the Ju 87s than Hs 123s.
The Hs 129 was a child of the failed requirement (initially 900 HP for an armored aircraft that was to carry reasonable armament suit - really, RLM???), it become a decent aircraft after the captured engines were installed.
Amount of potential ordnance is not indicative of accuracy in putting it on target. The HS123 had limited ordnance, but was highly accurate with it, meaning very little waste due to the low altitude and dive ability. The Ju87 was more vulnerable due to flying higher and less surviveable given the armor added. Plus it required more maintenance, fuel, had more working parts that could be hit and disable it, and the added armor and canons of the G-series made it very tough to fly.

The HS129 was never a decent aircraft, it was understood to be a dead end in service.

The proposed Italian V12 engines were also air cooled.
The unarmored engine compartment was also a feature of Hs 123. A proposed armored cockpit != armored engine comartment, if that was proposed anyway
Turns out that you're right about the Italian engine...though it never entered service. The proposed armored cockpit had nothing to do with the armor of the fuselage of the aircraft.

I've browsed through both German and English-language Wikipedia, there is no mention of armored cockpit in either. Armored cocpits don't have such big glass-covered areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_123#Design_and_development
The V6 prototype fitted with a similar powerplant and featuring a sliding cockpit hood was intended to serve as the Hs 123C prototype.
The armored cockpit is mentioned in several books I have, but I'd have to scan the sections to post them here.
 
I disagree with the notion of less Flak being good for Germany. They turned out to be multi-purpose weapons that could have been used even further than they were- IMO, an early Wirbelwind would have helped German divisions against both infantry charges and air strikes.
 
How much, perhaps 90% of heavy Flak never fired at anything but at aircraft. In the same time, the Germans scoured alls arund the captured warehouses in order to press in service captured guns, from pistols to 200+ mm artillery, with huge logistical problems, and still were outnumbered several-to-one in artillery pieces just again Soviets.
The aricraft themselves are multi-purpose weapons, useful both in attack and defense.

Amount of potential ordnance is not indicative of accuracy in putting it on target. The HS123 had limited ordnance, but was highly accurate with it, meaning very little waste due to the low altitude and dive ability. The Ju87 was more vulnerable due to flying higher and less surviveable given the armor added. Plus it required more maintenance, fuel, had more working parts that could be hit and disable it, and the added armor and canons of the G-series made it very tough to fly.

One either flies in some height and dive, or it flies nap of the earth but doesn't dive - can't have it both ways. The Ju 87B/D was every bit as accurate as a dive bomber as another dive bomber, HS 123 included. Fuel expanditure to carry, say, 200 x 250 kg bombs by Ju 87B/D will be far less than what the fleet of Hs 123s will need to do the same. It will need more engines and more pilots, too. More engines = more maintenance. Then we have some things that Ju 87 can do, like carrying a 1000 kg or bigger bomb, and/or arrying them in greater range, that are away from what Hs 123 can do.
I'm not sure how and when more armor equlas to being less survivable with Ju 87, but it equals to being more survivable with proposed Hs 123C.

The HS129 was never a decent aircraft, it was understood to be a dead end in service.

It is not understood as such.
Though I don't exactly love the Hs 129, nor I think that dedicated AT aircraft were exactly the best way to spend money in ww2, it was capable to carry useful AT weaponry, up to 75mm cannon. Ain't going to happen with Hs 123, not even the 30 mm.

The proposed armored cockpit had nothing to do with the armor of the fuselage of the aircraft.

Exactly. Unprotected engine bay in the Hs 123 is every way a weak point as it was in the Hs 129, or any other aircraft.
 
How much, perhaps 90% of heavy Flak never fired at anything but at aircraft. In the same time, the Germans scoured alls arund the captured warehouses in order to press in service captured guns, from pistols to 200+ mm artillery, with huge logistical problems, and still were outnumbered several-to-one in artillery pieces just again Soviets.
The aricraft themselves are multi-purpose weapons, useful both in attack and defense.



One either flies in some height and dive, or it flies nap of the earth but doesn't dive - can't have it both ways. The Ju 87B/D was every bit as accurate as a dive bomber as another dive bomber, HS 123 included. Fuel expanditure to carry, say, 200 x 250 kg bombs by Ju 87B/D will be far less than what the fleet of Hs 123s will need to do the same. It will need more engines and more pilots, too. More engines = more maintenance. Then we have some things that Ju 87 can do, like carrying a 1000 kg or bigger bomb, and/or arrying them in greater range, that are away from what Hs 123 can do.
I'm not sure how and when more armor equlas to being less survivable with Ju 87, but it equals to being more survivable with proposed Hs 123C.



It is not understood as such.
Though I don't exactly love the Hs 129, nor I think that dedicated AT aircraft were exactly the best way to spend money in ww2, it was capable to carry useful AT weaponry, up to 75mm cannon. Ain't going to happen with Hs 123, not even the 30 mm.



Exactly. Unprotected engine bay in the Hs 123 is every way a weak point as it was in the Hs 129, or any other aircraft.
Yes, but not every aircraft can do both. A Flak 88 can be used for: anti-aircraft duty, anti-infantry duty (timed fuze HE shells, I think?), and famously- anti-tank duty. A bad aircraft (Me 110 and 210) is far worse than a Flak gun.
 
Me 110 was an useful aircraft, Germany have had in production far better types though.
Flak 88 deployed in Germany or other parts of occupied Europe (= majority of produced pieces) will sit out invasion of Poland, Norway, France etc, will not take part in BoB, same for invasion of Soviet Union, all while the LW aircraft and Heer (not for BoB, obvoiusly) are doing the heavy lifting.
 
Top