VVS Vs. RAF

[arras]

And Il-2 versus HuricaneII:
Huricane with 40mm canoons was unstable gun platform + its performance suffered due to weight of canoons and ammo.
When arming Huricane with any reasonable bombload you have aircraft moving through air with speed of Il-2, having no rear gunner and armor for protection. Its only advantage is been able to efectively run from battle.

[plan_D]

First off, there's no need for you to try and tell me about the specifications of tanks. I know my tanks, just in case you didn't know. My statement was not a comparison statement. I was not comparing the Red Army armour numbers to British Army armour numbers.

The fact is in 1941 the Red Army had FEW T-34s, KV-1s and KV-2s. The backbone of the Red Army in 1941 was the T-26 as it was the majority tank! Developed from the Vickers 6 tonne.

In 1941, the Soviet Union had 28,800 AFVs. This was soon knocked down to 1506 in 7 months by the German onslaught. I don't know why you're babbling on because I never stated the British Armour was anywhere NEAR capable of countering the Soviet armour.
The Soviet Union received 22,800 AFVs from the Allies during World War 2. In fact, 14% of British war production went to the Soviet Union.

State anywhere on this ENTIRE website where I've said that British armour could counter Soviet armour. ANYWHERE!

del, I never stated the Meteor-III was the most ideal fighter for the task. I said that it could and would do it.

[delcyros]

No, Plan_D never states that the British had better tanks.
To the Hurricane, Arras: Yes but it originally was posted that the Hurricane with 40mm was intended as an tank hunter, not an Il-2 hunter (for this task it lacked in speed).
In 1941 such modified Hurricane could provide vital air support against soviet tanks. A 40mm gun would have a reasonable chance to destroy a T-34 with a single hit at most probable angles.
I reread an article about german military ordonance and found out that the MK-103, which replaced the MK-101 in the Hs-129, was only suited to attack from the rear or the top, where the vents are less protected.
A MK-103 has much more punch than a 20mm gun.
After Gunstons book, the soviets had the best 20 mm gun of the war. And those are better suited for dogfights, also.

[CTO]

Planes with canons were never effective in WW2 against tanks.

50 Hs129 flew an attack at 8.7.1943 an claimed 84 tanks destroyed, indeed only 6 were hit (means not destroyed) and none burning. The only unit which can be attacked by them, never had 84 tanks and lost 9 at this day, out of these 9 were some combat losses due heavy fighting with Waffen-SS.

[plan_D]

The Hurricane IID and IV were remarkable tank hunters. They could destroy anything in their time frame. They provided valuble service in the desert and were even used by the VVS.

Strangely enough, and I still can't work out why, the Hurricane IID was used in night fighting duties with the VVS.

On the anti-tank armament:

Mk103:

Round Weight: 330 grams
Rate of Fire: 360-420 rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 860

Hispano Mk.II:

Round Weight: 130 grams
Rate of Fire: 600 rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 880

As you can see, the Hispano is throwing more rounds out at a marginally higher speed but with one third of the weight of round. Velocity is important to an armour piercing round and both have it. The RoF however is also important, the Hispano is throwing more lead at the tank than the Mk103 and when we take into account that most likely it's going to be holes made in the vents that will cripple the tank; the RoF on the Hispano is going to almost make sure that at least some will puncture.

Both the Hispano 20mm and Mk103 30mm could destroy Soviet armour effectively.

[plan_D]

You base your whole opinion on that one combat report? Look up Hurricane IID and IV actions in North Africa. Or Ju-87G kills on the Eastern Front.

[delcyros]

Interesting. But I would like to see the sources for that. The red army doesn´t have (better doesn´t provide access to...)specific loss reports for their troops after all, I know. (I tried)
According to the Il-2 with heavy guns as well as the Ju-87 with 37mm guns and the Hs-129 with 30mm and 75mm guns and the tests made, I am pretty sure, you are wrong.
According to german OHL reports, the tanks suffered from Il2 attacks, according to the test serials at Rechlin, the Hs-129 with 30mm MK-101 can esily rip a tank up to T-34 size.

[delcyros]

weight per sec. is one thing, important against soft targets. But we are talking about hard ones. Therefore velocity AND weight is most important.Compared with a MK 103, the Hispano 20 mm gun has a much lower penetration depth against armor at best angles and is even more worse on less favourable angles (Where the impact weight of a grenade counts more).
With this in mind, the rounds of the 20mm would be much more probable to glance off than those of a MK 103. All the weight per sec. would have no effect against armor.
It´s just the same with the 30 mm MK 108. It has a very low velocity and decent weight plus a good rof (usually 660 rpm, this rate increased continuosly until they reached 850 rpm in late 1944). The combined weight per sec. is better than those of the Hispano but it has a worse penetration depth compared to it.

[plan_D]

The reason the Mk108 had low penertration was because of the low velocity. I'm not saying the Hispano and Mk103 were equal armour piercing because I know the Mk103 was better in the role.

However, when penertrating armour it's not the full weight of the round. It's the weight of the point that's punching the hole which is the tip. Velocity often plays the leading role in penertration capabilities (of course as long as the weight of the round is enough, which the 130 grams is). The RoF plays a high role in it as well because armour can collapse even continually under bombardment. Every dent is a weakness.
That's not the point though, the high RoF makes it more likely that more shells will enter the vents on top of the chassis thus destroying the tank.

[arras]

Plan_D >> ...cool down mate ...just in case you don't know them
...I was reacting to you underestimating T-34 and KV numbers and somebody else writing something about "exelent Matilda" (delcyros I think)

delcyros >> I was not comparing HuricaneII as Il-2 destroyer but as ground atack aircraft.

As for canoons versus tank armor ...when atacking tank, aircraft need to attack at quit shalow angle since it need to get quit close to hit such a small target and be able to evade collision with ground. That mean that shels will impact armor at big angle, I think 45degree+ and lot of them will bounce away. Also corect me if I am wrong but most aircraft canoons have used HE not AP shels ..not wery efective against armored target but the largest calibres.
Another think to consider is that projectile loose its penetration power over distance quickly, especialy small calibre.

That mean only vulnerable place are vents, which means you need luck and lot of rounds at target from close enough ...all in all, tank is not easy target for aircraft armed with standart aerial canoons.

Il-2 used containers of small HEAT bombs to destroy tanks.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In my opinion the Il-2 was not a very good aircraft but she was very good at what she did. One thing that helped her out though was the massive columns of Panzers. There were massive amounts of targets. Overall though the aircraft was heavy and slow and very easy target for the Luftwaffe fighters.

[delcyros]

Agreed. Just one thing to add: It was a considerable risk to attack the plane in a Bf-109, since it has a reputation of a good reargunner.
The Spitfire would suffer also in this way.

[delcyros]

From what I read, the HS 20 mm with AP MK IIZ rounds could pierce at best some 27 mm of armor at 0 degrees impact angle and 200 yards distance. This reduces to 19 mm at 40 degrees impact angle. The more common AP Mk IZ has 24mm at 0 and 15 mm at 40 degrees.
Such an equipped Hurricane may rip a T-26 but even a T-34 is more than unprobable. It could hurt, however.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

ok that's with 20mm, what about twin 40mm??

[Udet]

May I intervene?

Delcyros: your penultimate comment deserves further remarking.

The IL-2s earned no reputation whatsoever for having good rear gunners.
You refuse to believe they were undertrained, and that many many times those poor rear-gunners had a piece of adjusted canvas as their seat.

Before the IL-2M, the single-seat Shturmovik made an even more comfortable target.

The rear-gunner featuring in the Shturmoviks of course implied a risk for German fighter pilots, still it did not imply a signficant modification in the chances of the IL-2 when intercepted.

A box of heavies, packed with up to 10 .50 cal machine guns was extremely vulnerable to interception. Yes, the messy defensive barrage of B-17s and B-24s could manage to hit interceptors and to shoot some of them down.

A formation of, say, 40 B-17s carrying some 400 .50 cal could receive brutal treatment at the hands of a complete staffel of Bf109s or Fw190s.

A formation of 40 IL-2s with only 40 defensive guns was hopeless.

Right, the IL-2s rear gunners could manage to hit and to shoot down some German pilots, but the same thing was achieved by Stuka rear-gunners manning a lighter defensive machine gun.

There were Spitfire and Hurricane pilots who got hit and shot down by Stuka rear gunners during the Battle of Britain.


Finally, that there were cases of IL-2s "accepting dogfights" and managing to shoot down German fighters is an assertion produced in the realm of delusion.

Can you detect the smell of soviet propaganda in the air?
The IL-2 was as nearly as crippled as a B-17 or B-24 carrying a full bomb-load. Acceleration, climbing and turning were utterly miserable. Its maximum speed was about the same of the Stuka: 400-410 km/hr.

And it is ruddy ridiculous to affirm that if "the wing cannons of the IL-2 could hit a german fighter you could have a kill". Let´s not be silly. If Hans Ulrich Rudel could place one of his 37mm shells flying his late war tank busting Stuka right in the cockpit of a Yak3 or La-5 you´d have a lovely view of pyrotechnics.

It would not be daring to affirm the IL-2 could be struggling for the Gold Medal in the "most shot down aircraft of WWII" category.