Quote:
Originally Posted by Furio
They also lacked effective filters and suffered badly for dust and sand ingestion, both common occurrence in North Africa and Eastern Front.
|
Sorry, but this did happened in the first attempt on being delivered to North Africa. Later it was corrected, and the aircraft achieved some success, until allied air superiority was too much even for axis fighters...
Quote:
|
Lastly, they were not famous for their toughness, being usually put out of service by the slightest damage. With such an engine, having two of them cancels any safety advantage, actually doubling the chances of trouble.
|
Sorry again... but... this aircraft got it's engines protected from ground fire, and it wasn't described as an issue, at least after 1942.
Quote:
|
Engines aside, the HS129 was very slow, had bad handling and limited manoeuvrability, and had no rear defence. Therefore, it could be reasonably employed only against lightly defended targets. When it entered service, Luftwaffe had increasing difficulty in attaining air superiority and ultimately was unable to attain it even locally, and this ended HS129 career. In my opinion, as good as it were its cannons, the HS129 cannot be considered an effective weapon system.
|
You state a lot of true concepts, with a questionable conclusion. No airforce without air superiority would have had a successfull anti tank aircraft!
Those aircraft were all vulnerable to fighter attacks, since their armour was intended to protect them against hand held weapons, not canons.
They performed well at slow speeds, and low altitude, and that was it's job.
This same platform with better engines, would have been better, but the concept as it was, it was good.
It actually has a kind of a modern sibling on the A10. It is almost the same concept, with jets...