PDA

View Full Version : Flak survivability: close air support aircraft



249th_Harrier
08-26-2005, 06:25 AM
The most flack-resistant CAS plane ever made is probably the A-10. It has a Ti tub for the pilot and some key systems, and a lot of redundancy built into the design (I think it has redundant hydraulic systems). It has two engines, so if one is hit the plane will still fly.

Obviously WWII technology was very different, jets were not available, materials and construction tech were more primitive, etc. The keys to flak survivability for a Jabo in WWII:
1) Small size (less area to get hit)
2) Air cooled engine
3) Armor for pilot and engine
4) "overbuilt" airframe
5) redundant systems (engines)
Based on these characteristics, here are my top 10 list for FB planes:
1) IL2 1,2,3,4
2) HS-129 2,3,4,5
3) P-47 1,2,4
4) FW-A (or F) 1,2,4
5) P-38 1,4,5
6) Tie between P-40,Spit,P-51,Typhoon 1,4
7) Stuka 2,4

Comments?

Deadmeat313
08-26-2005, 06:41 AM
Heh. First comment is that there's only six in your top ten list. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif However, I can see that it'll get pretty difficult to distinguish between the aircraft you've not mentioned, so fair play.

I pretty much agree with your lineup, in order. I'm a dedicated Sturmo pilot myself and am amazed at how much effort it can take to down one.

The weak radiator is an achilles heel to flak, though.

T.

Deadmeat313
08-26-2005, 06:42 AM
Sorry, you've posted seven planes. Position two listed twice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

T.

Kuna15
08-26-2005, 06:49 AM
Don't know really what are the criteria, but it seems a bit odd to not include American Fortresses on list. These could take the punch that none of listed planes could, regardless of size etc.

73GIAP_Milan
08-26-2005, 06:53 AM
Not only the B-17 but also the Short Sunderland and the Grumman's Cat's are missing here; both the Wildcat aswell as the Hellcat were known to soak up damage and keep flying. - They were'nt called Grumman's Iron Works for nothing ^^

Deadmeat313
08-26-2005, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
The keys to flak survivability in WWII:
1) Small size (less area to get hit)
2) Air cooled engine
3) Armor for pilot and engine
4) "overbuilt" airframe
5) redundant systems (engines)

I would certainly consider the B-17 qualified on categories 2, 3 and 5. Not sure if the airframe could be considered "overbuilt" though, so 4 is doubtful. Good call nevertheless. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

T.

WOLFMondo
08-26-2005, 06:54 AM
Theres also speed. I guess its a bit different now but back in 1945 Tempests would be sent after German jets and attack them in there flak corridors. The Tempest was chosen by the RAF above all others because its reasonably tough but more importantly extremely fast which would help it avoid the flak.

I think with the Stuka its survivability was as much in its style of attack and tactics. Where as all the other aircraft attack mainly from a lower height in a shallow dive the Stuka dived from medium altitude and at a steep angle presenting a smaller target, also I guess the dive would mean shells meant to go off at a given altitude wouldn't work too well, also I've read Stuke pilots would fly over there target and then turn round so there pointing back towards they way they came so when they attacked on the way out of the dive they would be pointing towards home minimising there chance of getting hit while manouvering to get out of the flak area. It would also mean the pilot would stand more chance of bailing over freindly lines.

AFAIK the A10 doesn't have redundent hydraulics, it does have manual control for all control surfaces and the under carrage can be lowered without hydraulic pressure.

anarchy52
08-26-2005, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
Obviously WWII technology was very different, jets were not available, materials and construction tech were more primitive, etc. The keys to flak survivability in WWII:
1) Small size (less area to get hit)
2) Air cooled engine
3) Armor for pilot and engine
4) "overbuilt" airframe
5) redundant systems (engines)
Based on these characteristics, here are my top 10 list for FB planes:
1) IL2 1,2,3,4

Il-2:
- single inline liquid cooled engine
- Very large (for a single engined plane)
- slow and heavy

Il-2 had extremely high attrition rate despite the impressive armour protecting the pilot.

HS-129
- Heavy armour (more armour then Il-2)
- 2 radial air cooled engines
- minimal silouete (especially front)

Sounds ideal, but:
2 unreliable engines of inadequate power made flying on one engine very difficult. Cramped cockpit, disasterous flight characteristics especially in 75mm cannon armed version.

Interesting parallels to A-10. A-10 was built for specific purpose, specific enemy and specific tactics. Enemies, tactics and tasks changed...

Daiichidoku
08-26-2005, 07:58 AM
jets WERE available, and in fact, 262s were jabos before they were even "fighters"

the 262 should be on the list if only by virtue of its speed in the attack, maybe a fast prop in the right place can catch it...but hard for flak to catch it, at least more so than if the flak was shooting at a prop goin 100 mph slower


the Do 335 would have also been a fine, long range jabo, if it had enough time


dunno why anyone mentioned the B 17...its nto a jabo, its a bomber, pure n simple

as anothe rmentioned, the 'cats were left out....a mistake!

but even more so, you failed ot mention the corsair, easily in the top 3 jabos of WWII, and in the top 10 of all time

249th_Harrier
08-26-2005, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
Heh. First comment is that there's only six in your top ten list. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif However, I can see that it'll get pretty difficult to distinguish between the aircraft you've not mentioned, so fair play.

I pretty much agree with your lineup, in order. I'm a dedicated Sturmo pilot myself and am amazed at how much effort it can take to down one.

The weak radiator is an achilles heel to flak, though.

T.

Ok, baby started to cry before I could proofread post, I just now fixed the original post and changed title now to make more clear: flak survivability for jabo aircraft. This is interesting to me because the great majority of jabo aircraft lost to hostile action in WWII were shot down by flak, not by fighters. There were some experiments by the 9th AF to use twin-engine bombers (B-25??) as jabos, and the result was total failure, since the large bombers were too vulnerable to small-caliber flak.

Kuna15
08-26-2005, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
jets WERE available, and in fact, 262s were jabos before they were even "fighters"

the 262 should be on the list if only by virtue of its speed in the attack, maybe a fast prop in the right place can catch it...but hard for flak to catch it, at least more so than if the flak was shooting at a prop goin 100 mph slower


the Do 335 would have also been a fine, long range jabo, if it had enough time


dunno why anyone mentioned the B 17...its nto a jabo, its a bomber, pure n simple

as anothe rmentioned, the 'cats were left out....a mistake!

but even more so, you failed ot mention the corsair, easily in the top 3 jabos of WWII, and in the top 10 of all time

I agree Daiichi. B-17 certainly don't fit JABO role, I shouldn't mention it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

249th_Harrier
08-26-2005, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
jets WERE available, and in fact, 262s were jabos before they were even "fighters"

the 262 should be on the list if only by virtue of its speed in the attack, maybe a fast prop in the right place can catch it...but hard for flak to catch it, at least more so than if the flak was shooting at a prop goin 100 mph slower


the Do 335 would have also been a fine, long range jabo, if it had enough time


dunno why anyone mentioned the B 17...its nto a jabo, its a bomber, pure n simple

as anothe rmentioned, the 'cats were left out....a mistake!

but even more so, you failed ot mention the corsair, easily in the top 3 jabos of WWII, and in the top 10 of all time

According to my sources, Me262 was a terrible jabo. The bomb load had to be balanced by fuel in the tanks, and it became unbalanced as the fuel burned off. The Me262 was very susceptible to small caliber flak, and high command did not want their secret weapon to fall into enemy hands, so they were ordered to make their attacks from relatively high altitude, and bombing accuracy was poor. The advantage of the Me262 as a jabo in late '44 was that it could actually penetrate the allied fighter screen, prop planes couldn't. The Arado was a much better jet bomber, but not really a CAS plane. The Arado's could attack allied supply lines and conduct reconaissance despite overwhelming air superiority by the allies.

p1ngu666
08-26-2005, 09:33 AM
they later did some low level jabo raids, 262 jabo is very fast, ok bomb load, thats it really.

typhoon/tempest better than spit/p40 etc, very strong airframes, really aggressive looking planes. german troops really feared rocket firing typhoons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

il2 is very good jabo plane, hs129 is good, but they chose to have 2 **** engines http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif always a bad plane to pick a engine that u know isnt good for a combat plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

WOLFMondo
08-26-2005, 09:52 AM
The Sabre had that distinctive whine as well which let you know what was coming for you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Von_Zero
08-26-2005, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
HS-129
- Heavy armour (more armour then Il-2)
- 2 radial air cooled engines
- minimal silouete (especially front)

Sounds ideal, but:
2 unreliable engines of inadequate power made flying on one engine very difficult. Cramped cockpit, disasterous flight characteristics especially in 75mm cannon armed version.

The engines were indeed horribly unreliable, but from all pilot accounts i've read about the Hs-129, flying on one engine, wasn't "very difficult". Simple? Obviously not, nobody would wish to leave home with 2 engines and get back with only one working, but "very difficult" would be imo a little bit too much. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Especially since they operated very close to the frontline (on the EF, at least) the distance a pilot had to go on only one engine or a damaged airframe (i've heard of Hs-129 getting back with holes of almost 1/3 of the wing surface, or braking in 2 when the tail wheel touched the ground) wasn't much of an issue.
The disatrous flight caracteristics.... maybe for the "Bis @$$ cannon version"... otherwise... i've read no complains about its maneuvrability from romanian assault pilots... and most of them camed from a fighter unit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
2 more things i think should worth o be mentioned:
1. The Hs-129 had all the wapons close to the central axis, thus making aiming a tad easier (imagine firing the 190 inboard cannons versus the outsides one)
2. The short and curved nose gaved a much better frontal view especially good when it comes to flying low.

Aslo i don't understand what the P-51 does in that list, especially with the "one hit- dead engine" wonder and the radiator directly under the belly. IMHO, a P-39 would fare better...

Kocur_
08-26-2005, 11:05 AM
Making Il-2 a No1 of survivability is a khem...mistake. In 1942 Il-2 crew would receive Hero of Soviet Union for completing 10 (ten) missions...In summer 1942 during fights around city of Voronezh a Il-2 was lost for 4,5 sortie!! In total for entire WW2 two seat Il-2's losses were one per 26 sorties. To compare: losses of VVS fighters were 1 per 35 sorties, for Pe-2 bombers - 1 per 45 sorties. Now compare it with P-47, which was used extensively as ground attack plane, loss ratio, which was 1 per 135 sorties!

jarink
08-26-2005, 12:35 PM
1. P-47 - Nothing else could dish it out or take it like this plane could.
2. F4U - Somewhat more vulnerable to ground fire than the Jug, but still carried a mongo load.
3. FW-190F - Most of the fighter goodness of the "A" series, with extra armor for that warm fuzzy feeling.
4. Tempest - Britsh equivalent of the Jug. Not quite as much bomb load, but certainly useful.
5. P-39/P-63 - As used by the VVS. Not as heavy a bombload as the planes above, but the hub gun packed a whallop. Somewhat underrated as a fighter due to lack of high altitude performance, but that doesn't really matter when you only fly on the deck, does it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The IL-2 and HS-129 were not Jabos. They were designed for CAS, not a fighter role.

Daiichidoku
08-26-2005, 01:02 PM
amazing no-one has mentioned the mossie yet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

decent protection, at least by virture of damage "aboorbing" wood

excellent speed

excellent payload

excellent firepower

excellent range

two crew, for extra Mk I eyeballs

decent fighting ability

twin engine safety, even if liquid cooled

simple construction, relativly easy to make, and easy to repair

249th_Harrier
08-26-2005, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
1. P-47 - Nothing else could dish it out or take it like this plane could.
2. F4U - Somewhat more vulnerable to ground fire than the Jug, but still carried a mongo load.
3. FW-190F - Most of the fighter goodness of the "A" series, with extra armor for that warm fuzzy feeling.
4. Tempest - Britsh equivalent of the Jug. Not quite as much bomb load, but certainly useful.
5. P-39/P-63 - As used by the VVS. Not as heavy a bombload as the planes above, but the hub gun packed a whallop. Somewhat underrated as a fighter due to lack of high altitude performance, but that doesn't really matter when you only fly on the deck, does it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The IL-2 and HS-129 were not Jabos. They were designed for CAS, not a fighter role.

Ok, I guess the "jagter" part of "jabo" would rule out the IL2, but I guess what I really meant was aircraft operating in the CAS role, whether they were purpose built or not.

What I am really curious about is what really provides protection against WWII aircraft enemy number 1: small caliber flak? Does speed really matter if you have to slow down to strafe or drop bombs? Does having an extra engine really help? Was the IL2 approach with heavy armor a success or a failure? Would P-47s have done any better in the missions that the IL2 performed?

horseback
08-26-2005, 02:26 PM
One major fault with jarink's list: the Tempest was not used very much, if at all, as a bombtruck. That was the Typhoon's job, and it did it extremely well, easily the best of the Western Allies' 'jabos'.

As to whether the P-47 could have done better than the Il-2 at the same jobs, the answer is probably, but the casualty list would still be exorbitant, and it took a lot more skill to fly a Jug well in the ground attack role, driving the cost even higher per sorty when you factor in the cost of the aircraft...

cheers

horseback

Von_Zero
08-26-2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Now compare it with P-47, which was used extensively as ground attack plane, loss ratio, which was 1 per 135 sorties!
that comparision includes planes lost in other soerties then ground attack? Or is just refering to GA missions? Not trying to derrate any of the utility of the Jug in such role, but i doubt the P-47 flew as many GA sorties as the Il-2 did, and to it's extent. (Like attacking infantry, or individual soldiers)

Kocur_
08-26-2005, 04:06 PM
That is about all combat losses, both from LW planes and flak. The same in case of Il-2 btw.

In fact I wouldnt be sure what was more P-47 sories: escort missions or GA! There were far more P-47 groups later in 1944 when escort missions were mostly performed by P-51's and majority of Jugs were performing GA.
Anyway Il-2's took horrible losses. Armoured front of the plane is not enough to provide high durability. Il-2 with wooden rest of airframe were easy to destroy due to poor quality of production. Il-2 was also designed not so effectively: armour was present also on top of the engine, oil radiator was protected insufficiently. In fact there would be no necessity of making the plane that heavy empty if radial engine was used...Also gunner position had no protection from behind, so death ratio for pilots/gunners is 1/7...One Il-2 lost per 26 sorties is number for two seaters, for one-seater its 1/11!
Greater payload makes P-47 better GA plane too, because to achieve the same result in destroying enemy targets it would take less sorties by P-47 than by Il-2, which means less time spent in danger zone. Due to poor handling Il-2s were often armed with 4-8 RS-82 rockets only, and the greatest bomb load used was 400kg, and 600kg later in war. P-47 bomb load was usually 908-1134kg.

Slater_51st
08-26-2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by jarink:

The IL-2 and HS-129 were not Jabos. They were designed for CAS, not a fighter role.

Jarink, read the title of the thread, "Flak survivability: Close Air Support aircraft" I don't see Jabo in there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Personally, I think from the original list, that the P-40 and Typhoon/Tempest should be alone and Spit and -51 should drop down a notch. There's little doubt in my mind that the -40 and the Typhoon could soak up far more damage than a Spit or a -51.

Btw, I like this thread!

S! Slate

Von_Zero
08-26-2005, 05:37 PM
Greater payload makes P-47 better GA plane too, because to achieve the same result in destroying enemy targets it would take less sorties by P-47 than by Il-2, which means less time spent in danger zone. Due to poor handling Il-2s were often armed with 4-8 RS-82 rockets only, and the greatest bomb load used was 400kg, and 600kg later in war. P-47 bomb load was usually 908-1134kg.
Well... there is "no less time spent in danger zone" when it comes to assault aicraft... Like the Hs-129, they didn made just one pass dropping bombs, and then rtb (i am not reffering to certain cases, there might be and for sure there are exceptions), but rather stay in the target area, chasing down each enemy soldier/vehicle, being shot at by "every man carring a weapon", and even thrown stones/sticks at you (i've read about such cases http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif ).
Again i am not trieing to imply the P-47 wasn't a good GA plane, but just for the sake of clarification, i think we could rule out the A2A mission performed by the Il-2, and assume the vast majority of the sorties were CAS... if we take in consideration the sheer number of them, and the necesities of the EF, of flying several missions/day (sometinmes impressive number i would say - and i just see Lexx coming in here posting about that certain "he-knows-which" day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif - ) the il-2 had more GA sorties than the Jug.
Greater payload would'n always meant a good attack plane. I think the Hs-129 for example could not carry the same paylod, the Il-2 did, but it looks as a better GA plane to me.

Kocur_
08-26-2005, 06:13 PM
Well... there is "no less time spent in danger zone" when it comes to assault aicraft... Like the Hs-129, they didn made just one pass dropping bombs, and then rtb (i am not reffering to certain cases, there might be and for sure there are exceptions), but rather stay in the target area, chasing down each enemy soldier/vehicle, being shot at by "every man carring a weapon", and even thrown stones/sticks at you (i've read about such cases ).

Agreed. It depends largely on kind of target. If its say, heavily AA defended railway station with some supply trains, it would be MUCH better to make one fast pass dropping bombshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif On the other hand if it was truck column with no or little AA...


Again i am not trieing to imply the P-47 wasn't a good GA plane, but just for the sake of clarification, i think we could rule out the A2A mission performed by the Il-2, and assume the vast majority of the sorties were CAS... if we take in consideration the sheer number of them, and the necesities of the EF, of flying several missions/day (sometinmes impressive number i would say - and i just see Lexx coming in here posting about that certain "he-knows-which" day - ) the il-2 had more GA sorties than the Jug.

Oh I would guess Il-2 made more GA sorties than P-47. Still if we are talking about surviving above battle field Il-2 was nothing like survivor. That loss/sorties 1/26 is still RATIO, no matter how many sorties there were, statistically Il-2 was not a survivor, not at all. Btw. "black death" is soviet propaganda invention, Wehrmacht troops called them rather "Zementbomber", they fell so easy...



I think the Hs-129 for example could not carry the same paylod, the Il-2 did, but it looks as a better GA plane to me.

Their payloads were about equal, i.e. 400-500kg bombs. And Hs-129 looks better for me too: two engines, two air cooled engines!, very well protected pilot, better forward view and it was even somewhat smaller than Il-2. What is common for both are lousy handling characteristics:]

Xiolablu3
08-26-2005, 06:39 PM
La7 stands a bit of punishment.

The Fw190A seems to stand a LOT of mg fire when attacking bombers in one, you can see the shots hitting your windscreen, it takes a lot of 7.62 gun turret shots before one goes thru.

IL2s are flying tanks also of course.


Most planes are vunerable to pilots kills thru glass, some will take a lot of hits before one finally goes thru tho, you can see the flashes when they hit the glass.

I dont agree woth the spits, they are very 'soft' planes in my experience. They dont stand up to punishment very well, same as 109's.

If I had these 4 planes I was attacking and a choice of which to follow and shoot down I would go in this order:-

1. Spitfire - hardly use any ammo to shoot him down.
2.La7 Take a LOT of ammo, very hard to down, often 6-10 20mm hits+ mg.

3.Fw190A - Just a bit harder than La7 to down, takes a LOT of hits.

4.IL2 - Very Very hard to get down without using a LOT of ammo or you get a lucky wing break or PK. I wouldnt bother attacking one with just .303/7.92 MG, Even with .50 cal its doubtfull you will get him down.

Therefore I guess they stand up to groundfire this way too.

jarink
08-26-2005, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
One major fault with jarink's list: the Tempest was not used very much, if at all, as a bombtruck. That was the Typhoon's job, and it did it extremely well, easily the best of the Western Allies' 'jabos'.

Bah, my bad. I was thinking "Typhoon" but wrote "Tempest", no doubt due to influence from some of the RAF fans on these forums.

p1ngu666
08-26-2005, 09:22 PM
tempests where used for bombing, they didnt rocket (although cleared)

the il2 had a few misfortunes, 1 there wasnt a suitable radial engine avalible when designing it.

2 some smartass in the higher levels of comunist party (maybe) thought that it didnt need a rear gunner, so it was redesigned as a single seater, and we know what happened...

3 1 in 26 sorties, a lancaster was 1 in 21 i think.

stalin placed alot of pressure on factories to produce il2s, wherent allowed to stop to make changes. quality suffered, things where'nt filed smooth.

still a formidable plane, some where even made in -40c by starving people in a open roofed factory. 2x as cold as my freezer, and 77c difference from ambient temp to what your body temp needs tobe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

compaired to other 2 seater planes, and hs129 the il2 is pretty good

LEXX_Luthor
08-26-2005, 11:11 PM
88-Keys Jippo posted that Ju-87 was given that Stuvi shallow bomb sight because steep dive bombing at low speeds was more vulnerable then high speed high altitude shallow dive attack. Jippo posted that the vertically diving Stuka of the Olde Days offered not enough translation speed relative to the flak guns. Early in the war, frontline flak was not very intense -- nothing like the numbers of late war flak. The slow diving Stuka could not handle this kind of flak concentration, unlike its success in the early days of small numbers of Army flak.

I now think dive bombers went out of fashion in European warfare because dive bombing speeds were very low, and flak increased astronomically between 1939 and 1944.

* If this reasoning applies to dive bombing against super flak ships and their escorts in the Pacific I don't know. There may be other things to think about. I think torpedo attacks were more effective, if you had reliable torpedoes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and if the defence lacked air...defence. There really is no equivalent of torpedo attack in air-ground close support, although IL-2 could come close. Pilots recall going in very low during the attack. Not sure really.

I am obviously contradicting myself here, but its interesting to think about, and I am using a large number of "I thinks" here.

WOLFMondo::
I think with the Stuka its survivability was as much in its style of attack and tactics. Where as all the other aircraft attack mainly from a lower height in a shallow dive the Stuka dived from medium altitude and at a steep angle presenting a smaller target, also I guess the dive would mean shells meant to go off at a given altitude wouldn't work too well, also I've read Stuke pilots would fly over there target and then turn round so there pointing back towards they way they came so when they attacked on the way out of the dive they would be pointing towards home minimising there chance of getting hit while manouvering to get out of the flak area. It would also mean the pilot would stand more chance of bailing over freindly lines.

JtD
08-27-2005, 04:11 AM
My vote goes to a plane that has high speed (esp. in shallow dives), small size and the one that is best at this is imho the Focke Wulf 190.

Many Allied planes that could also be a good choice, lose to the Focke because they are bigger. A Jug for example has roughly two times the size.