1940s air force questions

The time frame is late 30s early 40s (say '38 to '45).

What value is a dedicated attack aircraft (Sturmovik/Stuka) as opposed to a fighter with a bomb slung underneath? And do they become less useful as the time period progresses?

And is there any point to a bomber bigger than a Blenheim/Mosquito? More Mosquitos are surely better than fewer Lancasters (more precise, faster, fewer crew and cheaper to replace if shot down).

My thinking is that it may be more useful to have a Sturmovik without the rear gunner and a better engine than use a fighter, and use the spare fighters to battle for air superiority, and that a Mosquito (or three) is the only bomber you need.

I'd be interested to hear other opinions and see if I'm going wrong.

Something like the Stuka is good for pinpoint bombing, whereas the Sturmovik is more of a mobile tank hunter with more ammo than a footslogger.

Yes, bigger plane means longer range, bigger and more heavier payload. By D-Day Lancaster crews where able to drop a 22,000 pound payload onto a target sometimes less than 800 yards away from frontline troops and not cause an friendly casualties. Later on you get the Gram Slam bombs.

The Mossie was really for small raids (like a certain power station or a prison), planes like the Lancaster were the ones that really brought the pain.

Could you load a Sturmovik with several RP-3s or equivalent and get a similar accuracy to divebombing?

But could not two Mosquitos (if for the sake of argument we assume a direct correlation between engines and number of planes) do the same sort of damage with their 4,000lb bombs from a low level?

The Mossie had a loss rate of 0.5% as compared to 5% for the Lancaster, and could place its bombs in railway tunnel mouths. It could also in theory penetrate to Berlin, return, refuel and then be over Germany as the Lanc came in to land.

I guess it comes down to your views on strategic bombing. If you don't subscribe to it's utility early on, you're not likely to have the planes or crews capable of the sort of accuracy achieved later on.

Smaller nations are also less likely to have the resources to dedicate to a strategic bomber force (Bomber Command took considerable numbers of the best pilots and resources; if not for use in heavy bombers there would have been no need to subcontract Merlin production to the US).

A 65% death rate for those who made it to operations has been suggested for Bomber Command alone.

My personal, largely uninformed, opinion on the matter is that fighters had to be very light due to concerns about manoeuvrability and lower-powered engines of the day, to improve their dogfighting.
With ground attack aircraft, this wasn't so much an issue.

As more powerful engines were developed allowing more fuel, munitions, and weapons (such as bombs, rockets, etc) to be carried, and ground attack aircraft began falling prey to the fighters, the advantage of a combined-role fighter-bomber became obvious, which partly superseded the two aircraft.

In the jet age, the two aircraft became distinct again, for reasons more due to specialisation of the airframe, as opposed to physical technical constraints.

Is my opinion. For the period, distinct aircraft (armoured ground attack with minimal defensive armament and dedicated fighters) would surely be the way to go.

Original Il-2 Sturmoviks didn't have a rear gunner. Units soon improvised out of necessity until they got proper rear gun positions. Give it a better engine and you have the Il-10 Sturmovik, introduced in 1945 and seeing combat over the Seelow Heights and in Manchuria. Il-10s kept the rear gunner despite having engine power enough to dogfight Fw190s. I think it was for good reason.

Il-2 units' tactics for dealing with enemy fighters once forced to break formation, if they absolutely had to (a hail of 12.7mm fire from multiple, tighly-packed Il-2s was enough to deter any Bf109 pilot from a direct attack from the upper rear), was to pair off so at least one could get into an advantageous enough position to shoot it down, as Il-2s had just enough speed and manoeuvrability to pull it off working in twos or threes.
It still very often came down to the rear gunners because even in a low-speed turning fight even the Bf109E, the lowest-performing Bf109 the Germans deployed, was easily agile enough to win a turning dogfight against the single-seaters; all he has to do is take them out one by one. If he can't safely pull up behind you and start shooting the tactic becomes a whole lot more effective because he now has to look for a direction to attack safely from, giving you and your wingman or two more time and more space to deal with him. The rear gun is well worth the extra weight and speed lost in turns. Early field-modification open ring mounts which retained the single-seater cabin profile did not have such a problem of losing speed in turns and could traverse 360 degrees rather than the roughly 90-degree field of fire of the dedicated rear gun positions, and also had superior depression because of the higher mount.

The kind of precision, on-the-fly ground attack of enemy troop, supply, artillery and tank concentrations that the Il-2 performed demanded heavy guns and heavy armour, limiting how fast such an airframe could be pushed until late war. Having a rear gunner was vital for survival against enemy fighters. Speed not so much, due to the nature of the role. Mosquito pilots, on the other hand, had comparatively no armour and struck their targets hard and fast. They were not specialist tank-busters and could not hang around in the flying tank role like the Sturmovik; they were precision bombers.

Some of the Il-10 pilots' first complaints was that their extra speed gave them less time to aim and fire at their ground targets, which reduced their efficiency. IIRC Il-10s also had their bomb load reduced from 600kg to 400kg, which meant they could not carry their 250kg bombs anymore, reducing their light bombing ability, because of their bigger engines. For reference, those few Yaks and Lavochkins which did carry bombs carried them rarely, and neither could carry more than two 100kg bombs. As they were refined they became just about the best lightweight fighters in the world at the time.

Did I mention Sturmoviks were capable dive-bombers from low altitude with rockets or bombs? Sturmoviks attacked in fast, fairly shallow dives from 500-1000m (usually) with great precision.

They were famous for carrying 82 and 132mm rockets. For most of the war they carried 3 or 4 on each wing but early 82mm racks were doubled up to 6 per wing. The rockets could also function air-to-air. They were rated to carry 6 rockets (late war they carried the same M-13s as Katyushas) in addition to their 600kg bomb load.

So essentially rear gun > engine power and flying tank > mosquitoes and fighter-bombers. Planes like the Il-2 have an undeniable niche. The Western allies didn't have an equivalent plane, yes, but they also didn't see the kind of ground combat the Soviets did, and often had total air superiority.

38 to 45 spans a MASSIVE amount of aviation development. There is no question that dedicated attack aircraft (such as dive-bombers) were better early in that period. Similarly, there is no question that, as the war wore on, heavy fighters grew more capable of filling that role. However, the "multirole" fighter really only began to happen in the 80s. Dedicated dive-bombers of course became worthless by 45, but they were THE thing in 35.

Keep the attack aircraft.

Range and cruising altitude with a worthwhile payload. Also, defensive armament. Remember, fighters don't become viable escorts until late in that time period.

Bit on bombers shamelessly nicked from Wikipedia.

This is where the Mossie comes in.

This is where planes like the Lancaster come in.

But could you not bomb power stations/factories and the like with Mosquitos and disrupt industry on the cheap (ie without the inaccuracy of large numbers of heavy bombers)? All you'd need is better reconnaissance/intelligence.

Or am I trying to make the Mossie do too much?

To be honest the Lancaster would have a much greater effect simply due to its larger payload, sure you can sue the Mossie to knock out power stations but the damage is usually repaired within a few hours. Large scale raid by a Lancaster means you're looking at having to build an entirely new power station.

Not to mention a Lancaster can drop UXBs (Butterfly Bombs especially) over a much larger area which would effectively bring an entire city grinding to a halt until the UXBs were dealt with. Grimsby is a good example of this;

http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/Grimsby-s-h...tail/story.html

Think F-105 vs B-52.

It largely depends on whether or not you have air-superiority, and if you are technoogically-advanced enough to make a fast, heavy, long-ranged, manuverable aircraft that can take lol-ridiculous amounts of damage.

In 1938... most planes couldn't multi too well...

The Skua, for example, had a tendancy to get raped in every role aside from being the first euopean carrier-capable plane.

The later P40s, although useful, were neither as good as the dedicated ground-pounders of the same era it was designed in, nor could they keep up with the modern fighter-jockies.

And using Strategic bombers for close air support... well... someone actually wanted to try that on June 4 1944 with some B-24s and B-17s...

It worked with the Lancaster despite the crews having done nothing but night missions for 4 years straight.

I assume your talking about the incident immediately prior to Operation Cobra in which the general was killed, because i believe you have the date off (Where would any CAS involving Fortresses and Liberators happen TWO DAYS prior to D-Day?).

If i am correct, you cant blame the bomber crews for the wind blowing the smoke designating the target off course.

The Mosquito will actually be a little less precise against strategic targets than a heavier bomber. Attacking from 100 feet isn't a viable option most of the time.

The Lancaster was not intended for precision strikes with more bombs compensating for lower accuracy; it was designed to kill everyone in Germany and flatten their houses.