The A1 Skyraider was flying from 1945 (in actual service the following year), and lasted until 1973.
Last edited:
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
Derek Pullem
Donor
Skyraiders only became armoured ground attack aircraft with the Korean War retrofits. They weren't designed that way (or no more than say a P-47 was). Heavily armoured ground attack aircraft are (and were) a dead end unless you are prepared to accept high losses (Soviets) or have air superiority (Germans early war). Arguably A-10 had the same issues - more cost effective to use fighter bombers.
Actually, they had some armour from the start, but got more of it in the Korean War. And they absolutely were designed for that role, or they wouldn't have received the 'A-' designator.
The "commandeered" Fighter-Bombers were actually more useful, being able to defend themselves if they are attacked in the air. All your examples were easy meat for any fighter that happened across them.
Derek Pullem
Donor
A = attack not armoured which I think is the point that was being made about Il-2/-10 and HS 129
Otherwise a Hurribomber and an A-20 / Boston qualify.
But much more survivable in resisting ground fire.
The Skyraider was armoured.
Heck, even the Japanese had an armoured attack aircraft the Mitsubishi Ki-51B.
Last edited:
Derek Pullem
Donor
So were most cockpits of fighter bombers and many gunner positions on bombers. The point about Il-2 and Hs-129 was that they traded speed and manoeuvrability for armour. which mostly proved to be an evolutionary dead end unless the ONLY threat was from light weapon ground fire.
The Germans made really specialized "schlacht" bombers, the latest versions of the Ju87 and Hs129. But their ultimate ground support aircraft were the F and G versions of the famous Fw190. They got limited armour, specialized weaponry. Although they could no longer be considered fighter planes, they were certainly not lame ducks and flying targets for the enemy...
Derek Pullem
Donor
Which is kind of my point - it was easier to fit a decent ground attack weapon / cannon on an existing fighter bomber. British did this with the Typhoon (which also got some extra armour but nothing like an Il-2 or Hs-129).
To be fair: these specialized armored aircraft were very effective under certain circumstances. The main advantage was their resistance to light AAA, compared to fighter-bombers. However, they required at least temporary, spatially defined air supremacy. Air superiority was not enough. Once an adequate number of enemy fighters got to them, they were screwed.
Check this video, starting at ~40:20. Fighters aren't effective against tanks.
Last edited:
Except Winston Churchill is currently Prime Minister. Having more ships means carrying out more operations, not reducing wear-and-tear.
The only mediating factor I can see (edit: regarding demand on dockyard facilities) is that if the Imperial Japanese can be rolled back far enough to keep regular bomber attacks out then the ship maintenance/repair facilities at Singapore presumably become available for Allied use.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
What was the principal purpose of ground attack aircraft, prior to the deployment of first wire guided anti tank missiles, it wasn’t to take out tanks. Rather it was to disrupt the supply chain to the front line, and cause the infantry and artillery to take cover, and thus degrade their performance. With tank formations, the constant need to button down, and the interdiction of particularly fuel supplies could seriously disrupt, ether an attack or units in defence and or assembling. No one needs aircraft to be effective against tanks directly, they just need them by attacking the support assets of the tank formation, without which the tanks rapidly lose their effectiveness. In many ways the most effective aircraft against tanks directly was the American Piper Cub and the British Auster, both extensively used as AOP’s, and able to spot tanks and then call down large scale artillery fire on to them.
RR.
RR.
Sometimes it was to take out tanks. Yes, taking out the support infrastructure is good, but tanks do carry their own fuel and ammunition for a short way. Of course, a ground-attack aircraft doesn't need to be single-engined, twin-engined designs will work well enough. Take, f.e. the Bristol Beaufighter. Its a torpedo bomber, so it can fly acceptably with hundreds of pounds of weight, which, instead of going on a torpedo, could instead go on armour and a Molins gun. Or just armour, and switch the 20mm guns out for a Molins in the tank-killer variants.
Derek Pullem
Donor
He didn't say that. He said that fighter bombers didn't kill as many tanks as they claimed. He did say that fighter bombers were critical in eliminating support vehicles and inflicting a serious morale hit on tankers. Il-2 and Hs-129 may kill more tanks if they have air superiority - the fighter bombers can give you that air superiority and do enough to degrade opposing armoured formations
I don't think you could shoehorn a Molins into a Beaufighter without some serious redesign. But it's really a dead end, because you're building an aircraft to do one job, when you need it to do several. There's a reason that there were only 18 Tse-Tse Fly Mosquitoes, because the rocket equipped Mosquitoes were more operationally flexible.
You probably can, if you ditch all of the Hispanos. Remember, they did get the Mollins to fit in a Mossie, IIRC, they even got a 32-pounder in the Mossie.
WRT lower RN losses, that also means that ghere are more CVs around. That could mean that RN does manage to get some experience, no matter how limited, in employment of multiple Carriers together. However, considering the differences between OTL and ATL, especially with Malta not requiring fighting convoys through to it, would it not mean that RN would not learn some of these lessons or would not be convinced that changes to the existing practices are as critical as being described as. While Grumman Wildcat/Martlet entering large scale service with FAA is obviously a good thing, will we see any changes to OTL FAA aircraft lineup, with perhaps some designs entering production and service earlier?
We have seen British do another exercise, learning no doubt valuable lessons, be it in doctrine, organization or use, but what I was wondering, what does change from OTL in this area? Equipment side of things is much better then OTL, with British tankers mostly worried about fighting, not about the performance of their tanks.
What were the problems and issues that British faced OTL when using armoured and/or mechanised units and what has been done so far, how better is their understanding of these units and their employment on the battlefield.
Great work Allan, keep it up!
We have seen British do another exercise, learning no doubt valuable lessons, be it in doctrine, organization or use, but what I was wondering, what does change from OTL in this area? Equipment side of things is much better then OTL, with British tankers mostly worried about fighting, not about the performance of their tanks.
What were the problems and issues that British faced OTL when using armoured and/or mechanised units and what has been done so far, how better is their understanding of these units and their employment on the battlefield.
Great work Allan, keep it up!
Ah yes, the Wildcat/Martlet, an abject lesson in why letting anyone but the navy dictate naval aircraft needs was a mistake. It might have been an inferior carrier fighter for the era, but it was still better than anything the British had available at the time (the Sea Hurricane didn't have folding wings, and the Seafire's landing gear was too narrow).
Last edited:
Well it's nice to see the same old misinformed statements coming out about the RN lacking experience using carriers together being rolled out against all the information available.
RN carriers trained as air groups before the war in the Med for strikes against the Italian fleet while under Lumley Lyster in Glorious and Dudley Pound as CnC Med. Pedestal is an example of the RN Carriers working together without any issues, it was one of the few times the RN could concentrate carriers together
The main reason the RN didn't operate carrier air groups until later in the war was that there were to few ships to cover too many warzones, the RN was on a par with the IJN in using multiple carriers but did not have the ability to concentrate them into one striking group due to the need to cover so many deployment areas.