Nazi Germany has plenty of helicopters and sooner

[Ravenflight]

Except that fighter-bombers rarely hit their targets; US after action studies in France indicated that something like 1-2% of fighter-bomber kill claims could be substantiated. Even Stuka kills have been called into question, including Rudel's claims of 500+ Soviet AFVs and it was much slower and accurate.

True (about the kills), but the tanks were being (ineffectively for purposes of a kill) HIT. That's my point. The major win that allied airpower had over the Germans armour (and probably axis airpower vs the Soviet armour) was morale. They would spill out of their vehicles and leave them abandoned. The 20mm cannon would be enough.

Your helicopters would be just mince meat by any kind of fighter, no matter how fast the fighter is. Naturally the lower an aircraft's stall speed the better it would be in a possible WWII fighter vs helicopter battle, but that wouldn't change anything - the chopper would still be chopped.

Naturally, this is just my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

True (about the kills), but the tanks were being (ineffectively for purposes of a kill) HIT. That's my point. The major win that allied airpower had over the Germans armour (and probably axis airpower vs the Soviet armour) was morale. They would spill out of their vehicles and leave them abandoned. The 20mm cannon would be enough.

Your helicopters would be just mince meat by any kind of fighter, no matter how fast the fighter is. Naturally the lower an aircraft's stall speed the better it would be in a possible WWII fighter vs helicopter battle, but that wouldn't change anything - the chopper would still be chopped.

Naturally, this is just my opinion.

Vehicles weren't even being hit necessarily. There was the psychological impact of near misses and constant attacks, but that is very different from actually hitting something. It was very hard to hit something from a fighter if you aren't around similar speeds. The Me262 had that problem with the B17.

Given the engine power it would be a waste to even try and shoot them down with fighters, which is why modern air forces rely on ground fire to down helicopters.

 

[Just Leo]

Vehicles weren't even being hit necessarily. There was the psychological impact of near misses and constant attacks, but that is very different from actually hitting something. It was very hard to hit something from a fighter if you aren't around similar speeds. The Me262 had that problem with the B17.

Given the engine power it would be a waste to even try and shoot them down with fighters, which is why modern air forces rely on ground fire to down helicopters.

After battle intelligence of the Falaise Gap indicated that the rocket-firing Typhoons killed 2 tanks, with rockets. Tons of softer shelled vehicles were utterly ripped apart by cannon fire. Some functional tanks were abandoned due to unknown causes. Cannon-firing Hurricanes in Africa were deemed to hit half of what they shot at, and destroy half of what they hit. This does not mean that fighters cannot destroy helicopters, just that cannons, or rather machine guns would be a more appropriate option rather than unguided rockets.

I have played a computer simulator called ATAK where my F-22 had trouble hitting helicopters. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

After battle intelligence of the Falaise Gap indicated that the rocket-firing Typhoons killed 2 tanks, with rockets. Tons of softer shelled vehicles were utterly ripped apart by cannon fire. Some functional tanks were abandoned due to unknown causes. Cannon-firing Hurricanes in Africa were deemed to hit half of what they shot at, and destroy half of what they hit. This does not mean that fighters cannot destroy helicopters, just that cannons, or rather machine guns would be a more appropriate option rather than unguided rockets.

I have played a computer simulator called ATAK where my F-22 had trouble hitting helicopters. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

I was thinking more along the lines of how hard it was to shoot down the H129 and 123 due to their slow speed. Trying to hit a slow moving flyer is harder than hitting a virtually stationary (comparatively) ground target).

 

[Ravenflight]

which is why modern air forces rely on ground fire to down helicopters.

Yup, I mentioned that in my original reply to you and it seemed to go through to the keeper.

 

[Just Leo]

I was thinking more along the lines of how hard it was to shoot down the H129 and 123 due to their slow speed. Trying to hit a slow moving flyer is harder than hitting a virtually stationary (comparatively) ground target).

In Charles Lamb's book, My War in a Stringbag, he relates that he had devised an evasion manoeuver and explained it to a Skua "fighter" pilot. They flew off to test it and the Skua pilot crashed to his death in the sea. On the other hand, over Ceylon, and during the Channel dash, 788 sqn and Esmonde's band of Stringbags went down like bowling pins, a half dozen at a time. Swordfish fly at helicopter speeds, and they possess no guarantee of immunity or immortality. Pilotage and gunnery skills vary, as do evasion tactics. That's why ammunition comes on a long belt.

 

[Ravenflight]

In Charles Lamb's book, My War in a Stringbag, he relates that he had devised an evasion manoeuver and explained it to a Skua "fighter" pilot. They flew off to test it and the Skua pilot crashed to his death in the sea. On the other hand, over Ceylon, and during the Channel dash, 788 sqn and Esmonde's band of Stringbags went down like bowling pins, a half dozen at a time. Swordfish fly at helicopter speeds, and they possess no guarantee of immunity or immortality. Pilotage and gunnery skills vary, as do evasion tactics. That's why ammunition comes on a long belt.

Another thing (in agreement with you above) is:

Has there been any war since WWII where one side has had overwhelming air superiority and the other side a decent fleet of helicopters? I can't think of any.

Pretty much (I would think) once one side has air superiority they have... well... air superiority, and nothing flies for free unless the side with air superiority allows it. There might be some quick hops or dash missions, but it's not like there has ever been (to my memory - I could be wrong and would be interested in reading up on it) a war where one side went all out with helicopters because the enemy (jet) fighters couldn't touch them.

 

[sonofpegasus]

If the germans had deployed helicopters in large numbers one change would have been the mass deployment of mobile armoured light AA by the Alies. The Cromwell AA tank and others spring to mind and possibly the Canadian Skink being given more priority. The self propelled light AA in the form of the M16 quad 50, Bofors 40mm and the various Polsten 20mm mounts would also have been utalised. this would make it not healthy for a slow fragile helicopter to wander around over the Allied lines.

 

[Michele]

Except that fighter-bombers rarely hit their targets; US after action studies in France indicated that something like 1-2% of fighter-bomber kill claims could be substantiated. Even Stuka kills have been called into question, including Rudel's claims of 500+ Soviet AFVs and it was much slower and accurate.

You are quoting studies that focused on tanks not just hit, but made non-operational, by fighter bombers.

The reason being that tanks are armored.

If we look, instead, at the hit rate of fighter-bombers on non-armored ground vehicles such as trucks and trains, you'd see that fighter-bombers were rather effective against slow-moving targets.

As to the fighters being too fast, that's not an absolute problem. It was a problem because fighter pilots did not want to slow down too much, not because they couldn't. That applies to the example of Me 262s against B-17s. The fact was that the B-17s were not alone; they were accompanied by P-51s. Slowing down to hit a slow bomber would make a German fighter slow enough to become an easy target, in turn, especially with the poor agility of a Me 262. That was the real problem.

So this boils down to the obvious: helicopters are a success where the air force fielding them also has fighter superiority to effectively escort them - just like it worked, for instance, for the Stukas.
Wherever the air force fielding the helicopters does not enjoy air superiority, helicopters are dead meat.

Curiously enough, if the Germans, specifically, field a lot of helicopters early on, the British can use a dedicated fighter to hunt them down: the Boulton-Paul Defiant (of course escorted by serious, faster fighters), which in real history was quickly phased out. Ordinary fighters will, sooner or later, have a collision with their target if they keep firing at it and it is not moving away, because their line of fire is exactly the same as their course. That is not a problem for the Defiant given its strange weapon mount.
That this is a significant solution for engaging slow-moving targets at ease is not demonstrated, historically, by the Defiant - but it is demonstrated by the German fighter force, with the variants installing the schräge Musik weapon mount.

 

[thaddeus]

THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_43 + THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_Fl_282

mount the guns on fastest , lightest vehicle available, seems a better plan than the Tiger and Elefant to kill Soviet tanks?

not sure if it was feasible if Germany could have mounted R4M rockets on helicopters? of course not in the numbers (24 - 48) employed on planes.

 

[KACKO]

THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_43 + THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_Fl_282

mount the guns on fastest , lightest vehicle available, seems a better plan than the Tiger and Elefant to kill Soviet tanks?

not sure if it was feasible if Germany could have mounted R4M rockets on helicopters? of course not in the numbers (24 - 48) employed on planes.

Only problem is Kolibri wouldn't be able to pick up that gun from the ground.

 

[Imladrik]

THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_43 + THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_Fl_282

mount the guns on fastest , lightest vehicle available, seems a better plan than the Tiger and Elefant to kill Soviet tanks?

not sure if it was feasible if Germany could have mounted R4M rockets on helicopters? of course not in the numbers (24 - 48) employed on planes.

You realise that the biggest gun the German mounted on a plane is a 37mm gun ? And that he biggest gun mounted on a plane is a 105mm gun on a C-130 ? You would need something similar in size to mount a 88mm gun on a flying machine.

They probably could mount one or two R4M on a Fl 282, but the difference between the empty weight and take-off weight means that each rocket mean a little less fuel. Also, while modern Choppers are seen as good tank killers, this helo would have to go very close to the tanks it intended to kill, at a slow speed in an unarmoured flying object, meaning it would be downed very quickly by troops firing at it with machine guns.

 

[Michele]

Another thing (in agreement with you above) is:

Has there been any war since WWII where one side has had overwhelming air superiority and the other side a decent fleet of helicopters? I can't think of any.

Pretty much (I would think) once one side has air superiority they have... well... air superiority, and nothing flies for free unless the side with air superiority allows it. There might be some quick hops or dash missions, but it's not like there has ever been (to my memory - I could be wrong and would be interested in reading up on it) a war where one side went all out with helicopters because the enemy (jet) fighters couldn't touch them.

I don't think you are wrong, but the case you make is about jet fighters. Unfortunately they are not particularly relevant, because pretty soon, in the wars you are thinking about, jet fighters began sporting not just on-board guns, but also AAMs. These do not require the aircraft to fly straight at the target, and for several jet fighter models, they became the main form of air-to-air capability. Thus, in most of those wars, helicopters would have to fear these, more than on-board guns.

OTOH you could have mentioned not fighters but ground attack aircraft, like the A-10 or the Su 25. These continued carrying a sizable on-board cannon which is/was, mount-wise and ballistics-wise, not unlike a WWII-era fighter's guns: requiring the aircraft to fly straight towards the target.

These tank-killers work/worked pretty well, with their guns, even though they also have/had ASMs and guided bombs. Considering that they had to dodge, at the end of their firing run, not a dot in the sky but nothing less than the ground, an immobile obstacle surrounding their targets in every bi-dimensional direction, I suppose they could manage avoiding a small, slowly moving target in the air.
Indeed, ISTR that A-10 pilots also trained to engage enemy choppers, not with AAMs but with their gatling gun.

 

[Michele]

Only problem is Kolibri wouldn't be able to pick up that gun from the ground.

No, it's not the only problem. If you mounted an 88 on a Kolibri and fired the gun without even having lifted the Kolibri off the ground, the recoil would either overturn the machine or disassemble it. Or possibly both.

 

[KACKO]

No, it's not the only problem. If you mounted an 88 on a Kolibri and fired the gun without even having lifted the Kolibri off the ground, the recoil would either overturn the machine or disassemble it. Or possibly both.

Actually it would be more interesting if it picked it up and fire in the air.

 

[Astrodragon]

After battle intelligence of the Falaise Gap indicated that the rocket-firing Typhoons killed 2 tanks, with rockets. Tons of softer shelled vehicles were utterly ripped apart by cannon fire. Some functional tanks were abandoned due to unknown causes. Cannon-firing Hurricanes in Africa were deemed to hit half of what they shot at, and destroy half of what they hit. This does not mean that fighters cannot destroy helicopters, just that cannons, or rather machine guns would be a more appropriate option rather than unguided rockets.

I have played a computer simulator called ATAK where my F-22 had trouble hitting helicopters. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

Of course, if you shoot up the soft-skinned logistical tail those panzers aren't going anywhere...

 

[BigDave1967]

That would have been very helpful for the Third Reich to move SS shock troops to hot spots and pull out the wounded.

 

[thaddeus]

Only problem is Kolibri wouldn't be able to pick up that gun from the ground.

You realise that the biggest gun the German mounted on a plane is a 37mm gun ? And that he biggest gun mounted on a plane is a 105mm gun on a C-130 ? You would need something similar in size to mount a 88mm gun on a flying machine.

They probably could mount one or two R4M on a Fl 282, but the difference between the empty weight and take-off weight means that each rocket mean a little less fuel. Also, while modern Choppers are seen as good tank killers, this helo would have to go very close to the tanks it intended to kill, at a slow speed in an unarmoured flying object, meaning it would be downed very quickly by troops firing at it with machine guns.

NO NO NO sorry for the confusion, I meant use the helicopters for reconnaissance for Nashorns or self-propelled artillery or towed, just the fastest movement of that very effective gun possible.

of course it would be funny to see a WWII era copter TRYING to carry one!

only speculated a FI-282 could carry 2 -4 R4M rockets (?) that would provide a way to attack a tank or convoy if the opportunity arose.

 

[MattII]

BTW: helicopters are too slow, especially in WW2, to get taken out by aircraft; slower biplanes like the Hs123 were pretty much too hard to line up for a shot by a high performance fighter, so don't expect major kills to be happening from that.

Except that helicopters are a lot less manoeuvrable than most planes, so that isn't necessarily true.

Also, has anyone mentioned fuel yet?

 

[Pangur]

Reading the posts has put an idea in my mind namely that the Nazi passes plans to the Japanese who use them for ASW. They could make life very difficult for the US subs