Military Review

The role of Allied combat aviation in the fight against German tanks

35



During the battles in North Africa, it turned out that the British aviation It has a low anti-tank potential. Bombers striking productively at transport hubs, military camps, warehouses and artillery positions proved to be ineffective against the German tanks, since the probability of a direct hit or at least a gap in the immediate vicinity of the tank was small. A squadron of Blenheim bombers, each of which usually carried four 250 lb (113 kg) bombs, when bombing from horizontal flight from a height of 600-1000 meters, could destroy or seriously damage 1-2 tanks. Low-altitude bombing was usually not used due to the lack of bombs with special fuses and braking devices.

The Hurricane fighters with cannon armament, which were sufficiently effective against transport convoys, could not fight with enemy tanks. The armor of German tanks turned out to be too tough for the 20-mm shells of aircraft cannons. As practice has shown, even when penetrating the relatively thin armor of Italian tanket and armored vehicles, the armor’s projectile action was not enough to destroy or prolonged armored vehicles.

The role of Allied combat aviation in the fight against German tanks

Hurricane IID


The experience of using the Hurricane IID fighter-bomber in Tunisia with two 40-mm Vickers S cannons was not very successful. Ammunition 15 shells allowed to make 2-3 combat approach to the target. From a distance of 300 m, an armored-piercing projectile of the Vickers S cannon pierced 40 mm armor along the normal. But when firing at a single tank, experienced pilots could at best manage to hit one or two shells. It was noted that due to strong recoil dispersion when firing is too large and accurate shooting is possible only the first shots in the queue. Even in the case of falling into the medium German tank, its destruction or incapacitation was not guaranteed, since when firing from a gentle dive, due to the large angle between the armor and the projectile, there is a high probability of rebounding. The flight data of the Hurricane IID with the “big guns” was worse than that of a fighter with conventional weapons, and the effectiveness is questionable, and therefore the anti-tank variant was not widely used.

Soon the British and Americans came to the conclusion that the creation of specialized anti-tank attack aircraft with cannon armament was futile. The crushing return of large-caliber aircraft guns did not allow for an acceptable accuracy of firing all the projectiles in the queue, the ammunition for such guns was very limited, and the large mass and significant frontal resistance of large-caliber guns worsened flight characteristics.

After Germany attacked the USSR from the Eastern Front, information began to be received on the large-scale use of rockets in the Red Army air forces. At that time, in the UK, 76-mm fragmentation anti-aircraft missiles with a remote fuse were already in service. They had a simple design and were cheap to manufacture. In fact, it was a water pipe with stabilizers, 5 kg of cordite of the SCRK brand was used as a solid fuel in the rocket. Despite the primitive design, 76-mm anti-aircraft missiles proved to be quite effective in maintaining barrage anti-aircraft fire.

RP-3 aircraft missiles based on an anti-aircraft missile had several variants of combat units. At the first stage, two replaceable warheads for various purposes were created. Armor-piercing 25-pound (11,35 kg) solid steel bar of 3,44 caliber inches (87,3 mm), accelerated by a jet engine up to speed 430 m / s, up to 1943, could penetrate the armor of any German tank. The sighting range was about 1000 meters. The field tests showed that at a range of 700 meters, a rocket with an armor-piercing warhead punctured the 76 mm armor normally. In practice, the launch of missiles on enemy tanks was usually made at a distance of 300-400 meters. The striking effect, in the case of penetration, intensified continued burning with cordite sustainer engine. For the first time, the British used armor-piercing aircraft missiles in June 1942. The probability of hitting a single missile in a tank was low, partly offset by a salvo launch, but in any case the missiles were more effective. weapons against tanks compared to 20-mm aircraft guns.



Simultaneously with a solid armor piercing, a high-explosive 60-pound missile was created, its actual mass, despite the designation, was 47 pounds or 21,31 kg. Initially, 60-pound unguided aircraft missiles were designed to combat German submarines in surface position, but it later turned out that with great effect they can be used against land targets. A missile with a high-explosive 60-pound XU caliber 4,5 inch (114-mm) did not penetrate the frontal armor of an average German tank, but when hit to the undercarriage of an 1,36 armored vehicle, the TNT and hexogen alloy proved enough to immobilize the combat vehicle. These missiles showed good results in the storming of columns and the suppression of anti-aircraft batteries, striking airfields and trains.



It is also known about the combination of a jet engine with stabilizers and an 114,3-mm incendiary projectile equipped with white phosphorus. If 25-pounder armor-piercing rockets after 1944 were used mainly for training and firing, then 60-pounds were in service with the RAF until the middle of 60-x.


60-pound high-explosive fragmentation rockets under the wing of the Typhoon fighter-bomber


After the appearance of heavy tanks and self-propelled guns in Germany, the question arose of creating new aircraft missiles capable of penetrating their armor. In 1943, a new version with an armor-piercing high-explosive warhead was developed. The 152-mm warhead with an 27,3 kg armor-piercing tip contained 5,45 kg of explosives. Due to the fact that the rocket engine remained the same, and the mass and frontal resistance increased significantly, the maximum flight speed dropped to 350 m / s. For this reason, accuracy was somewhat worsened and the effective firing range decreased, which was partly offset by an increased striking effect.


Replaceable combat units of British aircraft rocket projectiles. Left: 25-pound armor-piercing, at the top - "25lb AP rocket Mk.I", at the bottom - "25lb AP rocket Mk.II", on the right: high-explosive 60-pound "60lb NOT No1 Mk.I", in the middle: armor-piercing -foghun-fugue 60-NOT 60 Mk.I; - pound "2lb NoXNUMX Mk.I"

152-mm high-explosive armor-piercing missiles confidently hit the German "Tigers". If hit in a heavy tank did not lead to armor penetration, he still received heavy damage, the crew and internal units were often hit by internal chipping of armor. Thanks to a powerful warhead, the undercarriage was destroyed at close break, optics and armament were knocked out. It is believed that the cause of death of Michael Wittman - the most effective German tank ace, was hit in the stern of his "Tiger" missiles from the English fighter-bomber "Typhoon".


Hawker typhoon


For the effective use of armor-piercing high-explosive missiles, it was necessary to have some experience. The most trained pilots of British fighter-bombers were involved in the hunt for German tanks. When launching heavy missiles with 152-mm warhead squander, and this should be considered when aiming. The standard tactic of the British attack aircraft "Tempest" and "Typhoon" was diving at a target at an angle of up to 45 °. Many pilots opened fire on the target with tracer shells to visually determine the line of fire. After that, it was necessary to slightly raise the nose of the aircraft, in order to take into account the rocket’s downfall. Accuracy of firing largely depended on the pilot's intuition and his experience in using rockets. The highest probability of hitting the target was achieved with salvo firing. In March, 1945, aircraft missiles with a cumulative warhead and improved accuracy, but by that time there were few German tanks left, and the new missiles did not have a particular impact on the course of the fighting.

American aircraft missiles used during the Second World War, were much better than the British. The American NAR M8 had no prototypes, like the British RP-3 rocket, it was created from scratch, and was originally developed to arm combat aircraft. Despite the fact that in the USA they started to build their own missiles later than in the UK, the Americans managed to achieve not the best results.



The M8 caliber of 4,5 inches (114-mm) was launched into mass production at the start of the 1943 of the year. With a weight of 17,6 kg, its length was 911 mm. Three dozen powder drafts accelerated the M8 to the speed of 260 m / s. The high-explosive fragmentation warhead contained almost two kilograms of TNT, and the armor-piercing warhead was a monolithic steel pig.

Compared to the primitive British missiles, NAR M8 seemed to be a masterpiece of design thought. To stabilize the M8 on the trajectory, five collapsible spring-loaded stabilizers were used, which open up when the rocket leaves the tubular guide. The folded stabilizers were placed in a narrowed tail section. This allowed to reduce the size and reduce drag when the NAR is suspended on the aircraft. Purging in the wind tunnel showed that tubular-type guides have minimal resistance compared to other types of starting devices. Launch tubes with a length of 3 meters were mounted in a block of three pieces. Launchers were made of different materials: steel, magnesium alloy and plastic. The most common plastic guides had the lowest resource, but they were also the lightest - 36 kg, the steel guide weighed - 86 kg. The magnesium alloy pipe was almost the same as steel pipe, and its mass was close to plastic - 39 kg, but it was also the most expensive.



The process of loading the M8 was very simple and took much less time compared to the British RP-3. In addition, the accuracy of firing American missiles was significantly higher. Experienced pilots with a salvo launch with a high degree of probability got into the tank, while before the launch of the missiles it was recommended to make an adjustment with tracer bullets. Taking into account the experience of combat use, at the end of 1943, an improved modification М8А2, and then А3 appeared. The new models of missiles increased the area of ​​folding stabilizers and increased the thrust of the cruising jet engine. The warhead of the rocket, now equipped with more powerful explosives, has increased. All this has significantly improved the accuracy and damaging characteristics of American 114-mm aircraft missiles.



The first carrier of the NAR М8 was the Tomahawk P-40 fighter, but then this rocket became part of the armament of almost all types of US front-line and deck-based aircraft. The combat effectiveness of 114-mm missiles was very high and the M8 was popular among American pilots. So, only the P-47 "Thunderbolt" fighters of the American 12 Air Force during the fighting in Italy spent up to 1000 missiles daily. In total, until the end of hostilities, the industry delivered about 2,5 million of unguided missile systems of the M8 family. The missiles with armor-piercing and armor-piercing-high-explosive warheads were quite capable of penetrating the armor of medium-sized German tanks, but the 114-mm missiles were much more effective when striking German transport convoys.

In the middle of the 1944 of the year, the 3,5 FFAR and 5 FFAR used naval aircraft in the United States to create the 127-mm NAR 5 HVAR (High Velocity Aircraft Rocket), also known as the “Holy Moses ”(“ Holy Moses ”). Its high-explosive fragmentation warhead was essentially an 127-mm artillery shell. There were two types of warheads: high-explosive fragmentation mass 20,4 kg - containing 3,5 kg of explosives and solid armor-piercing - with a carbide tip. The rocket with a length of 1,83 m and a mass of 64 kg was accelerated by a sustainer solid-fuel engine to 420 m / s. According to American data, 127-mm NAR "5 HVAR" with a solid steel armor-piercing warhead was able to penetrate the frontal armor of the German "Tiger", and the high-explosive fragmentation missile guaranteed to destroy the average tanks in a direct hit.


"5 HVAR"


American 127-mm NAR "5 HVAR" in terms of combat and operational characteristics have become the most sophisticated aviation missiles of the Second World War. These missiles remained in service in many countries until the beginning of the 90's and were used in many local conflicts.

The publication is not accidentally paid so much attention to unguided missiles. The Americans and the British did not have special light cumulative air bombs, similar to the Soviet PTAB, which the Soviet Elahs, since the middle of the 1943 year, had beaten out Panzervae tanks. Therefore, it was rockets that became the main anti-tank weapons of the Allied fighter-bombers. However, for strikes on German tank units, two or four engine bombers were often recruited. There are cases when dozens of heavy B-17 and B-24 simultaneously bombed the concentration sites of German tanks. Of course, the effectiveness of bombing armored vehicles with large-caliber bombs from a height of several thousand meters is, frankly, a dubious undertaking. But here the magic of large numbers and the theory of probability played their part, when hundreds of 500 and 1000 pound air bombs fell from the sky at the same time into a limited area: they inevitably covered someone. Given that the allies in 1944 had superiority in the air and a huge number of bombers at their disposal, the Americans could afford to use strategic bomber aircraft to perform tactical tasks. After the Allies landed in Normandy, their bombers soon completely paralyzed the enemy’s railway network and the German tanks, the gas tankers accompanying them, trucks, artillery and infantry were forced to make long marches on the roads while being subjected to the continuous influence of aviation. According to eyewitnesses, the French roads leading to Normandy were cluttered up with broken and broken German vehicles in 1944.

It was the British "Temposts" and "Typhoons", as well as the American "Mustangs" and "Thunderbolts" became the main anti-tank allies. At first, 250 and 500 pounds caliber bombs (113 and 227 kg) were mainly suspended from fighter-bombers, and from April 1944 g. - and 1000-pound (454-kg). But for the fight against tanks in the front line more suitable NAR. Theoretically, in any British Typhoon, depending on the nature of the intended purpose, the bomb racks could be replaced with guides for missiles, but in practice, in each squadron, some of the aircraft were constantly carried by bomb racks, and some were guides. Later on, squadrons specializing in rocket attacks appeared. They were staffed by the most experienced pilots, and German armored vehicles were among the highest priority targets. Thus, according to British sources, on August 7, the Typhoon fighter-bombers attacked German tank units advancing to Normandy during the day and destroyed 1944 and damaged 84 tanks. Even if the British pilots in reality managed to achieve at least half of the declared - it would be a very impressive result.



Unlike the British, American pilots did not specifically hunt for armored vehicles, but acted upon requests from the ground forces. A typical American tactic of the P-51 and the P-47 was a sudden attack from a gentle dive of enemy strongholds or counterattacking German troops. In this case, repeated visits to the target, with actions on communications in order to avoid losses from anti-aircraft fire, as a rule, were not performed. American pilots, providing direct air support to their units, inflicted "lightning strikes", after which they carried out care at low altitude.

Here is what Colonel Wilson Collins, commander of the 3 Tank Battalion of the 67 Tank Regiment, wrote about this in his report:

Direct air support seriously helped our offensive. I saw the work of fighter pilots. Acting from low altitudes, with rockets and bombs, they cleared the way for us at the breakthrough from Saint-Lo. The pilots tore down the German tank attack on the barman we had recently taken, on the west bank of the Röhr. This section of the front was fully controlled by the Thunderbolt P-47 fighter-bomber. Rarely did German units join us in battle without being hit by them. Once I saw how the crew of the Panther threw his car after the fighter fired at their tank with machine guns. Obviously, the Germans decided that the next time they entered, they would drop bombs or launch rockets.


It should be understood that the British and American fighter-bombers were not attack aircraft in the usual sense for us. They did not iron the German troops, making multiple visits to the target, like the Soviet Il-2. Unlike Soviet armored ground attack aircraft, American and British fighter-bombers were very vulnerable to shelling from the ground, even with small arms. That is why they avoided multiple attacks from ground targets. Obviously, with such tactics of the Allies, the accuracy of the use of rocket-bomb weapons left much to be desired, and one should be very wary of the combat scores of many pilots. This is especially true of the accounts of British pilots who flew the Typhoons, since some of them allegedly destroyed dozens of German tanks.

A detailed study of destroyed and burned German tanks showed that real losses from aviation were usually no more than 5-10% of the total number of destroyed combat vehicles, which, in general, is consistent with the results of the ground tests. In 1945, at one of the British test sites, the effectiveness of British aircraft missiles when shooting at the Panther trophy tank was conducted. Under ideal polygon conditions, experienced pilots managed to achieve 64 hits during 5 NAR launch. In this case, the shooting was conducted on a fixed tank, and there was no anti-aircraft resistance.

It can be said with confidence that the effectiveness of the Allied aviation rockets as anti-tank weapons was initially overestimated. For example, a statistical analysis of the actions of 2 of the British tactical air army and 9 of the American air army in the battles of Morten in August 1944 showed that only 43 of German tanks destroyed on the battlefield were hit by a missile air strike. When attacking missiles on a highway in the vicinity of La Baleyn in France, armored convoys of approximately 7 tanks declared the destruction of 50. Already after the Allied forces occupied the area, it turned out that only 17 had been immobilized and only two of them were fatally damaged and could not be restored. This can be considered still a very good result, in other places the ratio of declared and actually wrecked tanks was at times indecent at all. Thus, during the battles in the Ardennes, the pilots announced the destruction of 9 tanks, in fact, from the 66 found in this area of ​​the padded German tank, only 101 was the credit of the aviators, and this despite the fact that as soon as the weather in the area improved, the air strikes followed continuously.



However, the constant air attacks had a debilitating effect on the German tank crews. As the Germans themselves said, on the Western front, they developed a “German look” - tankers, even far from the front line, constantly looked at the sky with anxiety while waiting for an air attack. Subsequently, a survey of German prisoners of war confirmed the tremendous psychological effect of air attacks, especially missile ones, even tank crews consisting of veterans who had previously fought on the Eastern Front were subject to it.



Compared to attempts to directly combat German tanks, attacks against unprotected armor targets such as trains, tractors, trucks and gasoline tank trucks have become much more effective. The fighter-bombers operating on German communications made the movement of German troops, the supply of ammunition, fuel, food and the evacuation of damaged equipment in the daytime during the flying weather absolutely impossible. This circumstance had the most negative effect on the combat capability of the German troops. The German tank crews, winning fire duels with the Shermans and Komet, but left without fuel, ammunition and spare parts, were forced to abandon their cars. Thus, the Allied aviation, which turned out to be not very effective with the direct fire damage of German tanks, was the most effective anti-tank weapon, depriving the Germans of supply. At the same time, the rule was once again confirmed: even with a high fighting spirit and the most advanced equipment, it is absolutely impossible to fight without ammunition, fuel and food.

Based on:
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/
Author:
35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Leto
    Leto 3 June 2016 06: 56
    +17
    Absolutely correct conclusion. It makes no sense to spend ammunition on a tank if you can spend it on fuel trucks and vehicles with ammunition. Germany spent tons of tungsten on shells to 37mm to no purpose. a cannon, it was much more useful to spend it on armor-piercing shells for anti-tank artillery. Rudel is undoubtedly a master, but the number of tanks destroyed by him is more than overestimated. Despite the fact that he himself admitted how Soviet tankers deceived him, setting fire to rags in buckets ...
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 3 June 2016 07: 02
      +9
      Quote: Leto
      Absolutely correct conclusion. It makes no sense to spend ammunition on the tank if you can spend them on fuel trucks and vehicles with ammunition. Germany to no purpose spent tons of tungsten on shells to 37mm. the gun, it was much more useful to spend it on armor-piercing shells for anti-tank artillery.

      The role of tungsten as a dopant in the smelting of armor steel is even greater than in the manufacture of projectiles for cannons.
      1. Bongo
        3 June 2016 07: 42
        +10
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        The role of tungsten as a dopant in the smelting of armor steel is even greater than in the manufacture of projectiles for cannons.

        Tungsten, molybdenum, manganese and chromium. It is known that in 1944, the Germans, due to the shortage of alloying additives, were forced to switch to smelting high-hardness armor steel. Such armor is prone to chips and cracks. At the end of the war, our gunners and tankers noted a decrease in the protection of German tanks.
        Quote: Leto
        Germany spent tons of tungsten on shells to 37mm. a cannon, it was much more useful to spend it on armor-piercing shells for anti-tank artillery.

        You probably wanted to say in the sub-caliber? However, in fairness, it is worth saying that the Germans had very good anti-tank guns.

        So the captured 75-mm Cancer 40 was very popular in the fighter anti-tank units of the Red Army. Our military appreciated the high performance of these anti-tank guns. At a distance of 500 meters, a normal caliber projectile Cancer 40 shot through - 154 mm armor. In 1944, shooting tables and operating instructions were issued for the Cancer 40 in the USSR.
        After the war, the guns were transferred to storage, where they were, at least until the middle of the 60's.

        In fear of an invasion from the South, several anti-tank artillery divisions were formed in the North Vietnamese army, armed with the German 75-mm anti-tank guns of the RAK-40 of the Second World War.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 3 June 2016 08: 37
          +2
          Cap hints that the caliber projectile is eating tungsten, or some other crap (depleted uranium) that allows you to create a very heavy and hard core.
        2. verboo
          verboo 3 June 2016 09: 25
          -7
          Quote: Bongo
          So the captured 75-mm Cancer 40 was very popular in the fighter anti-tank units of the Red Army.

          Still would. Something similar in the USSR began to be mass-produced only in mid-1943. (ZIS-2). And even then, released in very scanty amounts. Therefore, most often the choice was simple, either trophy PaK40, or nothing (in the form of a three-inch or forty-five). Or T-34/85.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 3 June 2016 08: 36
      +3
      EMNIP 37 mm subcaliber could even break something there at the T-34, but it crumbled without any armor action. 88 mm VET in general is an attempt to get away from the sub-calibers, the 75 mm sub-caliber will penetrate everything in principle, but somehow it was wasteful.
      1. Bongo
        3 June 2016 09: 10
        +6
        Quote: EvilLion
        EMNIP 37 mm subcaliber could even break something there at the T-34, but it crumbled without any armor action.

        German 30-mm aviation subcaliber, could also "pierce something there" at the T-34 and KV. But zabronevoe-damaging effect was scanty. In general, aircraft guns, even 37-40 mm caliber, did not have a sufficient damaging effect on medium and heavy tanks. And the stories about the numerous "Tigers" and "Panthers" destroyed with the help of the 37-mm Il-2 NS-37 and Yak-9T cannons refer to "hunting" ones.
        1. miv110
          miv110 5 June 2016 11: 55
          +4
          Just like Rudel's on the "Stuck"
      2. Leto
        Leto 3 June 2016 09: 19
        +5
        Quote: EvilLion
        EMNIP 37 mm subcaliber could even break something there at the T-34, but it crumbled without any armor action.

        That's it. Hole from 37 mm. a caliber projectile is far from a guarantee of the failure of a tank, not to mention the destruction of it. Brewed in a rembat and again in battle. Another thing PTAB, the probability of destruction of the tank when it gets into the tank is much higher. I was always surprised that the Germans didn’t seem to be fools, but why didn’t they think of using cumulative TSAs, but instead spent so much effort on VK 3.7 whose effectiveness was initially low?
        Those same Americans, where it was much easier to equip the NURSs with a cumulative warhead, why the heck it was to mold blanks ...
        While cumulative ammunition was used by everyone and knew their effectiveness ...
        1. Bongo
          3 June 2016 09: 34
          +3
          Quote: Leto
          I was always surprised, the Germans didn’t seem to be fools, but why didn’t think of using cumulative TSA

          The Germans had aviation missiles with cumulative warheads: German aircraft rocket of the Second World War
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 3 June 2016 13: 05
          +2
          That's it. Hole from 37 mm. a caliber projectile is far from a guarantee of the failure of a tank, not to mention the destruction of it. Brewed in a rembat and again in battle.


          German 30-mm aviation sub-caliber, could also "pierce something there" at the T-34 and KV. But zabronevoe-damaging effect was scanty. In general, aircraft guns, even 37-40 mm caliber, did not have a sufficient damaging effect on medium and heavy tanks.


          EMNIP 37 mm subcaliber could even break something there at the T-34, but it crumbled without any armor action.

          experts, they are ... experts ...

          summer 43, 159 tbr





          if suddenly someone didn’t understand what, Anti-tank dive-bombers, taking advantage of the lack of MZA, flying on a low-level gun, inflict heavy losses on tanks invulnerable according to experts
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 10 June 2016 13: 32
            0
            The document clearly says that Rudel did not lie in his reports on damaged tanks.
            "20-7-43 years, using cannon fire, enemy aircraft disabled almost all the tanks of the brigade in the area of ​​height
            Sev.Vos.Ilinskoe.
            Losses from aviation: tanks T-34 = 10 burned out, T-70 = 2, T-60 = 2, T-34 was knocked out = 6, 10 average commanders were killed ... "
    3. Idiot
      Idiot 4 June 2016 17: 15
      0
      Rudel was deceived not only by Soviet tankers, but also by Soviet gobbies. They forced him to land in the swamp, and then courageously go out for days to the front line.
    4. Idiot
      Idiot 4 June 2016 17: 15
      +2
      Rudel was deceived not only by Soviet tankers, but also by Soviet gobbies. They forced him to land in the swamp, and then courageously go out for days to the front line.
  2. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 3 June 2016 07: 57
    +3
    The allies, when meeting with separate battalions of heavy tanks of the Germans, tried not to get involved in the battle but called in the aircraft ....... it says a lot .... with air superiority, the effective use of fighter-bombers was not difficult ...... But I think the ammunition was spent very quickly ..... there are examples when only the battalions were destroyed almost exclusively by aviation. although it’s more reasonable for me to violate the supply lines.
  3. troyan
    troyan 3 June 2016 08: 15
    +4
    At the same time, the rule was once again confirmed: even having a high fighting spirit and the most advanced equipment, it is absolutely impossible to fight without ammunition, fuel and food.

    Exactly. It would be nice to hammer it into the heads of those who yell about the Second World War, they say, "filled up with corpses", "one rifle for two, three or five."
  4. verboo
    verboo 3 June 2016 09: 14
    0
    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    During the battles in North Africa, it turned out that British aviation has a low anti-tank potential

    This applies to aviation in any country at that time. I don’t know what Rudel shot and attributed there (or attributed), but according to statistics, the percentage of tank destruction from the air is extremely small.
    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    special light cumulative bombs similar to the Soviet PTAB, which the Soviet Ily, from mid-1943, knocked out Panzervaffe tanks.

    This is a too loud statement. In fact, PTABs were very effective in the early days of their use. But later the Germans very quickly stretched out their battle and marching orders. After that, the effectiveness of the PTABs, although it has become more than the effectiveness of conventional air bombs, is far from the Vandervaffe.
    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    Unlike Soviet armored attack aircraft, American and British fighter-bombers were very vulnerable to shelling from the ground, even with small arms.

    And IL-2, contrary to legend, was also very vulnerable. Therefore, the average number of departures for this type of machine is very small.
    1. Bongo
      3 June 2016 09: 26
      +9
      Quote: verboo
      This applies to aviation in any country at that time. I don’t know what Rudel shot and attributed there (or attributed), but according to statistics, the percentage of tank destruction from the air is extremely small.

      I agree with that yes
      Quote: verboo
      This is a too loud statement. In fact, PTABs were very effective in the early days of their use.

      In the early days, PTABs were super effective. In the future, their effectiveness decreased for a number of reasons, but in any case was several times greater than that of aircraft missiles.
      Quote: verboo
      IL-2, contrary to legend, was also very vulnerable.

      Let's compare the vulnerability and tactics of IL-2 and say P-51D.
      Quote: verboo
      Therefore, the average number of departures for this type of machine is very small.

      Did you forget to mention in what period? Compare the sludge losses in 1942 and 1945.
      Regarding the anti-tank capabilities of IL-2, there has already been a publication:"Elahs" against tanks
      1. verboo
        verboo 3 June 2016 10: 25
        -3
        Quote: Bongo
        super effective

        And are "super-efficient" more than "very effective"?
        Quote: Bongo
        but in any case it was many times more than that of aircraft missiles.

        "The effectiveness of Il-2 strikes with the use of PTAB has decreased by about 44.5 times, while remaining, on average, 2-3 times higher than with the use of high-explosive and high-explosive bombs."
        This is a quote, if that. Just from the "IL-2 against tanks."
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 3 June 2016 13: 06
          +5
          Quote: verboo
          The effectiveness of IL-2 strikes with the use of PTAB decreased by approximately 44.5 times, remaining, nevertheless, on average 2-3 times higher than when using high-explosive and high-explosive fragmentation bombs. "
          This is a quote, if that. Just from the "IL-2 against tanks."

          Lying then why? negative If you take a quote, please quote correctly. Here is how it says about PTAB:
          The effectiveness of IL-2 strikes with the use of PTAB decreased by approximately 4-4,5 timeswhile remaining, however, on average 2-3 times higher than when using high-explosive and high-explosive aerial bombs.
          1. verboo
            verboo 3 June 2016 13: 36
            -5
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            If you are going to quote, please quote correctly.

            If you're so smart, I’ll even post a screen to you. You read it yourself.
            I did not read the text, I simply copied it.
            1. Bongo
              3 June 2016 13: 47
              +5
              Quote: verboo
              If you're so smart, I’ll even post a screen to you. You read it yourself.
              I did not read the text, I simply copied it.

              Olga is right, minus you for rudeness. Here is what the article says to which I gave an active link:
              1. verboo
                verboo 4 June 2016 12: 15
                -1
                Quote: Bongo
                Olga is right

                In what? What, a typo in the online edition, which was not even reprinted, but re-copied, gives the right to call a person a liar? Think about it.
                1. Alex
                  Alex 6 June 2016 11: 26
                  +5
                  Think about the fact that such a figure - 44,5 times - is simply absurd for at least two reasons. First: in the event of such a significant drop in the indicator, not only the fractional parts of the number, even the exact second digit, are usually not indicated. They would write, for example, like this: "the efficiency has decreased 40-45 times." Or something similar.

                  Second: if the decrease in efficiency had become so catastrophic, then these weapons would most likely simply have been discontinued. In most cases, a fall of 3-4 times is bad, but acceptable; in 5-7 times - almost useless; more than 10 times - there is no point in using it (costs are many times higher than the result); in 40-50 times - just absurd.
                  1. verboo
                    verboo 6 June 2016 11: 35
                    0
                    Quote: Alex
                    And you think that such a figure - 44,5 times - is simply awkward

                    And who argues with this?
                    First, try to figure out what it is about, and then arrange the minuses with a fan. I heard, damn it, ringing, but nifiga did not understand where he was.
            2. mvbmvbmvb
              mvbmvbmvb 19 March 2018 11: 43
              0
              You're lying again! 4-4,5 times !!!
        2. Idiot
          Idiot 4 June 2016 17: 24
          0
          Quote: verboo
          And are "super-efficient" more than "very effective"?


          Aviation, which first used PTAB en masse, in the Battle of Kursk, to a greater extent than artillery, caused the defeat of German mechanized formations. Hence the extreme fire hazard "Panthers". Later, until the end of the Second World War, it was the Soviet PTAB that remained the most effective aviation anti-tank weapons.
        3. Idiot
          Idiot 4 June 2016 17: 24
          0
          Quote: verboo
          And are "super-efficient" more than "very effective"?


          Aviation, which first used PTAB en masse, in the Battle of Kursk, to a greater extent than artillery, caused the defeat of German mechanized formations. Hence the extreme fire hazard "Panthers". Later, until the end of the Second World War, it was the Soviet PTAB that remained the most effective aviation anti-tank weapons.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. AK64
        AK64 3 June 2016 10: 28
        +1
        Quote: verboo
        This is a too loud statement. In fact, PTABs were very effective in the early days of their use.


        In the early days, PTABs were super-efficient. In the future, their effectiveness decreased for a number of reasons, but in any case was several times greater than that of aircraft missiles.


        There is a slightly different opinion.
        The attack aircraft threw cartridges from the PTAB from a low altitude, and the fuses did not have time to trundle banally.
        After the Kursk arc, huge amounts of unexploded PTAB were found on the bombing sites.

        Later they began to load the PTAB without cartridges, just into the bomb bay of the IL. This dramatically reduced the number of bobms raised.

        In general, it must be said that the armored effect of a small aerial bomb is even lower than that of a 37mm armor-piercing sub-caliber.
      4. Mikhail Matyugin
        Mikhail Matyugin 4 June 2016 10: 52
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        Did you forget to mention in what period? Compare the sludge losses in 1942 and 1945.

        Of course, Ilov's "survival rate" grew. But what about the German aviation in 1945?
      5. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 10 June 2016 13: 41
        0
        There is a report from the landfill.
        We set up a dozen trophy trophy units (motionless) in a column. They were bombed
        ILs. Experienced pilots were invited. For several flights ILov - 1 one disabled tank.
        IL did not have any sighting devices. The bombing is completely "on the pilot's intuition"
        extremely inefficient.
        1. Bongo
          10 June 2016 13: 44
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          IL did not have any sighting devices. The bombing is completely "on the pilot's intuition"
          extremely inefficient.

          Silt vs tanks
  5. Verdun
    Verdun 3 June 2016 10: 58
    +3
    The Hurricane IID flight data with "big guns" was worse than that of a conventionally armed fighter, and the efficiency was dubious, and therefore the anti-tank version was not widely used.
    This "remarkable attack aircraft" was thrown off course by the recoil of 40 mm guns when firing. At the same time, the gondolas in which the guns were installed critically worsened the flight characteristics of an already not outstanding machine. A significant part of the Hurricane-2 was floated in the USSR under the lend-lease, but they did not reach the combat units, and thank God. In general, neither the United States nor the British managed at that time to develop an aircraft satisfactory for an attack. Most often, fighters tried to adapt for this, but even the Typhoon and Tempest with missiles could do little against tanks. More and more we worked on transport.
    1. Warrior2015
      Warrior2015 5 June 2016 00: 28
      +1
      Quote: Verdun
      In general, neither the United States nor the British managed at that time to develop an aircraft satisfactory for an attack. Most often, fighters tried to adapt for this, but even the Typhoon and Tempest with missiles could do little against tanks. More and more we worked on transport.

      You are a little mistaken - there were achievements. As it turned out, it wasn’t necessary for them to fly this type of aircraft, it cost them heavy fighters in versions of fighter-bombers and attack aircraft.

      By the way, the Germans, in general, also dispensed with attack aircraft in the second half of the war, though for other reasons.

      And above it was clearly and correctly noted - even heavy German armored vehicles were useless if the accompanying unarmored or lightly armored support equipment was knocked out.
  6. gla172
    gla172 3 June 2016 11: 11
    +1
    On the topic .... interesting ....

    The 37-mm ShFK-37 aircraft gun was developed at OKB-15 under the guidance of B.G. Shpitalny. The ShFK-37 gun (Shpitalny fuselage-wing caliber 37 mm), including the magazine for cartridges as its component part, in the wing version had 387 parts. The weight of the gun with the installation on an IL-2 aircraft was 302,5 kg. The rate of fire of the ShFK-37 according to the test site data averaged 169 rounds per minute with an initial projectile speed of about 894 m / s.

    The ammunition of the gun included armor-piercing incendiary-tracer (BZT-37) and fragmentation-incendiary-tracer (OZT-37) shells.

    The BZT-37 projectile provided penetration of German tank armor 30 mm thick (Brinell hardness 3,15) at an angle of 45 degrees. normal from a distance of not more than 500 m. Armor 15-16 mm thick or less (Brinell hardness 2,62) the shell pierced (or broke) at angles of meeting no more than 60 degrees. at the same distances. At the same time, when a 30-mm armor was pierced, a shell squeezed it out according to its caliber and made a deep dent on the opposite inner wall of the tank hull. The squeezed out armor and the remaining parts of the projectile produced severe damage inside the tank.

    Armor 50 mm thick (the front of the hull and turret of medium German tanks StuG III Ausf E and Pz.III Ausf G, Brinell hardness 3,3) was penetrated by a BZT-37 projectile from distances of not more than 200 m at meeting angles not exceeding 5 degrees. .

    In tests of 33 direct hits in the medium tank Pz.III Ausf G and light tanks Pz.II Ausf F and Pz.38 (t) Ausf C, there were only 24 holes, of which 17 holes were in 30 mm thick armor, 1 rebound from 16 mm armor, when the angle of the projectile with the armor was 75-80╕, and the rest of the holes - in the 15-16 mm armor. At the same time, 51,5% of the hits of the shells of the ShFK-37 cannon in the medium tank and 70% of the hits in the light tank disabled them.
    1. verboo
      verboo 3 June 2016 12: 20
      -5
      Quote: gla172
      Armor 50 mm thick (the front of the hull and turret of medium German tanks StuG III Ausf E and Pz.III Ausf G, Brinell hardness 3,3) was penetrated by a BZT-37 projectile from distances of not more than 200 m at meeting angles not exceeding 5 degrees. .

      Any attempts and attempts to give one of Dzhugashvili’s favorite toys (IL-2, but there were several toys) effective anti-tank qualities failed. Even with 45 mm air guns. Therefore, the stubborn installation of VYA-23 on the IL-2 by his order should be recognized as harmful. Assault aviation did not gain anything from this. But anti-aircraft artillery lost about 64,5 thousand. Potentially excellent anti-aircraft barrels.
  7. iouris
    iouris 3 June 2016 11: 20
    -4
    Highlights:
    1) the attacking plane has a chance to survive only by making one call and the degree of its reservation does not matter much here.
    2) a direct hit in a tank with an ordinary aerial bomb or NURS is an event possible, but extremely (!) Unlikely.
    3) firing at a tank from an aircraft gun makes sense only when using shells with a uranium rod.
    These provisions can be considered confirmed by practice.
    Note to the author: 600-1000 meters is not a "low level flight", and not even at an "extremely low altitude".
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 3 June 2016 11: 52
      +3
      2) a direct hit in a tank with an ordinary aerial bomb or NURS is an event possible, but extremely (!) Unlikely.

      a bomb?
      1. AK64
        AK64 3 June 2016 12: 37
        +2
        2) a direct hit in a tank with an ordinary aerial bomb or NURS is an event possible, but extremely (!) Unlikely.


        a bomb?


        This opinion is incorrect.
        And the dive bombers quite managed to hit the tanks (with some probability, of course), and there is such a technique --- low-altitude bombing from the horizontal (at sea "top-mast bombing") - so it is quite possible for them to put a bomb at those speeds into the tank
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Verdun
      Verdun 3 June 2016 12: 35
      +2
      2) a direct hit in a tank with an ordinary aerial bomb or NURS is an event possible, but extremely (!) Unlikely.
      Well yes. For example, such as a bomb falling into BT-? my grandfather. Fortunately for my grandfather, he was not in the tank at that moment. Received the last orders from the commander before the attack. But the crew died ...
      1. iouris
        iouris 4 June 2016 10: 15
        -1
        I wrote that it is possible, although extremely unlikely.
        In Soviet times, probably, every aviation regiment had a shield with the slogan: "Every bomb, every shell is a target!" (By default, it meant that the pilot uses uncontrolled weapons).
        For the literal implementation of the task thus posed, it was necessary that the goal be sized
        when bombing from horizontal flight (altitude 200-400 m) 600x150 m,
        when bombing from a dive (18-25 degrees) 200x100 m
        If your education includes elementary knowledge from the field of probability theory, then you yourself can assess the likelihood of a direct hit in the tank: it is negligible.
        This is the essence of the problem of the relationship between the "red (combined-arms) generals" ("customer") and "pilots" (performers): the bomb fell from the tank at a distance of 150 m, the pilot was rated "good", but the target was not hit.
        1. iouris
          iouris 4 June 2016 19: 18
          0
          The colleague who set the minus forgot to refute my arguments mathematically.
    4. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 3 June 2016 13: 02
      +3
      Quote: iouris
      Note to the author: 600-1000 meters is not a "low level flight", and not even at an "extremely low altitude".

      I think the author has written a similar article is quite able to do without your notes. Apparently there is a typo, most likely we are talking about horizontal flight.
      1. iouris
        iouris 4 June 2016 10: 00
        -1
        Thinking is good, but there are things you just need to know. It is almost impossible to hit a tank with a bomb from such a height. Besides, the concept of "low level flight" is nothing more than a figure of speech. Flight at low altitude (MV) and at extremely low altitude (PMV) have qualitative differences in terms of the structure of the pilot's activity.
    5. Bongo
      4 June 2016 14: 47
      +2
      Quote: iouris
      Note to the author: 600-1000 meters is not a "low level flight", and not even at an "extremely low altitude".


      Squadron of Blenheim bombers, each of which usually carried four 250 lb (113 kg) bombs, when bombing with horizontal flying from a height of 600-1000 meters could destroy or seriously damage the 1-2 tank.
  8. iouris
    iouris 4 June 2016 19: 16
    0
    Squadron! The task is not to "get into the tank", but to win the war.
    Squadron is how many planes, how many bombs, how many crew members, how many people are involved in the preparation and provision of flights?
    What is the likelihood that the plane will be shot down or lost for other reasons?
    To answer such questions, the best mathematicians of the world were involved, who developed mathematical models and the theory of operations.
    Today, some have safely forgotten about this. It’s really bad if you didn’t know, and even forgot.
  9. Nikita_Shmik
    Nikita_Shmik 4 June 2016 21: 10
    0
    Article of Norms. Only the most productive German tank ace was Knispel, not Wittmann.
  10. mvbmvbmvb
    mvbmvbmvb 19 March 2018 11: 46
    0
    Quote: verboo
    Quote: Bongo
    super effective

    And are "super-efficient" more than "very effective"?
    Quote: Bongo
    but in any case it was many times more than that of aircraft missiles.

    "The effectiveness of Il-2 strikes with the use of PTAB has decreased by about 44.5 times, while remaining, on average, 2-3 times higher than with the use of high-explosive and high-explosive bombs."
    This is a quote, if that. Just from the "IL-2 against tanks."

    You're lying, the quote is ORIGINAL (for those who are non-Russian here, the source)
    "The effectiveness of IL-2 strikes with the use of PTAB decreased by about 4-4,5 times, remaining, however, on average 2-3 times higher than when using high-explosive and high-explosive fragmentation bombs