The left gun on the Il-2 fires faster than the right gun. Firing the entire magazine will lead through exactly opposing fire at some point, but the effect of the recoil is low overall. It's probably too slow, too strongly damped.

Has this ever been changed?

Yes, think so, but it was ages ago.

No serious, could be the best evaluation. It is there, but nothing that really hampers your aim.

I was wondering that the other day.How effective were air attacks against tanks.

Also I guess that some of the effectiveness was based on making the tank crew freaking out and leaving the tank?

There are some reports that you can dig for and dig up. The ultimate answer is that direct attacks against tanks weren't very effective at destroying actual tanks. Most rocket attacks didn't score the needed direct hits, bomb blasts were a similar story... what I have read is that IL-2s themselves were most effective against tanks when employing PTAB bombs. Initial reports were apparently not believed and additional field reports were conducted confirming their effectiveness. I haven't read the corroborating story but my understanding is that the PTAB bomblets were useful... the 37mm anti-tank cannons were less so. Similar story for the Stuka with the BK 3,7 where direct hits were effective but only from some angles on the heavier tanks. The massive 75mm gun on the Hs129B-3 and a Ju88 variant was found to be very effective, however, the recoil effects were immense.

That all said... attacks against tanks had secondary effects. Decreased morale, panic, etc. In Normandy the Thunderbolt and Typhoon attacks against tanks didn't destroy many but they reduced the overall effectiveness of whatever group was attacked. Also, air attacks against support vehicles that supplied the tanks were devastating. Destroying the fuel trucks that supplied the tanks caused no small impact.

I've seen a photo of a Panther said to have been knocked out by rocket firing aircraft, do you have sources for numbers?

Between 6 and 7% of German tanks were lost directly to air attacks during the Normandy campaign.

http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-...ers4.html#an_1

And for Panther:
http://weaponsandwarfare.com/?p=3625

So, the main threat to a tank was anti-tank gun ! ;)

P.S: Sorry for my poor English.

Like he said. One report that's reasonably easy to find with a Google search is a report on the relative effectiveness of rocket attacks by Typhoon fighter bombers on German tanks during the breakout from Normandy.

Don't get fooled by simple ballistics vs. armor penetration calculations, though. It's no secret that a relatively small-caliber cannon shell (like a 20 or 30 mm cannon) firing AP ammo could penetrate the top armor of even late war heavy tanks like the Panther, Tiger and Josef Stalin. Likewise, there's no dispute that if the shell hit in the right place its effects could be devastating.

Likewise, it's no contest that good hit by a rocket can also cause damage that could knock out a WW2 heavy tank.

So, hypothetically planes shooting 20 mm or 30 mm AP shells should be lethal to even the best-armored WW2 era tank. Case in point: Hans Ulrich Rudel.

The problem was that few pilots had the skill and suicidal courage to get close enough for their shots to hit and penetrate. If you look at gun camera films taken by ground attack aircraft, you'll notice that they are usually shooting from extreme distances and at extreme angles of attack relative to any vulnerable surfaces on the tank. This means that many shots miss, and that, of the shots that hit, many ricochet rather than penetrating.

If we guesstimate that half of the tanks blown up+abandoned by crew were due to lack of fuel, then aircraft were very effective in "destroying" tanks by destroying the supply chain needed for upkeep of tanks.