Response to Glider and Juha.

[glider1]

Tony
Appreciate it and I await your comments with interest. Re the use of Hurricanes in the GA mode in Europe. RP armed Hurricanes IV's were used in Europe for a short while in early 1944 against the V1 sites. Losses to AA fire were huge and they were quickly withdrawn and replaced with Typhoons.

I don't pretend to know the difference in performance between a Hurricane IV with Rockets compared to one with 40mm S guns but would expect them to be in the same ball park. With that in mind the omens for gun armed Hurricanes over Europe would not be good and their replacement understandable.

[Nick Beale]

Everyone, I think it's time to stop quoting old books at one another and get down to archival material. Much more material is now available than when inspirational pioneers such as Chris Shores and Francis Mason first took up a pen. If answers to the Hurricane gun/RP question are to be found, they are likely to be in Squadron ORBs, Air Staff correspondence, armament test reports (Boscombe Down, Farnborough?) and anything that the Operational Research people produced. Just run a few keywords through the National Archives' online catalogue search and see what comes up.

I'll make a couple of points on the discussion so far. To engage a tank, you first had to see it and this may have been much easier in terrain such as the Western Desert or Steppes than it was in Normandy, Alsace or the Rheinland. Second, battlefield support is only part of the story; interdiction of supplies matters too. You don't need to kill tanks if you've destroyed or even delayed their fuel and ammunition trucks and mobile workshops.

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello Nifty
Vickers S gun, being a long recoil design, didn’t produce nearly so bad nose down pitch when fired than for ex Soviet NS-37 cannon used in some Il-2s. And even if Merlin didn’t allow engine gun installation, it was possible for ex in DB 601, DB605 Hispano-Suiza, Klimov M-105 etc, for ex Yak-9T had the same 37mm NS-37 cannon firing through spinner as the A/T Il-2s had.

Hei.

Well of course the United States also dabbled with 37mm aircraft guns. In case anyone plans to ask, I sourced the following technical data from photo copies of the original U.S. government ordnance manuals.

At 213 lbs. the first type (M4) was a relatively lightweight cannon for the P-39 Airacobra, with a good high-explosive round, but somewhat lacking in penetration power against hardened steel plating. One of the original requirements was to minimize recoil effect and muzzle blast at the propeller hub, which in turn limited the amount of propellent charge behind the projectile. The exit velocity of the AP M80 round was only 1,825 feet per second. It could penetrate up to 1 inch of armor plate at 500 yards, depending on the angle of impact.
The later variety of 37mm (M9) was much larger and weighed 398 lbs. The shell casing contained more propellent, with a higher recoil. The AP M80 round was now driven at the increased muzzle velocity of 3,050 feet per second. The gun could penetrate up to 3.1 inches of armor plate at 500 yards, but it was too hefty and powerful as a nose gun for the Airacobra. I suppose that Bell could have tried hanging a pair of M9 guns under the wings, but given the problems with the Hurricane IID and Hurricane IV, I think it would have been a waste of time. I'm not sure if Eglin or China Lake ever tested the M9 as a outboard cannon for airplanes, but it was adopted as a standard deck gun on U.S. Navy PT Boats.

I just dug out a nice photo of a RAF Mustang I with 40mm S-guns, as the pilot was banking away from the camera to show off the installation. It was tested in May 1943, apparently at Boscombe Down. Though I have not read the full test report, it is not surprising that this type was rejected for mass production.

[Arsenal VG-33]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello VG
On Il-2 losses, IIRC in 43 it was something like 1 in every 35 sorties.

Might be, but off-topic. I let someone else answer

Tvcolvin
This is true but irrelevant in 1944 after the USAAF's Thunderbolts and Mustangs had achieved air superiority over Europe by destroying the GAF.
The British Ju-87 could then have done its accurate work unhindered by enemy fighters, and the British Il-2 would have been more effective than Typhoon and Spitfire because of its resistance to FLAK.

Moreover, i told the TBO was 100 hours for the AM-38, it's true for le last ones, first ones had only 50 hours TBO.
So considering 3rd army statistics, if 50 % of Il-2 returned from a mission with battle damage, with 2,8 % (1/36) of sturmoviks actally lost, it means that each plane was repeared 18 times for dozen and hundreds man hours each time, only for 36 combat sorties and 41 hours of combat flight.

Do you think it was usefull to repear again the flying colander for the remaining 4-5 combat hours? 5 others flying hours at least were used for training and service missions...

On fighter losses, it also depended what was counted as sortie, were PVO’s patrols included etc and anyway, even if general loss rate was low, some units still took fairly heavy losses in 44 at least.

Off-top. There's little wonder about that routine PVO's sorties were not considered a combat ones. Call on (fake or real) alert, certainly.
All is relative (Einstein), heavy losses in 44 compared to what?

Low flying Il-2s on the other hand had not much to fear from heavy AA which inflicted many losses to US heavy bombers and because escort fighters flied in relays and the bomber formations were hundreds of kilometers long, LW could generate local numerical fighter superiority over the escorts in given place and time if fighter control worked well.

Have you got statistics on US heavy bombers losses by heavy FlaK?

Mustang wasn’t a typical fighter-bomber for Allies but it is true that one pass was the norm. And Finnish experience was that Il-2 attacks looked more terrible than their actual material results were but that was true to most of CAS work, much of CAS effectiveness was based on psychological impact and same goes to artillery preparations, that’s why it was important that the ground attack followed as soon as possible the CAS attack and /or the artillery preparation.

Juha, you suggest what, that 6 passes buy soviet SBD "slow but deadly" Il-2 (precisely "deadly" because it was "slow"), are less effective than one pass peformed by an allied fighter-bomber?

Regards

[Arsenal VG-33]

Originally Posted by glider1

You have made a number of claims without support in this thread as well. Etc...If you could support your statements it would be appreciated.

Glider

Glider,
You have made a number of claims without support in this thread as well.
Such as

Glider 2nd May 2011, 14:39
The IL 2 was...less manoeuverable (than Typhoon) making a lot easier to hit

If you could support your statements it would be appreciated.well
Have you got turn rate, turn radius, hight gain on a chandelle, or combat turn, roll rate etc.?

Regards

[Arsenal VG-33]

Reponse to Six Nifty 50’sand to MW Giles

Six Nifty 50’s 1st May 2011, 21:15

On the Western Front, the Junkers 87 had a brief career because it was a deathtrap. Based on Korean war experience, I don't believe that the Il-2 Sturmovik would have fared much better.


3rd May 2011, 20:41 MW Giles
The Ju87 had been shot out the sky and withdrawn from the action in the BoB. The Il-2 may have been wonderful, but they had been shot down in droves in the German advance into USSR ....

The home grown Fairey Battle had been a death trap.

Actually, i guess that Il-2 survived and was produced up to 36 163 planes, because it was neither a Ju-87, nor a Battle.

In fact, first serial planes reached 423 (sometimes written 433) km/h at SL and 451 at 2 500m at 5 335kg clean. So it was as fast as the Hurricane tested in NII-VVS at Low Level, about 100 km/h (60 mph)faster than Stuka, Battle and Dauntless, HS-129 around 0-7 000ft. Was highly manoeuvrable, well protected and could operate from short unprepared airfields previously used by I-152 or R-Zet. So far the best of it's category...

Comparing it with Typhoon, can be usefull but it's like apples and oranges again...

Regerds

[Juha]

Hello VG
checked the average Il-2 loss rate in 43, it was 1 in every 26 sorties.

All is of course relative but for ex over Karelian Isthmus on 28 June 44 196 IAP lost 5 Airacobras, 159 IAP lost 5 La-5s and 29 GIAP lost 4 Yak-9s, of which one was reportedly shot down by a La-5.

IIRC I have seen statistics on US heavy bombers losses to heavy Flak, but just now I don’t have time to find them.

On effectiveness of CAS by VVS vs that by Western Allies. Now the statements by Germans, who after all were in the best position to know the answer, I have seen claimed than the latter was more effective but because they made their statements to westerners they might be a bit biased. Anyway, there were successful air attacks on German armoured formations on both fronts and on both fronts there were cases that German units could move rather unhindered. As I wrote, Finns were generally not overly impressed to the effectiveness of Il-2s. And fighter bombers made time to time several passes, all depended on intensively of AA, importance of target and the attitude of pilots

Juha

[Kryten]

probably a bit of a mistake to focus on heavily armoured vehicles like tanks in this context, tanks are actually the minority on the battlefield even in armoured divisions!

there are vastly more utility, artillery,transport, engineering and logistical vehicles, not to mention light armour, and in this context I would suggest the rocket projectile with its much more destructive warhead would be a more versatlile weapon than the S gun?

maybe a look at the devestation caused at Falaise, and when the weather cleared during the battle of the bulge would shine more light on the effectiveness of CAS provided by the RAF and USAF!

after all look at the struggle that ensued during the opening phase of market garden , the CAS controllers vehicle was hit almost at the start leaving 30 corps with no ability to direct the Typhoons onto ground targets, it's well documented as this being pointed to as a major cause of the failure of 30corps to move fast enough link up at Arnhem!

the reality on the ground in Europe post June 1944 suggests the RAF/USAF close support was critical in interdicting and defeating the german formations, I would argue the RP and the bomb were a successfull combination!

[Juha]

Yes Kryten
the fact that the timing of the Ardennes offensive in Dec 44 was based on a weather forecast promising a long period of bad weather showed that German High Command had a healthy respect on Allied tactical air power.

Juha

[glider1]

Originally Posted by Arsenal VG-33

Glider,
You have made a number of claims without support in this thread as well.
Such as


If you could support your statements it would be appreciated.well
Have you got turn rate, turn radius, hight gain on a chandelle, or combat turn, roll rate etc.?

Regards

A fair comment and admit that I don't have any detailed turn rates for the Il 2.
Would you settle for as the IL 2 is approx 150 mph slower, 7 ft longer, 6 ft wider, had a loaded weight of approx 2,000lb more, combined with a lower powered engine and wasn't designed as a fighter, its a fair assumption that the IL 2 was a much easier target for AA fire?

If you or anyone else has similar examples please let me know. I will support or explain any fact or statement that I have made, on any posting on this thread, will withdraw any that I am unable to substantiate and apologise for any confusion. I don't think that I can be any fairer than that.