Discussion in 'Eastern Europe' started by USS Washington, May 31, 2015.
Not confusing the Mig 25 with the Su 25 Frogfoot maybe.
@Poppy: Wiki mentions that his imput was used in the development of the A-10.
The Alpha trainer may well be an offshoot of the YA9, but the Frogfoot was around before the Alpha.
Hoping that is true.
From what I have gathered, it was quite rare for a Ju-87 or Il-2 to thoroughly destroy a tank on the ground, but it was quite common for attacks by CAS aircraft to put tanks out of commission for several days. Il-2s had a tremendous impact at the Battle of Kursk because they were able to render tanks immobile, forcing the talented German mechanics to make the necessary repairs on the front line. During such a battle, taking a German tank out for a few days was almost as good as completely destroying it.
The Il2 (Black Widow) was a devastating ground attack aircraft. Germans dreaded its appearance. The plane was considered a flying tank and it rained down hell on its targets.
Never heard the nick-name Black Widow for the Il2-Sturmovik. "Der Bucklige" (hunchback) it was called by the german soldiers.
The Il2-M3 wasn't effective against tanks, that's a myth. It was a ground attack aircraft mainly against soft targets. The old Ju 87 with the 37mm canon was far more dangerous for tanks.
Luftwaffe pilots called it Zementbomber (Concrete bomber). The Finnish nickname maatalouskone ("agricultural machine" or "tractor") derived from a word play with maataistelukone (ground attack aircraft, literally "ground combat aircraft" where kone, literally "machine", in turn is shortened from lentokone, aircraft, literally "flying machine")
Wikipedia Ilyushin Il-2
I have seen some references that the German troops sometimes called the IL-2 the Black Death. However, I never heard the IL-2 referred to as the Black Widow.
Yes yes Black Death is where I was heading....
Where did I get Black Widow from?
Maybe you thinking of the P61.
The Il2 had nothing more than two 23mm Canons.
The german and finnish air force refused to use it, it was considered too dangerous to fly (and the Luftwaffe used planes like the He 177, the Me 210 or even the Me 163).
It was difficult to shoot down from the ground and it was produced in vast numbers. But the soviets liked the Airacobras more than the US-pilots for a reason.
It seems to me that this machine has acquired a certain 'aura' that it simply does not warrant. Here was a machine conceived for taking out tanks individually - one by one if you will. Rudel in his first day's flying at the controls of his BK 3.7 mm toting Stuka managed to knock out around ten Russian tanks according to Nauroth's German-language Stukageschwader Immelmann history. (Rudel's own account states twelve). Yet just a few hundred miles east of where Rudel would have been operating (during, say, July 1943) Soviet factories were churning out hundreds of tanks weekly - well out of the range of any Luftwaffe bombers. The Luftwaffe did not possess a decent long-range heavy bomber as we know. All the Luftwaffe could come up with at this stage of the war was a Stuka 'D' model expedient with the flying characteristics of a brick - it was impossible for all but the most experienced pilots to fly well, especially in the turn where the massively laden Stuka bucked and wobbled on the edge of the stall.. At the time of course Rudel's efforts and those of his comrades were feted in the Nazi propaganda media. Today they are still 'celebrated' in just about every account you might care to read devoted to combat flying on the Eastern Front. In reality Rudel's 'achievements' were but a drop in the ocean, a mere pinprick in the overall scheme of battle on the Eastern Front..
Yes, but even the allied bombing campaign failed to slow down the german tank production in the first years. So i can't see how the hard pressed Luftwaffe could be more successful against russian factories. And a lot of the factories were already behind the Ural, where the Luftwaffe could not reach them by any means.
The old StuKa wasn't an ideal plane but at least it had a gun powerful enough to knock out a T-34. The Hs 129 was a reasonable successor.
The Il2 was overestimated too, don't you agree?
Nice study Falke! Great share.
Can I refer you to the question I raised in post #4. What proportion of Rudel's claimed kills were actual?
They don't have a leg to stand on.
Um, it "failed to slow down the german tank production in the first years" because, to quote the USSBS, "It was not until the late summer and fall that plants became the target for a concentrated bombing effort". Five plants were heavily targeted in the last five months of 1944, with variable effect. One, Henschel, Kassel was heavily damaged with a 70% loss of production over three months. Two others lost 35% and 15% production over three months, while the others suffered negligible loss. Only one plant was heavily attacked in 1943, Alkett-Borsigwalde, Berlin, which was knocked completely out of the war and was replaced by a new final assembly plant at Falkensee. Overall, the USSBS noted the difficulty of damaging the German tank industry, especially since attacks on the engine and transmission manufacturing plants occurred after they were dispersed, eliminating a potential industrial bottleneck, which might have been exploited. It is possible, given the extreme concentration of Soviet production in a few sites that a US-style daylight bombing attack would have been very effective.
However, as you point out, the Luftwaffe had zero capacity to conduct attacks such as did the damage to Henschel and Alkett. Those were done by the USAAF in the prime of its capability during the CBO.
You mean the attacks on the Borsig-Werke in 1943?
The german tank production reached its peak in 1944. After heavy bombardments.
So it is a simple conclusion that the Luftwaffe never was capable of slowing down the russian tank production. I guess even the USAAF couldn't achieve this, the factories would simply be transferred to the East. This is the difference between huge Russia and small Germany.
it wasn't much of a peak though of course. For example, 1,400 Tiger I's (approx) vs 36,000 T-34s
A peak is a peak. The point is: Even the USAAF and the RAF with their huge ressources weren't immediatly successful in reducing the output of the german factories. By the way: The soviet air force didn't even try to destroy the industrial capacities of the enemy.