Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

shturmovik for western allies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • shturmovik for western allies

    Why was there no dedicated attack plane for western allies during WW2 ? Like Il-2/A-10 class . P-47 , Typhoon etc. were originally designed as fighters, but Shturmovik was specially designed for CAS . It had really heavy armor for airplane , but was rather handful to fly . Was the reason for Allies that the slow & heavily armored ´´flying tank´´ was not considered survivable?
    If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

    Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

  • #2
    When the Jugs and the Hurricanes are doing such a wonderful job, why bother halting a production line to make something new? One could argue that the A-26 and A-20 were in the Sturmovik role, but I think they were used almost exclusively as light bombers more than attack planes per se. I could be wrong there though.

    -dale

    Comment


    • #3
      Absolutely right. We had LOTS of extremely good 'hybrid' strike types. Tempest/Typhoon family; Lightnings; T-bolts; just a whole ton of thangs an air commander could get the work done with.

      The Russians needed THAT airplane; we didn't.

      Comment


      • #4
        I was thinking - in addition to the excellent points already made - that there is also the differences in design philosophy, doctrine, culture etc to consider.
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • #5
          thank you for replies, all very good points. but I was still wondering , was that a right decision , because at the end of WW2 us had ready the A-1 Skyraider , then later US fielded the A-10 Warthog which is Shturmovik concept exactly . Is it like the heavy tank mistake , when western allies decided that they ćan fare pretty well with their medium tanks and heavy tanks were not priority? none of them fighters was as survivable as Ilyushin.
          And thereīs another question - US had Bell P-39/63-s that were pretty heavily armed and well liked at Eastern Front. Would it have been a good idea to develop a dedicated attack aircraft from these models?
          If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

          Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

          Comment


          • #6
            Don't forget the North American A-36 Apache !

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by braindead View Post
              thank you for replies, all very good points. but I was still wondering , was that a right decision , because at the end of WW2 us had ready the A-1 Skyraider , then later US fielded the A-10 Warthog which is Shturmovik concept exactly . Is it like the heavy tank mistake , when western allies decided that they ćan fare pretty well with their medium tanks and heavy tanks were not priority? none of them fighters was as survivable as Ilyushin.
              And thereīs another question - US had Bell P-39/63-s that were pretty heavily armed and well liked at Eastern Front. Would it have been a good idea to develop a dedicated attack aircraft from these models?
              Right decision? We won, didn't we? We were masters of the air, weren't we? German movement during dayight and good weather was pretty much paralyzed, wasn't it?

              As far as survivability, where are your numbers for comparison?

              -dale

              Comment


              • #8
                Reports on the Airacobras are mixed at best.
                "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                Comment


                • #9
                  the Shturmovik was built more than any other plane in the history - 36000 pc., obviously their losses were big. Itīs just that it looks exactly like the F-16 vs. A-10 debate - a good multi-role fighter vs. īmudfighterī . Of course US can win any war without A-10 , all Iīm asking would it have been a good idea to build a dedicated attack/CAS aircraft. Well USAF could have won the ODS without AH-64, A-10, F-117 etc., but they sure helped, didnīt they?
                  Ok , let me rephrase it - which one of Allied fighters would have been the best platform for dedicated attack aircraft - P-39, P-47, P-51 , Typhoon, even Hurricane w. 40mm. ? ze germans had huge respect for that aircraft for a good reason . Iīm not sexually attracted to it (much), but it seems like VERY good piece of equipment , just like Katyusha rocket launchers. IMO if lend-lease and change of ideas went both ways , those were the 2 things western allies could really use
                  If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

                  Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by leibstandarte10 View Post
                    Reports on the Airacobras are mixed at best.
                    - maybe it simply was the problem that somebody could simply get maximum out of it, somebody else couldnīt. And the P-63 KingCobra was used as armored target aircraft - trainees shooting it in mock aircombat!
                    If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

                    Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by braindead View Post
                      the Shturmovik was built more than any other plane in the history - 36000 pc., obviously their losses were big. Itīs just that it looks exactly like the F-16 vs. A-10 debate - a good multi-role fighter vs. īmudfighterī . Of course US can win any war without A-10 , all Iīm asking would it have been a good idea to build a dedicated attack/CAS aircraft. Well USAF could have won the ODS without AH-64, A-10, F-117 etc., but they sure helped, didnīt they?
                      Ok , let me rephrase it - which one of Allied fighters would have been the best platform for dedicated attack aircraft - P-39, P-47, P-51 , Typhoon, even Hurricane w. 40mm. ? ze germans had huge respect for that aircraft for a good reason . Iīm not sexually attracted to it (much), but it seems like VERY good piece of equipment , just like Katyusha rocket launchers. IMO if lend-lease and change of ideas went both ways , those were the 2 things western allies could really use
                      I'm afraid I can't make sense of your question. Why did the Americans or British not field a dedicated ground attack fighter? Because they didn't need one - the air superiority ships they had fit the bill nicely.

                      Why no Katyushas? Because the Brits and Americans didn't need them - we had the most accurate and fast artillery arm in the world - our corps artillery was used as a tactical battlefield weapon, oftentimes "on the fly", and we had adequate numbers of tubes. The Sovs needed the Katyushas because they weren't able to produce enough real guns, nor the educated people to lay and fire them, nor the commo gear to coordinate them.

                      Would you rather be a German facing a mass of inaccurate Katyushas or a German facing a British "Uncle" fire mission with every CW gun across the entire front ready and able to fire on your particular crossroad defense at once?

                      And we did field the "Calliope" idea borrowed from the Russians - rocket launchers mounted to Sherman turrets. Don't know if it was popular or useful.

                      The best platform to modify to a true, dedicated CAS plane would probably have been one of the A-20/A-26s - high wing load = decent loadout. Big targets though, and I don't know how maneuverable they were. Bottom line though is that they weren't needed in WWII. As far as post-WWII, I dunno what the best U.S./ UK CAS platform was.

                      -dale

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        OK, that sounds realistic. But still think they were extremely effetive in terms of cost and capabilities. Only real problem was the logistic problems - the rounds were pretty big and to transport them to the front would have been a big strain on logistics (+ huge ammo expenditure rates)

                        from wiki :
                        A ripple-fired seven to ten-second BM-13 salvo delivered 4.35 tons of high explosive rockets over a four-hectare (10 acres) impact zone (Zaloga 1984:154). Katyusha batteries were often massed in very large numbers to create a shock effect on enemy forces. Its disadvantage was the long time it took to reload a launcher, while conventional guns could maintain a sustained rate of fire.
                        If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

                        Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dalem View Post
                          Why no Katyushas? Because the Brits and Americans didn't need them - we had the most accurate and fast artillery arm in the world - our corps artillery was used as a tactical battlefield weapon, oftentimes "on the fly", and we had adequate numbers of tubes. The Sovs needed the Katyushas because they weren't able to produce enough real guns, nor the educated people to lay and fire them, nor the commo gear to coordinate them.
                          We did on occasion when true saturation fire was needed, such as at Overlord when the LCT(R)s were built. These could salvo off up to 1,000 rockets at a time (sources vary on the size of rocket - they go up to 6 inches in some sources).
                          Wiki...
                          Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
                          Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pdf27 View Post
                            We did on occasion when true saturation fire was needed, such as at Overlord when the LCT(R)s were built. These could salvo off up to 1,000 rockets at a time (sources vary on the size of rocket - they go up to 6 inches in some sources).
                            Wiki...
                            But shore bombardment is a different kettle of fish than land-based divisional and corps artilelry needs.

                            Apples and oranges.

                            -dale

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                              Absolutely right. We had LOTS of extremely good 'hybrid' strike types. Tempest/Typhoon family; Lightnings; T-bolts; just a whole ton of thangs an air commander could get the work done with.
                              Indeed, particularly the B-25G and H models sporting a dozen or so .50 caliber M-2's AND a 75mm cannon.
                              The more I think about it, ol' Billy was right.
                              Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight.
                              - The Eagles

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X