Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Don't be absurd. The German locomotives were heavily armored. Hit something with enough sustained AP fire and it will get through. Inc;uding a locomotive that wouldn't flinch at carrying 1000 extra pounds of armor.
 
VG-33 said:
Not by a 7.92 cartridge. In the P-47 you can hit the pilot, the oil circuitry, the fuel circuitry, or the ignition circuitry leading to the complete plane loss, by a simple Mauser rifle.

Regards
Click to expand...
And you could do the same to any other aircraft including the IL-2 if its hit in the right place and although heavily armored, the IL-2 was not invulnerable and that would include smaller arms.

This is from an interview with Ilmari Juttlainen, Finland's top ace of WW2

"MH: Your score includes seven Ilyushin Il-2s. How did you manage to bring down those armored ground-attack planes?

Juutilainen: The Il-2 had really tough armor, and from directly behind you could only eliminate the rear gunner. There were three separate armor plates behind the pilot and the engine. The aircraft flew usually at low level, so the only approach was from above. We attacked their formations from both sides to disperse their defensive fire. From the side and above, one could shoot at a place in the armpit of the Il-2's wing, which normally caught fire".

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/ilmari_juutilainen.htm
 
Last edited:
Clay_Allison said:
Don't be absurd. .
Click to expand...
Don't be absurd yourself. ! Or innacurate in your posts

The German locomotives were heavily armored. Hit something with enough sustained AP fire and it will get through. Inc;uding a locomotive that wouldn't flinch at carrying 1000 extra pounds of armor
Click to expand...
The locomotive is made of usual soft steel close to iron properties, with low carbon mixture, not armor. Some parts are of cast iron or stainless steel. An armored locomotive had additional armored plates. Armored trains exists of course. It's an exception, not the general case in 43-45.


Regards

Altea
 
Last edited:
It was Me-262 pilots who likened the Mk108 as a grenade launcher more than a gun, which lobbed its shells to the target.
An interesting note is also that when the Mk108 was fitted as a motorkanone it was subject to vertical convergence, and was aimed slightly upwards. It fired in a shallow arc and you tooled the convergence to travel upwards across the sight at about 150m and again down through the sight at 350m, as typical settings, and those are your two convergence ranges. An MG151 you just pointed straight and it went straight for a good 500m or more.

It is also noteworthy the minengeschoß is a description of improved industrial processes used to produce thin-walled HE shells. Between the wars and in the early MG FF a sort of thick walled casting was used which was already being surpassed in other countries like Great Britain. A new thin walled production technique was then used, allowing higher HE fill and this was referred to as the mine shell. It's basically just the modern way of making shells in the thirties and increased the effectiveness of the 20mm round tremendously. The British and everybody had improved shell production techniques during the thirties so it wasn't the magic round or anything.
You could still get shells made using the older technique, but to put the same HE fill in them the shell weight would be much higher.
The Mk108 and Mk101/103 uses the same warhead, but difference propellant cases (the high velocity Mk101/103 of course much larger). Both can use a mine shell at 330g but due to the low velocity of the Mk108 this was the only shell type fitted. The Mk101/103 also used a 447g regular HE shell (thick walled, same fill, easier to produce but reduced performance too much for the Mk108 ), a 500g APHE shell and a 355g tungsten core shell. Ideal loadout in an aerial mount was a combination of mine shells and tungsten cored, but neither were always readily available.

So you see the thing about the Mine shell is not so much a big fantastic HE fill, but a much lower shell weight for the same HE fill as other nations were using in similar calibres, so the gun itself had better performance...in the case of the Mk108 an inordinately high rate of fire and low recoil effect for that calibre in 1943.
Another point is a comparison of muzzle energy, the Mk108 half that of the Japanese Type 5 30mm aero gun and significantly less than a quarter of a Mk101/103. Trust me, it lobbed.

Pilots have also stated that "only a few Mk108 shots were required to bring down a B-17" but by a few they undoubtedly meant typically more than one. Me-262 pilots did report however that only one volley of shells from its four Mk108 armament could bring down a B-17.
Thus a conservative estimate of 3-5 Mk108 shells fired by an experienced pilot might be said a good average minimum to take down a B-17 if the shots are good, at least according to pilot comments.

But as has been mentioned and I've seen gun camera footage confirming this, an a/c firing MG151 could sit on the tail of a B-17 and fire away for quite some time, whilst damaging individual sections (gun turrets, engines, etc.), the bomber may well be recorded as lost, but it didn't exactly break apart and go down and who knows, possibly made it back to base.

But where we head into the argument of "how many shells does it take to down an a/c" we should also look at the combat record of aces like Marsielle. One of my favourite pieces of documentation was his ground crew records for 5 June 1942, following a sortie in which Marsielle was credited with downing six P-40Es from No5 Sqn SAAF. The armourers recorded replacing only 10 rounds of 20mm and 180 rounds of 7.92mm upon landing. So tracking shots aside, say 1-2 rounds of 20mm mine shells and a dozen 7.92mm per Kittyhawk downed?
 
Last edited:
Fascinating stuff!

It pretty much confirms what I said about the fall: in the first second it is limited. Most targets were within what? 200 meters? That's half a second of the MK 108. What's the typical distance in a dogfight?

I know that the MK 108 fell more than the MG 151. But sometimes I feel as if it portrayed that the MG 151 shot straight ahead while the MK 108 was a mortar.


As to the MiG-3, I read time and time again that the engine was optimized for high altitude (actually medium altitude but high to Eastern Front standards...) and that the MiG-3 suffered as soon as it fought at low altitude. The only aircraft I know that suffered from this are turbocharged fighters like the P-47. The MiG-3 had a single-stage supercharger if I'm not mistaken.
But is it really that hard to change the gear ratio? I remember the Spit and Bf 109 changing gear ratio without much problem (a higher gear ratio as soon as they were cleared to do this). And what about new production? As soon as the war broke out and the MiG-3 suffered, couldn't they simply changed the new production Mikulins? I know production continued unaltered for at least a couple of months ...
And finally, the only fighter that I know that was optimized for a higher altitude was the Spitfire HF-versions. Other fighters struggled at higher altitude, most notably the german fighters in 1943/1944. They had to wait for new engines (Jumo 213 and DB 605AS) before they achieved at it. So was optimizing an engine for a different altitude so difficult??

I find the MiG-3 story to be unique, there's no other aircraft like it. And that's why it is so strange to understand.


Kris
 
Clay_Allison said:
Don't be absurd. The German locomotives were heavily armored. Hit something with enough sustained AP fire and it will get through. Inc;uding a locomotive that wouldn't flinch at carrying 1000 extra pounds of armor.
Click to expand...

The typical German train was not armored, it was no different than any other steam or diesel locomotive. They did however have Armored Trains, but they were not the norm.
 



Sure, it was not invulnerable...

But if you call smaller arms 8mm and less sized bullets, the answer is NO. Either, show me the place in the Il2 airframe that is vunerable to a single 0.3 bullet. If you're cutting it's wooden fuselage with a sustainted neverending burst, it would be possible. But hard to imagine, especially from the ground...

VG-33
 
You're not mistaken, but the MiG-3 had a Polikovski variable pitch paddle supercharger, even if single-staged. It was more advanced that the Allison one.


I remember the Spit and Bf 109 changing gear ratio without much problem (a higher gear ratio as soon as they were cleared to do this).
Click to expand...
Why not? The AM-35 was giving 1200 hp at 4500m, the AM-35A at 6000m. The main difference was the supercharger gear rato.

And what about new production? As soon as the war broke out and the MiG-3 suffered, couldn't they simply changed the new production Mikulins?
Click to expand...
What Mikulin? The seral AM-35A was highly unreliable. Work still continuated on it. The M-38 provided successeful and soon obtained the highest priority . Developpement programm comprised the AM-37 and AM-39. Enormous work for an entreprise with reduced staff, because of the war-mobilisation.

I find the MiG-3 story to be unique, there's no other aircraft like it. And that's why it is so strange to understand.
Click to expand...
Not that strange, without the zavod 1 evacuation and the absolute priority given to the AM-38 engine, massive MiG-3 production should have been continuated.

Regards

VG
 
Last edited:

Ok, so...cannon rounds taking out half the engine,
Seriously as you just said. And you forgot the 7.92 mauser bullet taking off the half of the pilot's head...

Regards
 
VG-33 said:
Sure, it was not invulnerable...

But if you call smaller arms 8mm and less sized bullets, the answer is NO. Either, show me the place in the Il2 airframe that is vunerable to a single 0.3 bullet.
Click to expand...
The oil cooler - although difficult to hit, even a .22 round through it (and this includes almost all WW2 oil coolers, be it round, square and used in a radial or in-line engines) taking out enough internal capillaries within the cooler will eventually cause it to allow all engine oil to leak and ultimately cause the failure of the engine. The only variable is the size of the hole, system pressure and the time in the air after the oil cooler is damaged.

On the IL-2 the oil cooler was located on the lower portion of the aircraft presenting a difficult air-to-air target. Although this wasn't really an Achilles Heel, both Soviet and German servicemen have spoken about IL-2s being brought down by damage to the oil cooler.

Additionally many times damage to aircraft components will not require a direct hit. An explosive round, incendiary or even a small arms round hitting armor plate and then shattering or ricocheting will be enough to hit aluminum fluid lines or rubber hoses, again setting up a chain of events that could bring down the most robust aircraft.

I've seen small rocks because damage to oil coolers installed on modem GA aircraft and if allowed to be operated continually would have caused all the oil to leak out. For the most part recip aircraft engine oil coolers haven't really changed in 60 years.
 
Last edited:
.50 cal v trains: quite effective. It seems many people are affected by anti-.50 syndrome, maybe because that was common American practice, and what Americans think is always wrong or at least suspect? .50 was in fact reasonably close to optimum for a wide variety of ground attack targets in WWII. Too light for tanks; one might say 'obviously' but that didn't stop large numbers of almost wholly erroneous claims by eg. P-47's to have destroyed tanks with .50. Hard as that may be to believe, but such claims were frequent, where strafing US 9th AF a/c claimed tanks specifically with their .50's, and it was achieved by various fluke shots or killing exposed personnel or putting rounds through open hatches, sometimes, but not often. Lightly armored vehicles weren't really a major category of ground attack target, but .50 could do the job in most cases. For soft skins, in theory rifle caliber could do it, but in practice something harder hitting was desirable, same with locomotives/trains, grounded a/c, exposed or lightly protected personnel on board ships, etc. many many types of material targets and/or targets with personnel protected by thin or soft plate that might stop or seriously slow down a rifle caliber bullet. Then .50 still sprayed out a lot of bullets when the target was purely personnel. 20mm was also a reasonably efficient weapon against a lot of the same targets (but not tanks either, not most 20mm against most late WWII tanks) but not necessarily obviously superior to .50 in the late WWII ground attack application (though again depending on what exact weapons and targets).

Many have noted how locomotives had an almost magical appeal as target to strafing a/c, and indeed typical WWII steam loco's were vulnerable to .50 fire, in the big target represented by their (mild steel, aka 'boiler plate') boilers, though of course items like the steam cylinders and running gear would require much larger projectiles to damage.

Joe
 
Last edited:

Minute dear, we are just speaking about small arms!

If you hit a P-47 , Mustang, Yak, Typhoon oil cooler with your Mauser, you will definitly shot the plane more a late.

The Il-2 oil cooler was outside the main armored box, but contained in an 9-11mm armored duct anyway, even from the front if pilot was closing armored louvres during the attack (for short time), the only way to touch the radiator was from the rear side and at very closed fire angle and thin fence.

Good luck:

http://www.23ag.ru/assets/images/imeg16.jpg

Regards
 
VG-33 said:
Minute dear, we are just speaking about small arms!
Click to expand...
I am talking small arms, and please don't call me dear.
VG-33 said:
If you hit a P-47 , Mustang, Yak, Typhoon oil cooler with your Mauser, you will definitly shot the plane more a late.
Click to expand...
Yes you will and the same holds true for an IL-2
And it still was not invincible - the louvers had to be opened sometime (unless operating in the bitter cold) and there's an opportunity to exploit this weakness.
VG-33 said:
Good luck:
Click to expand...
And maybe luck was needed but its not to say it didn't happen
 
From Erich Hartman

""That was a day I will never forget, 5 November 1942, a Shturmovik IL-2, which was the toughest aircraft to bring down because of the heavy armour plate. You had to shoot out the oil cooler underneath, otherwise it would not go down. That was also the day of my second forced landing since I had flown into the debris of my kill. I learned two things that day; get in close and shoot and break away immediately after scoring the kill."

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation history/WW2/aces/Erich Alfred Hartmann.htm
 
Last edited:
VG-33 said:
Ok, so...cannon rounds taking out half the engine,
Seriously as you just said. And you forgot the 7.92 mauser bullet taking off the half of the pilot's head...

Regards
Click to expand...
Ok, this is starting to get stupid...all the ridiculous nitpicking...

The P-47 was not an open cockpit like a Fokker D.VII...it did in fact have armor plating that afforded the pilot good protection. Moreso than most Allied aircraft.

The amazing marksman that can keep his cool and squeeze off the shot that will hit the pilot in the head as the aircraft is diving and strafing them probably probably can't be stopped. I'll also figure that this same "ubermann" can take the top off a Sturmovik pilot, too. Seeing as how both aircraft didn't have armor plating all the way up the side of the pilot's head. If they did, it would be called a tank, and that's for a different thread entirely.

I think every aspect of the comparison between the IL-2 and the P-47 has been played out, and the conclusion would be that no, the Allies didn't really have a need for such an aircraft just as much as the Soviets didn't see a need for the P-47s that were sent to them by way of the Lend-Lease.

Two different machines that filled two very important, but different roles.

That was the spirit of the thread, and it would be nice to get back to the discussion instead of magic bullets and arguing every freaking aspect of a point until it becomes ridiculous.

On the subject of locomotives, yes, they had steel, iron and similiar components and yes, small arms fire could penetrate all but the armored locomotives/trains that were in use through the war.

HOWEVER, the boiler of the locomotive is the key component of a steam locomotive. It contains water vapor (steam) that is under tremendous pressure, and is therefore constructed with a tempered steel for it's boiler. I'm not an expert on the various locomotives in use during that time period, but I do know that the steel used generally had to follow a certain PSI rating that exceeded the maximum amount of pressure (head of steam) that the locomotive could generate. Unless the round was AP or an HE round of a large caliber, there will be no penetration.
 

BINGO!!!!
 
 
VG-33 said:
Moroever the fact that he claimed the IL-2, does not prouves that this plane was shooted down, and not even damaged.
Click to expand...
What's that supposed to mean??

And attacking the Il-2 from below makes sense for obvious reasons. The easiest part would have been to go for the cockpit from above ... if not for the rear gunner. Wait, in fact, if you would come from above, you would have to go for the unprotected rear gunner because once he's gone, the aircraft becomes a rather easy target (if flying alone). There is even a theory (from Suvurov) that Il-2 rear-gunners were political prisonners, basically being sent on suicide missions.

From wikipedia: Some pilots favored aiming down into the cockpit and wing roots in diving attacks on the slow, low-flying Il-2 formations.Several Luftwaffe aces claimed to attack while climbing from behind, out of view of the rear gunner, and aim for the Il-2's non-retractable oil cooler. The veracity of this has been disputed by some Il-2 pilots in postwar interviews, since Il-2s typically flew very close to the ground (cruise altitudes below 50 m (160 ft) were common) and the radiator protruded a mere 10 cm (4 in) from the aircraft.

Kris
 
VG-33 said:
Whynot? It's not injurious.
Click to expand...
Because I don't want you to and I'm not going to tell you again.

VG-33 said:
Wich way, if the armored duct is not pierced?
Click to expand...
Straight from the rear. See your drawing

And no one will deny that. The fact remains that if, and I repeat IF an IL-2 oil cooler is ruptured or for that manner any WW2 aircraft's oil cooler, it can and will loose oil that can and will lead to oil starvation and eventual engine failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Y
WW II vintage aircraft used for special duty flights after WW II
Replies
0
Views
430
yahya
Y
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
459
fubar57
How good was the soviet air force?
32 33 34
Replies
664
Views
48K
Dimlee
S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
10
Views
378
GregP
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register