The only effective at weapon in ww2 were ptab bombs. But even they only had advantage over bombs and rocjets by a couple times. Not even tenfold.
You might want to share a source backing up your claim? Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Iirc the PTAB 1.5-2.5 were dropped in very large quantities but they were not even mentioned by the Germans as threat to heavy armor in their battle reports…
The IL-2 has wooden wings. The recoil was stretching the structural limit, making it impossible to safely mount NS-45. Recoil would snap the plane off target, so unless you had the plane perfectly aimed, there was no way to hit the target.
Probably fine to attack trains and locomotives but against moving tanks it simply didn’t have the volume of fire needed to be able to score hits reliable.
Maybe that’s actually the reason for NS-45 APCR. A lighter shell would significantly reduce the recoil.
So maybe it was possible for the IL-2 to use the NS-45, when using ammunition that produced less recoil. But it was only mounted on a couple of IL-2s before they abandoned the idea.
This is due to the unfortunate placement of the guns. Low accuracy is due to the asynchronous firing of the wing guns and the large distance of the guns from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and, as a result, the rocking of the aircraft during firing.
1 Like
Sorry @KillaKiwi, but I mentioned the Il-2-37 trials in the context of accuracy of aircraft-mounted high-caliber guns, since these were some of the few that got properly counted.
Can’t disagree with anything mentioned here, but I honestly don’t believe the accuracy would’ve skyrocketed in the Yak’s context. A significant increase would occur, but we’re talking about multiplying 3% of hits per shot.
I won’t say the number is absolute since I have no way of knowing it at the moment, but I’d guesstimate around 15±5%.
I was just angry about the dude talking of hitting a pillbox’s window from 2km away with an infantry cannon. Like, bruh, I could then say that Merlin III could produce 1,3k horsepower at +12lbs, so a Cromwell could also see similar numbers.
I know. I’m just saying that NS-45 wouldn’t have made it any better.
Ofc Germany didn’t have any problems with anything even in Reichstag 1945. They were doing fine 100% at least in battle report. But then there’s a good explanation because only 5% tank losees in ww2 were accounted to air attack only with rare spikes in this statistic due to ptab
This is a good read on plane vs tank
https://topwar.ru/126266-aviaciya-protiv-tankov-chast-2.html
I might find some pilot interviews
1 Like
45 mm guns found good use on su8. See link above
First hand ptab user
To find more literally go here https://iremember.ru/
Use search function with птаб string
Well, the SU-8 is a pretty big beast, and weights around twice as much as an IL-2, while having guns below the fuselage, which certainly helps to control the recoil.
One of the few planes were the cannon armament would allow it to effectively engage tanks with a good volume and accuracy.
Dude seriously? You are linking a RU page based on USSR sources?
The same kind of sources claimed hundreds of German tank losses in the Battle of Prokorovka (12.07.43) for almost half a decade whilst the Germans lost actually 4 Mk IV tanks and a few SPGs / APCs whilst killing ~ 200 USSR tanks - killing means irrecoverable destruction in USSR terms.
USSR sources have to be seen in context of circumstances - bad news or missing combat success meant gulag or firing squad. So over-claiming is a logical result, same as downsizing own losses.
So as long as your source claims nonsense things like that:
The PTAB’s “baptism of fire” took place on July 5 during the Battle of Kursk. On that day, the pilots of the 291st Assault Aviation Division in the Voronezh region destroyed about 30 enemy tanks and self-propelled guns in a day. According to German data, the 3rd SS Panzer Division “Totenkopf”, which was subjected to several massive bombing attacks by attack aircraft in the Bolshiye Mayachki area during the day, lost about 270 tanks, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and tracked tractors.
They are just spreading myths - similar due to this “P-47 killed a Tiger tank by shooting below them”.
Regarding your sourced Il-2 pilot: No doubt a brave pilot.
Claiming 12 tank kills based on aerial recon looks familiar to the RAF/USAAF claims in the Falaise pocket. They claimed hundreds of German tanks destroyed by Typhoons and P-47s based on combat reports - whilst their own investigation assigned actually 17 tank kills due to aerial attacks. Even “The Chieftain” mentioned this years ago.
Don’t get me wrong - but imho you might consider to check sources on both sides before you come to rather wild conclusions regarding aircraft vs tanks. There is no doubt that killing support vehicles like APCs or fuel trucks were indirectly the root cause for many tank losses, but claiming:
Is not backed up by actual reality.
We have some aircraft like the 40 mm Hurricanes in North Africa or the Hs 129 and the Ju 87 G with 37 mm cannons able to score confirmed tank kills - but they were only effective if flown by highly experienced pilots. The average pilot was unable to gain the necessary precision.
Even if the German claimed some success with PB I-III or AB 250/500 with SD 4 HL the PTAB story looks like just another side note without any noticeable effect vs tanks.
3 Likes
Which wild conclusions?
Tldr on plane vs tank on ww2. Bombs, rockets and guns were rather bad. Ptab were 2-3 times better but still not comparable to at guns or tank destroyers. It’s what i gathered from these reads. I don’t think it’s a wild conclusion
1 Like
I was referring to these 2:
and:
You simply can’t back up these claims with reliable sources.
This:
refering to an irl precision at 1 km with hit probabilities of 0.77% (air targets) to max 6% (stationary ground targets) of the 37 mm version is actually not even a wild conclusion…
Back to topic:
The topic boils down that gaijin somehow managed to interfere with the US prop CAS superiority and they implemented the 45 mm weapon (now with APHE) which had severe issues regarding aiming of follow up shots and stress on airframes - but wt eliminates this in order to make the game playable.
So if the guys at the receiving end of the 45 mm are not really happy about this they might have a point. Especially if you look up the 50mm nerf of the 262 some time ago (they artificially nerfed the accuracy) asking for a similar treatment of the 45 mm looks rather comprehensible…
3 Likes
I really wish gun dispersion was available to find somewhere.
It would make it actually possible to compare and discuss such things. All i can find is by how much getting the gun modification reduces the gun dispersion, which isnt a lot of info.
3 Likes
From Chieftain’s own video on it, IIRC that first claim was because any vehicle they couldn’t positively say was killed by something on the ground was given to the aircraft.
Imho the whole thing works the other way around: Pilots fly combat missions and give a report (debriefing) in which they quantify destructed or damaged tanks. In case the battlefield is then captured / controlled (so the enemy can’t tow damaged tanks away) the damage analysis units investigate the actual reasons for the kill.
As each nation had different understandings of when was a tank killed (or just immobilized and can get repaired in case own troops were advancing) it seems logical that tank losses and kill claims of enemy forces do not match each other. Similar to non combat related losses like tanks which never reached the front line due to mechanical or fuel issues.
I did not found the Chieftain vid i was referring to (long time ago), but i found this one :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY (skip tp 42:00)
in which he compared initial air claims (150 tanks kills) of 2 other battles with actual investigation results (20 tank kills including damaged & abandoned) - so in this case it was the other way around as within the investigation all unclear cases were given to the aircraft.
1 Like