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.

Here is an article about fighter-bomber contribution and effectiveness in Normandy, specifically focusing on the 83 Group:

http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back%20...83%20Group.pdf

Interesting data on effectiveness of Typhoon, Spitfire and (RAF) Mustang on air-to-air and air-to-ground missions.

Cheers,

Which turns B-17 into tank killer N°1.

But I still believe bombs could do a nasty mess with tanks,even heavy ones.From 100 lbs bombs and above.Right?

Yes. The carpet bombing of trapped German forces by the U.S. 8th and 9th air forces during Operation Goodwood was devastating. Of course, it only worked because it was directed against vehicles in woods and open country, and the bombardment was massive. Bombs against infantry in built up areas resulted in some casualties, but just created rubble that favored the defenders (e.g., Monte Cassino, Stalingrad).

As far as I know, bombs up to 250kg also required a direct hit against a medium or heavy tank.

Yes and no. Even a small bomb could potentially be a tank killer if it hit in the right place (e.g., the PTAB bomblets). Large bombs increase the chance of a near miss injuring or killing crew due to overpressure, or damaging the tank or tipping it over.

On Otto Karius memories, they narrate a friendly fire situation with 21cm nebelwerfers firing on his position. Those rockets carry a 550 Kg HE warhead.
They can´t do anything but lay down with their hands on their ears during the bombardment. They feel the shock waves from explosions, but no damage was reported.

Air bombs on WWII were saturation weapons. Even rockets were employed that way.

Heavy canons, were an elite crew option. Also pilots disregard it's effects as failures.

Russian Ptab's, were a primitive solution also employed by the germans, but more dangerous to the aircraft than for the intended enemy.

The state of the art were the germans AB bombs. Tested on the field against medium armor with success. Heavys were not that frequent on russian assaults. On Kursk, KV1's were few and kept at the rear.

HE bombs will generate supression when not scoring a direct hit, damage will be achieved as something unusual.

Care to elaborate?
With bigger bombs near-misses can be fatal, too - overpressure effect on crew.

550kg warhead in a 21cm Rocket?
Sure bro.
Maybe more like 40kg?

According to wiki, 550kg is the weight of the launcher with rockets. But still, it is a very powerful weapon, it fires 112kg rockets, which are stronger than a FAB-100 or a 250lb bomb.

Concerning PTAB. I highly doubt that it was dangerous to the plane that uses it. In reality, it was useless against tanks. However, against soft vehicles, it was devastating.

112kg for the total projectile, including propellant - this will make the warhead 20-50kg. So it is in the same category as a FAB-100, and that is pretty useless against tanks, and even direct hits may not show results

That I doubt. Shaped charges are not good against soft vehicles, there is not much fragmentation. Shaped charges generate a supersonic metal jet that punches holes in armour, and ignites or damages things inside - but their area effects are null.

My bad, I was doing a fast search on the rocket weight, and pick the first number I spotted.
The anecdote still stands.

Now, not even the USA will drop 500Kg to kill some tanks. It will be seen as an absolute loss of resources. 250Kg will be much more popular with them for level bombing. And it was still shown on Normandy to be a total waste of bombs.

The PTAB were innertially armed, so on a crash landing it would have been very important for the pilot to release them before crashing. Do not confuse them with the safer PTAB 2.5m.
The first use by germans of the SD-2 was with a primitive releasing system from the wings that happened to be not fully efective, having the bad habit of keeping some SD-2 back to base underwing. They will become free on landing and exploding on hitting ground. The container use was a return to base free of bomblets insurance.

You are right, but the PTAB was large enough to do considerable damage to soft vehicles. An RPG-7 can easily destroy a truck, even though it is primarily an anti tank weapon. In terms of weight, its warhead is comparable to the PTAB (2.2kg vs 2.5kg)

With bad against soft targets I meant to say not as good as fragmentation warheads/incendiary warheads of the same weight class.
Now I get the point.