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

Well, we have gone from 12.7-20mm full bore projectiles that were often set up to converge at a set distance and aimed with a bit more than a wad of the gum on the windshield to a gun set up for 3-4 times more range, on the center line, aimed with a heads up display with inputs from laser or radar or ???
The anti armor round is a long rod penetrator with a much lower of time than the old ammo. Not to mention the much, much, much higher penetration.

Basically why don't we compare a WW I rifle to a new sniper rifle that using a Lazer rangefinder, optical sights, thermal imaging and all the rest if the bells and whistles.

SaparotRob said:

That settles that.

Click to expand...

Yes it does, the 30mm can destroy export ''monkey'' model T72's.

I was surprised to find out the difference in the hitting power of the rockets carried by the P-47 and Typhoon (21kg and 27 kg warhead)
as opposed to the IL-2 with a .9kg warhead. That is a big difference when armour is involved.

As an example a BL 6" naval shell has the following ;
Lyddite : 13 lb 5 oz (6.0 kg) Amatol : 8 lb 14 oz (4.0 kg) Shrapnel : 874 balls @ 27/lb

The 25kg SAP armour piercing head (British) could go through 88mm of armour at 700 yards. The larger 60lb version didn't have a penetration
number. The 25kg didn't have an explosive charge but the 60 had 6kg.

Not a flying toy.

I think you've got a couple of things mistyped there.

For the 25-lb AP head: --- 88mm at 20 degrees 700 yards

I know I've seen figures for the 25-lb SAP head, but can't find them now. Being made of mild steel the penetration was pretty modest. I want to say roughly half.

60-lb SAP could blast about 25mm

Even for half penetration that is enough for the flank armour of a Panzer IV or Panther. The other factor is the concussion effect
of the charge. What I did fond interesting was the small size of the rocket head of the Il-2.

PAT303 said:

Yes it does, the 30mm can destroy export ''monkey'' model T72's.

Click to expand...

PAT303,

While you may agree that the A-10s 30mm gun can destroy an "export" version of the T72, that doesn't mean it can't destroy / mobility kill / disable a non export version. Reactive armor "reacts" and then it's not able to react anymore. It needs to be replaced. So in combat the tank withdrawals if it has the option, or it is more vulnerable to being destroyed.

Also realize if the kill capability of the current A-10 30mm round is stated as A,B or C, that actually may be false. The US, nor any other country I have interacted with, will readily tell you of capabilities it has that it considers classified. And that goes for weapons as well as platforms.

Cheers,
Biff

This footage is rather dated (1978) but go to 2:57 to watch an A-10 brewing up an M-48 with turret-hits from the 30mm:

GrauGeist said:

You should read some of the memoirs of German heavy Tank crews that came under fire. It didn't incapacitate them, but it sure got their attention.

Click to expand...

Russian reports from the Battle of Tsushima definitely support your point. Even those not killed or wounded from spalling armor were traumatized by the experience. I can't imagine a rain of 30mm depleted-U would not impart a similar effect.

pbehn said:

I dont know the science but it is exactly the same word used in the science of refractory bricks used in furnace linings etc which I did work on. I can sort of see a connection but it is a real "stretch" Spalling – Signs of Refractory Failure | RG Smith Company.

Click to expand...

As firefighters, we were trained against hitting a long-involved concrete wall with a straight-stream of water for exactly the same reason. The temperature change is so rapid that the concrete will spall from differential contraction ... and now you've got shrapnel.

Greyman said:

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».​

Click to expand...

Thank you. I always thought that Hurricane IID could be used effectively (subject adequate training is given to the pilots) if it arrives earlier.
What is the source?

Dimlee said:

Thank you. I always thought that Hurricane IID could be used effectively (subject adequate training is given to the pilots) if it arrives earlier.

Click to expand...

Sounds like receiving more than just ball rounds would have been a plus, too. (Though U-boats or something might be to blame for that ...)

BiffF15 said:

Unless I'm missing something, realize that reactive armor doesn't regenerate. If strafed by an A-10, it might stop the first rounds, but not all. Once it "reacts", it's used up and leaves that portion unprotected or less protected.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The tactics used by both sides in Ukraine in winter battles of 2014/2015 on single tanks: concentrate machine gun fire, destroy the reactive armour and then use RPG.

BiffF15 said:

While you may agree that the A-10s 30mm gun can destroy an "export" version of the T72, that doesn't mean it can't destroy / mobility kill / disable a non export version. Reactive armor "reacts" and then it's not able to react anymore. It needs to be replaced. So in combat the tank withdrawals if it has the option, or it is more vulnerable to being destroyed.

Click to expand...

That's my point Biff, the Hispano 20mm is the better ground attack weapon compared to the .50 because it can mobility/mission kill heavier armored vehicles of WW2 like the 30mm can today. For ground attack/CAS the British got it right with four 20mm Hispano's.

Dimlee said:

Exactly. The tactics used by both sides in Ukraine in winter battles of 2014/2015 on single tanks: concentrate machine gun fire, destroy the reactive armour and then use RPG.

Click to expand...

Not buying it, the ERA is desensitized against heavy MG and light cannons for just that reason and repeatedly hitting a tank in the same spot would require it to oblige to having it done, there's many photo's of knocked out tanks with ERA tiles that didn't detonate even though the tanks burned, they are harder to initiate than you think.

PAT303 said:

That's my point Biff, the Hispano 20mm is the better ground attack weapon compared to the .50 because it can mobility/mission kill heavier armored vehicles of WW2 like the 30mm can today. For ground attack/CAS the British got it right with four 20mm Hispano's.

Click to expand...

The British didn't use much special 20MM AP ammo, they used a fair amount of 20MM semi AP ammo.
The US changed from .50 cal ball and mixed belts of AP to just about all M8 API but not until late 1943 or early 1944.
The difference between the .50 and the 20mm in target effect wasn't that great against armor.

Part of the 20mms superior over the 20mm was that the 20mm semi AP ammo held almost 10 times the incendiary material that the .50 cal M8 API did.
Likewise the 20mm HE was a lot destructive than the .50 cal bullets were.
The 20mm didn't make holes much deeper in armor. They did make holes bigger, assuming they could both the holed deep enough.

The light armor (like half tracks and armored cars) were vulnerable to the .50 and the 20mm although the 20mm did have an edge. The heavier armor (even MK IVs) needed something heavier to take out tank.

The US 30mm is such an outlier that shouldn't even be considered. Consider that the A-10 can fire a distance that most WW II light AA cannot even fire effectively (just looking at hitting) at the A-10, The A-10 is firing at 1200yds or more and with it's sighting system has a good chance of hitting. The WW II planes have to get much closer to even hit and the ground fire has a least more than a platinum BB chance of hitting.

PAT303 said:

Not buying it, the ERA is desensitized against heavy MG and light cannons for just that reason and repeatedly hitting a tank in the same spot would require it to oblige to having it done, there's many photo's of knocked out tanks with ERA tiles that didn't detonate even though the tanks burned, they are harder to initiate than you think. View attachment 652895

Click to expand...

Don't buy. I have nothing to sell. I have read combat reports and have read/heard eyewitnesses accounts.
I can't say anything about ERAs produced outside of ex USSR but Kontakt, apparently, did detonate after direct hits.
And this picture does not contradict my information. Unless there is proof that those intact tiles were subject to MG fire.

Reactive armor is simply an explosive compound sandwiched between plates - larger projectiles will obviously trigger it, but so will heavy caliber projectiles striking it in groups (read: repeatedly).

The reactuve armor cannot differentiate between the two methods.

AFAIK, a "normal" MG can quite literally fell trees. So, if a reactive-armor panel doesn't go off beside the tank burning off, I would still consider it feasible for it to go of if stroked by machine-gun fire, especially since "stroked by machine-gun fire" probably means a good dozen rounds or so.

One of the veterans of The Battle of Debaltseve said: "We slew that tank like a mammoth", referring to the Russian/Ukrainian proverbial meaning to overcome the large adversary with a number of smaller units. He described how his small group of infantry was maneuvring around the tank, hitting it again and again with MGs and AK fire, before using the RPG.

After reading through this thread and going through what I can find on the internet, I'm curious if the IL-2 really shouldn't be compared to something like the SBD Dauntless or the Fairly Battle as the performance seems more comparable. I'm also really unclear about how the IL-2 was used in combat. From what I can find, it seems like it was expected to be in very close support and exposed to ground fire for extended periods of time. That might help explain some of the very high loss rates due to ground fire. I also looked for annual loss rates with the theory that maybe the loss rates were exceptionally high early in the war and began to taper off as the Soviets gained control of the air, but that doesn't quite seem to be the case. Here is how I calculated loss rates for the IL-2/IL-10. Not a perfect approach but hopefully reasonably close. I have attached some screen shots at the bottom from my sources:

Total # of IL-2/IL-10 produced 1941-1945 (Wiki) 42,330
Total # aircraft produced by USSR 1941 - 1945 (Harrison) 134,365
IL-2/10 as percentage of total production - 31.5%

Estimated Annual IL-2/10 Production based on % of Annual Overall Production (Harrison)
1941 = 12,377(.315) = 3900
1942 = 21,681(.315) = 6829
1943 = 29,877(.315) = 9392
1944 = 33,205(.315) = 10,460
1945 = 37,285(.315) = 11,744

Annual Loss Rate (%) based on loss numbers from Wiki
1941 = 533/3900 = 14%
1942 = 1676/6829 = 26%
1943 = 3515/9392 = 38%
1944 = 3347/10460 = 32%
1945 = 1691/11744 = 14%

Using the numbers provided by Vincenzo in a following thread

1941 = 533/1542 = 34.5%
1942 = 1676/8229 = 20.3%
1943 = 3515/11193 = 31.4%
1944 = 3347/11110 = 30%
1945 = 169/4089 = 4%

I'm sure there's a bit of error built in to my approach, but the thing that stands out to me is how the loss rate in 1944 stayed relatively flat with 1943. This leads me to think that Soviet CAS tactics had a lot more to do with IL-2 loss rates than whether or not the Soviets had achieved local air superiority. Perhaps someone who has an understanding of this would care to expand on this. Lastly, I'm also interested in the effectiveness of the PTAB bomblet that seems to have been extensively used by the IL-2 later in the war.

Apologies that this is more a series of questions rather than knowledge sharing.

Regards,

Kk

for the russian wiki the yearly production of Il-2 was
1941: 1542
1942: 8229
1943: 11193
1944: 11110*
1945: 4089

* include Il-10 production

Il-10 production for 1945: 2556

Vincenzo said:

for the russian wiki the yearly production of Il-2 was
1941: 1542
1942: 8229
1943: 11193
1944: 11110*
1945: 4089

* include Il-10 production

Il-10 production for 1945: 2556

Click to expand...

Thanks, Vincenzo!

I will edit my post.

Kk