P-47 vs IL-2 vs SU-2 vs Typhoon

[GrauGeist]

The 30mm cannon on the A 10 cannot destroy a modern tank

It can and did.

The GAU-8 and it's 30mm ammunition aboard the A-10 is far more sophisticated than WWII era cannon.

 

[SaparotRob]

Always loved that picture.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

It can and did.

Can the GAU-8 actually penetrate the top or side armour of something relatively modern, like a T-90? Honest question, I really have no idea.
I had assumed that A-10's would be knocking out main battle tanks with guided munitions like AGM-65's, and using their cannon to disable IFV or APC's

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"Can an A-10 Warthog airplane take down an advanced Russian tank, like a T-90, with its Gatling gun alone?

'The super-short version is: The Gun can still put a hurting on a modern tank. While the Hawg has never wanted to try to perforate a treaded tin can from the front, those things are still reliably squishy when you come at it from the right angle. That "right angle" tends to be the top and the rear.

'There are examples in that link I just shared, including one where a lowly 25mm gun takes a tank out of the fight. If a 25mm can do it, you can bet your depleted uranium that the GAU-8 can do it, too."

Lynn Taylor, A-10 Pilot, Joint Firepower Course Instructor, Air Liaison Officer

‘If the A-10 can’t kill a modern tank with its gun, can we just put a bigger gun on it?’ Former Hog pilot says: 'No.' Here’s why. - The Aviation Geek Club

‘If the A-10 can’t kill a modern tank with its gun, can we just put a bigger gun on it?’ Former Hog pilot says: 'No.' Here’s why.

theaviationgeekclub.com

 

[GrauGeist]

The Luftwaffe had success against Soviet armor by attacking from the sides and/or rear, diving at an angle that defeated the tank's sloped armor.

The A-10 follows that same principle when attacking armor.

 

[K5083]

I'm pretty sure the P-47 didn't need 20mm cannon. It was well-armed as it was.

I'm pretty sure that the numbers of tanks directly destroyed on the battlefield by any aircraft in WW2 is small relative to the threat of A/T guns, mines, artillery or infantry weapons.

I'm here to suggest that what we have here is a misappreciation of what CAS aircraft do and don't do. What they generally DON'T do is inflict casualties on the enemy. What they do is to destroy softskins and rail and stuff near or on the battlefield and to freeze movement. That's the crucial thing, making it difficult or impossible to move your truck or get out of cover. If the enemy does try to carry on normally despite aerial attack they indeed will incur casualties. But usually they hunker down. Only if they are caught unable to move, as at the defile at Messudieh (WW1, battle of Megiddo, look it up) or Falaise, do they take casualties, and even then the result is abandoning the stuck vehicles and getting out on foot.

 

[pbehn]

Maybe over the sands of time people seeing "devastating attacks on armoured columns" turned it into "tank buster".

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I'm pretty sure the P-47 didn't need 20mm cannon. It was well-armed as it was.

I don't think anybody is suggesting the P-47 wasn't well armed, as it obviously was. However, the suggestion has been made that if armed with 4x 20mm cannon, it could have saved weight, and increased its firepower, which isn't a bad suggestion. The problem, is the US built Hispano was notoriously unreliable, so the whole thing remains in fantasy land.

 

[Dimlee]

I will never understand why the IL-2 didn't use any of the really great radials the russians had (1800hp+ on their low octane gas, good reliability, produced up to the 60s by the chinese, so most radial warbirds that aren't western use chinese radials).

Ilyishin tried to modify Il-2 with M-71 and M-82 but results were not satisfactory and there were issues with M-71 production.
with M-71

with M-82

There was much better Sukhoi's prototype that was superior to Il-2 in all respects. But it was never accepted.

 

[Dimlee]

The Luftwaffe had success against Soviet armor by attacking from the sides and/or rear, diving at an angle that defeated the tank's sloped armor.

The A-10 follows that same principle when attacking armor.

Luftwaffe - with cannons? Then we have to define "success". There were German claims that didn't match Soviet loss figures. I really would like to see Ju 87G or Hs 129 (with Mk 101 or Mk 103) test range results, how accurate were they against the tank target?
By the way, about Il-2 "tank-busting" accuracy:

Early ww2 airborne tank-busters what-if

Il-2 with NS-37 cannons. Tests on the firing range. Targets were hit in 43% of flights. Hits/ammunition spent = 2.98%. Ильюшин Ил-2 НС-37 Il-2 with ShFK-37 cannons. The estimated probability to hit (not to destroy) the target in one attack: Pz.IIIG 0.04-0.02 Sd Kfz 250 0.09-0.06 In other words...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[PAT303]

I don't think anybody is suggesting the P-47 wasn't well armed, as it obviously was. However, the suggestion has been made that if armed with 4x 20mm cannon, it could have saved weight, and increased its firepower, which isn't a bad suggestion. The problem, is the US built Hispano was notoriously unreliable, so the whole thing remains in fantasy land.

That's my argument, 4 Hispano's have the firepower of 12 .50 BMG's with less weight so more fuel or munitions as required, the 20mm packs more punch everyway you look at it. Tank busting - How effective were air strikes during WWII? This is an interesting read about the overall effectiveness of CAS

 

[Shortround6]

we are also comparing two different era aircraft.

By the time the P-47 was entering heavy duty attack duty (and not just shooting up target's of opportunity on the way home from the escort missions) the P-47s were using 2 or 3 bombs and they were using the triple rocket launchers. The 4.5in rockets weren't very good and they were replaced (not entirely) by the 5in HVAR rockets. The 5in HVAR wasn't exactly precision either but if you did hit a tank with one you were certainly going to it's attention. (A 5in naval shell)
The British 60lb rockets were earlier than the US rockets.

This reduced the need for using aircraft guns for tank busting.
The Russian rockets also had very poor accuracy and the Russians used much lighter rockets than the British and US. The Russian rockets were introduced in 1937 and 1938 were in wide spread use when the war began.

The Su-2 and the IL-2 were in use in 1941. The Typhoon started use in 1942 ( just starting, 1943 is much more widespread) and the P-47 didn't really get into using underwing ordnance until 1944.

 

[PAT303]

'There are examples in that link I just shared, including one where a lowly 25mm gun takes a tank out of the fight. If a 25mm can do it, you can bet your depleted uranium that the GAU-8 can do it, too."

The only tanks the 30mm could take out are the older legacy models, like the Hispano it's good for mission or mobility kills realistically.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The only tanks the 30mm could take out are the older legacy models, like the Hispano it's good for mission or mobility kills realistically.

Not my words - this guy was from the A-10 community and saw combat in the aircraft and later became an instructor. I think he has a bit more experience here than you or I.

 

[GrauGeist]

"Older legacy" tanks can still do harm to your ground forces and needs to be neutralized.

Also on current tanks with reactive armor, a good hosing from a GAU-8 will leave the primary armor exposed to friendly armor countermeasures against that enemy tank.

 

[Acheron]

Can the GAU-8 actually penetrate the top or side armour of something relatively modern, like a T-90? Honest question, I really have no idea.
I had assumed that A-10's would be knocking out main battle tanks with guided munitions like AGM-65's, and using their cannon to disable IFV or APC's

One shell? Pretty sure not. However, according to wiki, that thing has a RoF of 3,900 RPM, or 65 PER SECOND. AFAIK, modern armor is optimized to protect from few big rounds like other tank's shells. So, I am not sure if it could open a modern tank, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Regarding CAS, my understanding was CAS = attacking enemy troops right on the frontline, already engaging or about to engage your own ground troops, while attacking the rear communications (comms in the sense of things like especially transport) was interdiction?

 

[Greyman]

Luftwaffe - with cannons? Then we have to define "success". There were German claims that didn't match Soviet loss figures. I really would like to see Ju 87G or Hs 129 (with Mk 101 or Mk 103) test range results, how accurate were they against the tank target?
By the way, about Il-2 "tank-busting" accuracy:

Early ww2 airborne tank-busters what-if

Il-2 with NS-37 cannons. Tests on the firing range. Targets were hit in 43% of flights. Hits/ammunition spent = 2.98%. Ильюшин Ил-2 НС-37 Il-2 with ShFK-37 cannons. The estimated probability to hit (not to destroy) the target in one attack: Pz.IIIG 0.04-0.02 Sd Kfz 250 0.09-0.06 In other words...

ww2aircraft.net

Although the VVS was not a fan of the Hurricane or the Vickers 'S' gun overall -- a Google Translate of the following seems to indicate it was a step up in accuracy:

​

Рассеивание нескольких очередей при стрельбе в воздухе из пушек по полотнищам, расположенным на земле, у самолета «Харрикейн» оказалось примерно в 2-2,5 раза меньше, чем у самолетов ЛаГГ-3 и Як-9т с пушкой НС-37, и в 6-6,5 раз меньше, чем у самолета Ил-2 с пушками НС-37. Смещение центров группирования попаданий по отношению точки наводки прицела у самолета «Харрикейн» меньше, чем у Ил-2 с НС-37 примерно в 4-11 раз меньше.​

​

Рассеивание при стрельбе в воздухе из пушек у самолета «Харрикейн» IID, по сравнению с рассеиванием при стрельбе на земле, возрастало в 10-18 раз, а у самолета Ил-2 — в 30-100 раз. Следовательно, ведение прицельного огня в воздухе с самолета «Харрикейн» IID​

​

«значительно удобнее и точнее, чем со сравниваемыми отечественными самолетами».​

​

Считалось, что такой результат англичанам удалось получить за счет​

​

«удачного расположения центра тяжести самолета, что почти не снизило его летно-пилотажные качества»,​

​

хорошей конструкции прицела, обеспечивающего точность при прицеливании, и удобного расположения механизмов управления огнем оружия. То есть, «Харрикейн» IID наглядно продемонстрировал возможность установки крупнокалиберных авиапушек на одномоторный самолет без снижения его летных качеств и​

​

«с достаточной точностью ведения прицельного огня».​

 

[Greyman]

I'm pretty sure that the tank was defanged. A shell going through a gun barrel has really small tolerances. It would only take a very small burr on the inside of the barrel which almost certainly happened to make it impossible to fire the gun. The shell would probably explode in the barrel

Yep. Here's a picture of a 40mm 'S' gun round through the barrel of a Japanese tank.

Smaller barrel for sure -- but blasting through these things doesn't make a nice, clean, Looney Tunes silhouette.

 

[PAT303]

Not my words - this guy was from the A-10 community and saw combat in the aircraft and later became an instructor. I think he has a bit more experience here than you or I.

What is the most modern tank the A10 has engaged in combat, export model T72's?.

 

[PAT303]

Also on current tanks with reactive armor, a good hosing from a GAU-8 will leave the primary armor exposed to friendly armor countermeasures against that enemy tank.

Information from sites like Chieftains Hatch and below the turret ring say ERA blocks are too insensitive to be reliably set off from small caliber rounds.