Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
With a twin, you'd have both the lifting power (since we're considering non-strategic engines) and the accuracy of weapons mounted centerline.
... let's explore situation of Hs 129 never coming to fruition, both as a concept and as execution of that concept. The concept being a small-ish twin engined attack aircraft that was supposed to use non-strategic engines.
The type was intended to be a pure ground attack role, a follow-on to the Hs123, which proved it's value in Spain.Was it supposed to be a "light" bomber?
A strafer?
I think we are using the retrospectroscope a bit too much here.
We KNOW the Hs 129 wound up being a gun armed tank buster, However the requirement was issued in 1937 and mockups of it and the Fw 189C were being inspected in 1938. Prototypes flew in 1939 and the Hs 129A-0s with Argus engines were built in early 1940.
Available engines and size of aircraft have to be looked at with that timing.
Was it supposed to be a "light" bomber?
A strafer?
Were two 20mm MG FF cannon considered good enough tank busters in 1938/39?
One reason the Hs 129 was chosen over the Fw 189 was that it cost just over 2/3rds as much.
The requirement for a non essential engine is what pretty much screwed up the Hs 129A. The Fw 189C using the same engines didn't fly much better.
Take away that requirement and increase the allowable cost of the aircraft and possibilities do open up.
...
The BK3.5 37mm was effective, with either the ACPR or HE rounds, though the downside is it's weight @ 650 pounds and limited capacity magazine.
Not sure why, but the cannon armed IL-2s used more of a level attack, which would place the round on the thicker armor, where it wouldn't yeild good results.