Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Nominal load was 267 rounds per gun from what I could find down to 225 when drop tanks or bombs were fitted.
You have to get the angles right.
I made a very similar post a few years ago and immediately received a negative strike for it, so I now tread carefully if suggesting the supplanting of the mighty Browning M2.
I have been reading up on airborne tank busting guns. Hurricanes in the desert were armed with 40mm Vickers S guns. These were effective against the tanks generally in service at the time, but there were questions of how effective these would be against the newer tanks. The Hurricane_IIDs made it to Burma, but not Sicily. The British stuck some fairly interesting 40mm guns on to Tempests and Mustangs, but none of it reached service. Hans Rudel was apparently effective with 37mm cannons on his Ju87, but was he busting the new tanks, or just APCs and trucks? Perhaps he was overclaiming? The Germans went to the trouble of mounting BK 7,5 75mm cannons to their Hs129s. These could bust a Stalin tank, but they required total air superiority. I would guess that tank armour improved dramatically during the war, far more so than comparable aircraft technology. Things that worked in early/mid war, would not necessarily work on tanks of the late war.
It did, at the later stage of the war and for the same reason as the Soviets in 1941. What surprised me, that VVS continued to focus on CAS in a later period as well when it had an absolute majority in numbers.
Was that wrong of the Russians? I suspect that their focus on low altitude performance created opportunities for the Luftwaffe. Performance at higher altitudes would have helped the CAS mission.
Is there reliable statistics about that? Post combat reports like those made after the Kursk Battle or air attacks in Normandy?
Yes it's obvious that some subjects on here are strictly taboo.
I look at it like the A10, spray it with rounds and sooner or later you will hit a softer spot, simply damaging the gun tube or a round going through the radiator grates is enough. You made a point I didn't think of and that's pulling out, the Jug needs plenty of height so maybe hunting tanks in one diving from above is not a good idea.
They painted a Panther white and stuck it in a field and struggled to hit it with rockets, the physiological effect of rocket armed Typhoons orbiting overhead was more value than their effectiveness.
Not taboo, but (as explained above), not something that was wanted at the time.
From a couple of things I read here and there mainly about things after Falaise, the effect of a Typhoon attack was as much psychological. It wasnt just one attack with one aircraft with the cab rank system it was sustained and the longer you spend in the tank with hatches shut the more vulnerable you feel, what you do know is it is almost certain there is no infantry or fuel near you.
If I were sat in a metal box that was the recipient of strafing, rocketing, bombing or a combination of all three - I don't think the statistics would make me feel much better. Especially when my supporting infantry have all legged it for the nearest hole, my fuel/spares/ammunition was on a truck behind me that got strafed and I'm having to drive long distances (with associated mechanical costs) because some aerial hoodlums have knobbled all the railway rolling stock.
It may not all been down to the Typhoon, many other planes were used in CAS. The cab rank system was part of CAS support, so if the attack was called in, obviously you were being watched in your tin can. Also proximity fused munitions started to be used, that kept the infantry away from tanks. It may have been the whole "thing" of being under attack for weeks and months.
