Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Hello Gabor,

as a tank soldier what would you choose to do if attacked from above ?

Michael

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Incomplete question.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

...by an Il-2?

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

For tanks to defend themselves against air attack. Many US made tanks did carry MGs mounted on top of the turrets for the crews to use against air attack. Some German and Russian made tanks also had this feature.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Also note: German Panzer included a number of full tracked and half tracked AA vehicles mounting 20mm and 37mm Flak.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Cover under trees, buildings and fog/smoke cover. Plus vierlings, MGs.
Gabor

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Good morning James and Gabor,

nowadays, a single tank is still rather vulnerable to air attacks, isn't it ?

Cheers,

Michael

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Yes nowadays as in the Ukraine tanks are rather vulnerable to drone/air attack.

Ooops! from above I should have said a few German and Russian Tanks carried MGs on the tops of their turrets. The British were the same. US LL tanks used by the Russians and British often did not carry them.

Ooops! again it should be German Panzer Divisions.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Hello,

does the calibre of a gun define its ability to penetrate tank armour ?

Michael

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

The calibre of the gun, its muzzle velocity and the weight and the design of the shell/shot.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Is a tank automatically disabled when a bullet penetrates its armour ?

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

No. It sort of depends where the tank is hit. If a round penatrates the armor and detenates the ammo or sets the tank on fire. This will destroy a tank. If a tank takes a hit that wrecks an engine or breaks a track or if the driver is KIA this will disable a tank. Note it often takes more that one round to destroy a tank and it also depends what sort of tank it is and what it gets hit by and where.

I can see where a IL-2 hits the engine deck of say a Pz IV with a rocket and wrecks the engine. Note the rockets were very inaccurate.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Hello James,

which part would you aim at when you attack a tank by plane (e.g. a Tiger) ?

Cheers,

Michael

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Sorry to interrupt... but I guess the pilots were happy if they hit the tank ANYWHERE during a fast and low pass under intense defense fire. Aiming a part of a tank from the air...? I think that is just an illusion. (Unless you just aim it in the 'middle' hoping that at least you will not miss it.

Gabor

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Hello Gabor,

of course but if memory serves we well I read reports of airmen aiming at the enemy aircraft's "engine", "cockpit", "gunner" or at a distinct engine of a four-engined bomber. Therefore, I thought that it was at least the intention of the tankbuster aces to hit the tanks at a distinct point.

I wish you a good Thursday evening,
Michael

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

True, but in a dogfight, or fighter attack the speed difference between the two planes was not significant, as the attacker usually followed (pursued) the victim, having a much better situation for aiming. Plus even smaller caliber ammo (from multiple guns with high firing speed) could set an aluminum plane on fire much easier than a steel tank, which required precise hits with larger ammo - obviously from larger weapons having slower firing speed.
Also, for ground targets, the speed difference between the attacker and the ground target was several hundred km/h (much bigger than in the air), giving a much smaller chance (shorter striking time) to score an efficient hit - if the pilot did not want to crash into his target. Two completely different situations, I would not even compare the two!

Gabor

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Gabor
My late pal, RAF pilot, recalled that they were trained to aim particular areas of a tank, and he noted it was possible. They were fully aware that they could ot destroy a tank, just disable with their rockets, so the tactics was to hit suspension on a particular side of a collumn of tanks, so no parts could be borrowed to cobble them together, forcing to wait for tech support. The goal was not to destroy th enemy, but to delay reinforcements to the frontline or to disable them on battlefield to allow ground troops to destroy or overtake them.
Franek

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Franek, this might sound convincing, but in fact it is not. From a side attack 2/3 of a tank (especially Pz. IVs) was the wheel/suspension system, so by simply hitting the target you had a good chance to hit what you though you have aimed at. This is not 'aiming', this is just successfully hitting a barn from the side. It was not accidental that the Soviets developed the more effective PTAB bombs, the forefather of the modern cluster bombs which simply covered the target after low passes as a carpet without any precise aiming. Few years ago I found one of these beasts and the yellow TNT inside looked very convincing that it was not safe to sit in a tank when Sturmoviks circled above your head.

Gabor

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

I was a doubting Thomas as well, but my pal explained to me that with IIRC Gyro Gunsight it was possible to put rockets into a reasonably small target. So small I could not believe but I have been explained that on a range they could check it themselves.
The forefather of cluster bomb was German SD-2. Soviets tried to develop more effective weapons, but with a rather rudimentary sights, they could hardly been much effective. In general, it was much safer to be in a tank rather than outside of it during air raid.
Franek

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

I believe the main cause of tanks catching fire in WW II were from most to least:
1. ammo
2. gear stowed on the outside of a tank
3. oil or fuel stored on the outside of a tank
4. fuel

I don't have much info on hand on tanks under air attack from the tank men's point of view. I do have the following books:
"Brazen Chariots" Robert Crisp a fine book on what it is like in tank combat

"Mr Churchills Tank" David Fletcher A fine book on this tank.

In both books tanks are hard to sometimes kill. Despite what you see in movies ect.
Fletcher has one Churchill taking 38 50mm hits, 6 75mm hits and 8 British 6 pdr hits! the latter by accident. Another account has a Churchill taking a 88 mm round through the front and penatrating to the engine no crew casualties. Then there is a Churchill that was hit by 4-75mm rounds from a Panther all penatraed the armor but no casualties.

Air attacks rare on the Churchill. The book has one destroyed in Tunisa by a divebomber that hit the tank of 51 RTR with 2 bombs 1 on the nearside track and 1 that hit the engine starting a fuel fire. In Normandy 16 Jul 44 the 153 RAC was attacked by 12 FW-190s with MGs and bombs no casualties and they claim one aircraft shot down.
I have read somewhere that the Germans had to fire 11 rounds from an 88 mm to kill one tank.

I would also like to point out;
Germans in Russia all or most Russian tanks are refered to as T-34s
US 1944-45 all or most German tanks are called Tigers
Russians 1943-45 all or most German tanks are either Tigers or panthers, all or most sp guns ect are called ferdinands. Half tracks are also called tanks

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

The rockets were too inaccurate for it to be worth aiming at a specific spot, the probability of a hit was really low. According to Price, the probability of getting at least one hit with a salvo of eight rockets was 0.7%. The British tested air-to-ground rocket fire against a Panther standing alone in an open field, and indeed, the probability of a hit was very low. Was it as low as Price says, maybe not. I tried to dig up the above report, but I coudn't find it on my hard drive. But as I recall, at least a flight's worth of Typhoons were needed in order to have a reasonable probability of hitting a tank. According to Price, on August 7, 1944, the Typhoons used 2088 rockets and 80 tons of bombs in 458 sorties, of which 294 were in the Mortain area, where 7 tanks were disabled/destroyed with rockets and 2 with bombs.
It must also be remembered that sometime around 1942, the British started teaching anti-tank gunners to aim at the tank's center of mass and no longer at a specific point. So it was considered better for the aimers of stationary cannons to aim at the center of the target. In the end, the tank is quite a small target. Tiikeri I size was 6.32 x 3.56 x 3.00 metres.
Similarly, the idea that all planes attacked from the same direction is not very reasonable. A mobility kill would require a hit to the roadwheels or tracks and they were identical on both sides of a tank. Of course, also a rocket hit to the engine compartment cover will stop if not destroy the tank, no matter if it was attacked from the side or behind.
The instructor may well have given the advices as the veteran remembers, but those instructions did not make much sense.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Well, the pal was quite clear in his recollections, It was a few years ago that I have corresponded, and in no position to check it back, but he was perfectly clear that they trained on a range and checked effects themselves, and were clearly told, that they cannot destroy a tank, but they can disable it for a critical period of time. This was not Normandy, it was later.
Normandy was the first campaign where RPs were massively used. Thus the weapon must have been perfected. Then obviously the statistics does not have information about tanks hit but not disabled. RPs were much more effective against softskin vehicles. Then there was a psy efffect as well. RP attack was scary and this took the toll.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

I agree that rockets were effective against softskin vehicles and its had significant psy effect even to tank crews. A direct hit might have devastating effect even on Panther tank.

Hawkins grenade, aka Grenade, Hand, Anti-Tank, No. 75 could brake the top armour plates of the Panther tested, its contained .99 lb of ammonal or TNT. The reason was brittleness of the top armour plates of the Panther. 60 lbs SAP head of the RP-3 rockets contained 12 lbs/5.5 kgs TNT/RDX/Amatol. So a hit on the top plates of an AFV should be lethal up to and including Panthers and maybe even to a Tiger I. It's been almost 50 years since I dealt with these things, but I'd say side hits on German AFVs lighter than the Panther could be devastating. And a hit on running gear could easily be a mobility kill to all AFVs.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

on youtube the Chieftain has a presentation "When Your tank is Attacked by Aircraft" It says to drive towards the attacking aircraft at a 45 degree angle. This makes sense because the pilot is going to have to use deflection to hit the tank. Also any cannon fire that hits the tank is going to hit at an angle and may bounce off. I would also say that the turret will be pointed at the plane and the gunner would be firing at it.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

They were also very effective against shipping, but this was a big target, easy to hit.
I have heard a second hand story told by a German vet, I think about Normandy, that when a fresh but inexperienced unit came under attack of Typhoons, they were not badly hit, but they were completely knocked down by psy effect. I do not think it should be underestimated.

A properly fires rocket should be lethat for a tank, but of course it would have to hit it at proper place and angle. Still, a near miss or bad hit should be enough to cause some effect like a damage, etc.
I think that the problem is that everyone takes for granted the results drawn from Normandy alalysis, but not conclusions drawn and improvements introduced. The other fact is, that the losses in softskin vehicles providing supplies for tanks were often decisive, and I think the major reason of complaints of German commanders.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

In warspot.ru tank section page 114 there is a post "General Badanov's raid on the 24th TCs raid on Tatinskaya airfield during Operation Little Saturn. It mentions the tanks using speed and manuvering to dodge aircraft. It has tanks losses as "Minimal" but motor vehicles not so. It mentions german aircraft usually attacked form behind.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Was the Hawker Typhoon the most effective tank killer aircraft of the Western Allies ?

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Or Hurricane IID, 40 mm Vickers S gun vas very accurate, and its 3 lbs AP shot penetrates 58 mm of armour at 20 deg from 400 yards with A/C speed 350 fps (385 km/h). Did well in North Africa and Burma. But as underpowered plane it was practically defendless against enemy fighters and vulnerable to AAA, British concluded that German Flak in the ETO was much too effective for them and rockets were much more effective aganst soft vehicles and ground troops.
Of course if RAF would have thought that gun armed anti-tank A/C was very important and demanded more Merlin 27s and so made possible more power for Hurricane Mk IVs. But that would have meant less Merlin 25s and so less Mosquitos. And Mossies were deemed more important planes.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

I recall reading an article on Hurricane IID, and as I recall there were several issues, this apart of performance, noticing that once RPs were fired an aircraft turned into a potent fighter, and thus no escort was required. Also, I believe it has been noted, that contrary to Africa no clear approaches were possible in Europe. Interestingly, some aircraft had been delivered to the SU, but saw no combat.
I am aware of no stats awarding ground targets to pilots.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

IIRC IID only had the option of two 40 mm Vickers S guns besides the two 7.7 mm Brownings. Mk. IV had Universal wing which allow it carrying either S guns or rockets or bombs or drop-tanks. Some even flew with one S gun and 4 rockets. I doubt that Mk. IV with steel rocket rails was a potent fighter, even clean Mk IIBs or Cs were not very potent fighters against contempory German or Japanese fighters.

I am neither but at least some squadron tallies are around, at least that of 6 Sqn (MTO) and 20 Sqn (Burma).

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

According to György Punka tank defence even claimed an ace: József Bejczy (6 kills) on 4Nov1944.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

József Bejczy was downed by flak at Abony-SE on November 4, 1944 indeed in his Bf 109 G-6/U2, c/n: 126724, engine: 00205587, but just because they attacked Soviet tanks, it could be of anything. The Soviets pulled a wall of fire from all guns they had. I would say it was Army AAA (2nd UF, 7th Guards Army, 5 зенад (670, 743, 1119, or 1181 зенап).

Gabor

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Hello Gabor,

thanks for the info.

I wish you a delightful Xmas weekend, sincerely,

Michael

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Yes, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you.
Gabor

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Yes, indeed. I do not remember the article in detail, but the general conclusion was that RP Typhoon did much more sense on ETO. I guess that cannon armed aircraft stood little chance against both fighters and flak, and it was not so easy to get a proper aim in Normandy like landscape.

Re: Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills
 

Hello there,

hope you had a good Xmas Eve.
This year I didn't wish for new airwar books because I still have so many unread books left. But next year I think I will acquire OSPREY's "Ju 87D/G STUKA versus T-34".

Best greetings from Switzerland,

Michael