Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Huck |
Posted on May 07, 2004 12:15 am
|
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 20 Member No.: 41 Joined: July 11, 2003 |
I was wondering which proved more effective with Romanian forces: the assault aviation or the medium armor? I know it's a little bit (or more) of apple/oranges comparison but still.. say we take as a criteria the number of armor / artillery pieces and vehicles destroyed. Who got better scores: the aprox 400 Hs-129 and Ju-87 (and some Ju-88 used in attack missions) or the 200+ PIV and StugIII?
I am always amazed when I look at the scores that German assault aviations got. Top scorers are much better than their ground based counterparts. Take a look at this list: http://www.luftwaffe.cz/tank.html I know that pilots have a tendency to overclaim due to objective reasons (impossibility to check the claim during the mission). Nevertheless the numbers are impressive. Aces alone claimed 4369 tanks (other vehicles are not included in this total) and this was done with a very small force, usually not in excess of 1000 planes. Soviets apparently understood better the importance of attack aviation, producing Il-2 in numbers comparable with their tanks (Il-2 is probably the plane with the largest production numbers of all times). For me it's hard to understand why Axis countries, that lacked the amounts of steel needed to make an effective armor force (against soviets, that is) did not try to make a larger assault aviation (which apparently was very effective). Possible reasons might be the lack of fuel and qualified pilots, but none were serious before spring of '44. But let's return to the original question: how effective was Romanian assault aviation? I know that we have really knowledgeable people here in this subject (like Denes who wrote a book about Hs-129). I'm anxious to learn your opinion. |
Dénes |
Posted on May 07, 2004 12:43 am
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
There are no reliable hard figures available, so any result would be only speculative. Therefore I am not casting a vote.
BTW, you did not include among the choices the AT cannon, which also accounted for a considerable number of AFV 'kills'. |
C-2 |
Posted on May 10, 2004 01:17 pm
|
General Medic Group: Hosts Posts: 2453 Member No.: 19 Joined: June 23, 2003 |
Dif.aircrafts on dif.jobs...
Cannot vote.... |