Hs-129 B-2 discussion

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Hello

 

Just wanted to make a thread to gather some info and discussion about the Hs-129. I'm really looking forward to this plane. Just share whatever you have about this bird. Would like some info about the armament and can the

B-2 use the 75mm and was it used in the Kuban? I know many says "it will be unflyable with it" but it would still be very interesting to use and I am pretty sure some guys would get som good use out of it. From what I can find, it could also be equipped with the 37mm we have ingame. Maybe the 129 is a better platform for the 37mm than the stuka. Its mentioned the Hs-129 could carry more ammunition than the stukas could. I wonder how much because the little ammunition in the stuka is a major problem but I guess thats gone with the 12. Would be fun to know exactly how much more it could carry. Those 37mm cannons are pretty effective. 

 

Currently we see a lot of VVS victories on the online servers, using their IL-2s to destroy the ground targets. I wonder if the Hs-129 will help the LW to regain some ground attack power with the Hs-129.

 

Please share everything you got

Edited September 9, 2016 by 6./ZG26_McKvack

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

It was the B-3 that carried the 75MM. B-2 got the 37MM like the Ju-87G with cannon pods. 

[707shap_Srbin]

Hi!

 

No, Bk.7,5 arrived only in january 1945. And Bk 3.7 was never used on Hs129, because of extremly poor flight characters with it.

 

Some flight characteristics:

 

 

 

Hs129B-2 had:

 

 

So, it would be:

 

#1. One SC50 bomb under each wing

 

#2. Four SC50 bombs under fuselage

 

#3. One SC250 bomb underbelly.

 

#4. Four MG17 machineguns underbelly, 1000 rounds per each. 

 

#5. MK101 or, from summer '43, MK103 cannon underbelly.

MK101 - drum-feed, 30 rounds.

 

MK103 - belt-feed. Ammo box for 80 rounds.

 

Armor-piercing ability of MK103:

 

#6. MG151/20 instead of normal MG151 in fuselage.

All early series (at least to the spring 1943) were built with 15mm MG151 with 250 rounds per cannon. During 1943, cannon armament was gradually replaced with MG151/20, with somekind of lesser ammo.

 

15mm MG151 belts, 1942.

 

20mm MG151/20 belts, late 1943.

Edited September 10, 2016 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

Then I guess we'll have to "suffer" with only the MK103.

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Are you sure that no B-2 used the 37mm? According to wikipedia(yes I know) the Hs-129 B-2/R3 had the 37mm and there is a video showing of the 37mm on the hs-129.

 

Maybe it would be ok to equip the B-2 with 37mm even if it did not carry it but could carry it. Same with our stuka ingame. Or maybe change the variant name when you equip the specific gun like the Pe-2?

[707shap_Srbin]

Are you sure that no B-2 used the 37mm?

 

Yes, I am 146% sure. I made a research. You may find it here, in russian-speaking part of forum. 

 

In general speaking, from early 1943, Luftwaffe used Hs129B only equipped with MK101 or 103. Sometime, for example during Battle of Kuban (and during summer battles 1942), there were wingmounted SC50's in addition to cannon.

 

Romanian Grupul 8 Asalt, vice-versa, NEVER used additional cannons, but ALWAYS used fuselage-mounted bombrack. They flew with 4 or 6 SC50 always. You may even recognise Luftwaffe/Romanians on photos by this feature.

 

4 additional MG17, as far as I know, never reach operational, because they were just no need.

4 additional MG17, as far as I know, never reach operational, because they were just no need.

Edited September 9, 2016 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[ShamrockOneFive]

In IL-2 1946 when the Hs129 finally became flyable, I often flew with the MK103 (or MK101) and a pair of bombs. It was a good tank hunting combination so long as the tanks weren't KV-1s. The 37mm was available but the aircraft flew very poorly with it. I'm not sure if they will add such an exotic modification but I can guarantee that many will eventually learn to choose the MK103 over other cannon options.

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Thanks for the info guys. I guess its the MK103 then

 

Cant wait to fly this bird

[707shap_Srbin]

Yes, Hs129B is an exellent coffin. But I wait for another little crappy Panzerjager:

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

They did test that BK 3,7 cannon on the eastern front. Maybe our Bf110G-2 will have it as a modification!

[707shap_Srbin]

Yes.

Bk 3.7 was tested inside 5./ZG1 in early spring '43 during Battle of Kharkov, and after it came to an end - some crews were detached from 5./ZG1 to form a nucleus for Panzerjagerstaffel./ZG1. Rest of II./ZG1 went to Italy in early april 1943.

 

PzJgSt./ZG1 was subordinated to I./ZG1, operated as low-level antitank unit during battle of Kursk, and after I./ZG1 was called to Reich Defence in aug.'43, PzJgSt./ZG1 was incorporated as 4./ZG76 in a new-forming ZG76.

 

I am 100% sure we will have Bk 3.7 in Bf110G-2/R1.

Edited September 10, 2016 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

The 30mm cannon with AP ammo can kill those T34.

 

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

The 30mm cannon with AP ammo can kill those T34

 

It was Valentine tank in the video.

 T-34 could be killed only from back side. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The 30mm cannon with AP ammo can kill those T34.

It was Valentine tank in the video.

 T-34 could be killed only from back side. 

 

Depends on the ammo used. The MK 103 had a high velocity tungsten core AP round which could penetrate around 60-70mm of penetration at the usual angles and distances in which an aircraft strafed a tank

 

WT's pen table for easy reference

 

 

German pen table (big image):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This ammo easily penetrated T-34 armor, specially since it's own angling gives the incoming plane a more straight angle of attack.  Only tough target would be the turret of the late war T-34/85, but hull sides/front and engine deck wouldn't be that resistant.

 

Edited September 10, 2016 by -=PLR=-SuperEtendard

[69th_chuter]

Are you sure that no B-2 used the 37mm? According to wikipedia(yes I know) the Hs-129 B-2/R3 had the 37mm and there is a video showing of the 37mm on the hs-129.

 

Maybe it would be ok to equip the B-2 with 37mm even if it did not carry it but could carry it. Same with our stuka ingame. Or maybe change the variant name when you equip the specific gun like the Pe-2?

 

 

There were lot's of configurations of aircraft tested by the Luftwaffe and given designations that were found less than useful and never fielded.  For instance there were no 30mm gunpods routinely used on 190s or 109s nor were the dual MG151/20 pods used on the 190.  The pictures of the test aircraft sure survived in good condition, however.  lol

[Davinsky]

Dear Developers,

Please, please, please make this bird flyable. If you do, I will never ever ask for anything ever again.

 

Thank you, in advance.

[Saurer]

Dear Developers,

Please, please, please make this bird flyable. If you do, I will never ever ask for anything ever again.

 

Thank you, in advance.

 

You better look at the latest announcment

Edited September 10, 2016 by Saurer

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

dual MG151/20 pods used on the 190

 

Dual gunpods saw operational use with several Staffeln in Reich Defence, for example in 7./JG11. 

 

 

German pen table (big image):

 

Look in the post above. There are those tables already.

 

 

 

This ammo easily penetrated T-34 armor, specially since it's own angling gives the incoming plane a more straight angle of attack. 

 

If You will read deeper in Hs129 Panzerjager book, You will find an answer from Hs129 pilots.

 

They attacked T-34's only from rear.

 

Only later, when some pilots gain needed expirience, they tried to attack from side, aiming between wheels and upper hull armor. But that was really small taget even for experten.

 

30mm had no chance to penetrate T-34 armor from hull side. 

[Gunsmith86]

If You will read deeper in Hs129 Panzerjager book, You will find an answer from Hs129 pilots. They attacked T-34's only from rear. Only later, when some pilots gain needed expirience, they tried to attack from side, aiming between wheels and upper hull armor. But that was really small taget even for experten. 30mm had no chance to penetrate T-34 armor from hull side.

Not exactly true. The reason for the attacks from the rear is not that the 30mm couldn´t penetrate the T34 armore from hull side which it very well did. The reason for attack from behind is that you had to hit something inside the tank that was important for operating it because the ammunition could not carry any explosives inside because of its design was optimized for penetration. In the turret of the tank we have only the crew which could be hit but even if one of them get hit the others could still fight with the tank or get it into savety. If you attacked from  the rear area than you had the best chance to penetraded because there is the weakest armor and you could hit many diffrent vital parts ( engine, transmission, fuel...). By hitting the tank low from the side you could hit the ammunition, parts of the turret system and such thing all needed to operat the tank.

 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Gunsmith86

[69th_chuter]

Dual gunpods saw operational use with several Staffeln in Reich Defence, for example in 7./JG11. 

 

 

 

   ...

 

 

Well, I'm aware of JG 11s use of the A-5/U12 and those aircraft then being passed on to different squadrons.  JG 11 used a few oddities including apparent one-of-a-kinds.  I guess we just have different definitions of "routine use".

[ShamrockOneFive]

Dear Developers,

Please, please, please make this bird flyable. If you do, I will never ever ask for anything ever again.

 

Thank you, in advance.

 

Better check this out: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25072-announcing-battle-kuban-and-development-plan/?do=findComment&comment=385578

 

:D

[LukeFF]

 

 

Maybe it would be ok to equip the B-2 with 37mm even if it did not carry it but could carry it. Same with our stuka ingame.

 

The Ju 87 D-3 most certainly could carry the 37mm cannon loadout. It's what's known as the G-1. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

They attacked T-34's only from rear.

 

Only later, when some pilots gain needed expirience, they tried to attack from side, aiming between wheels and upper hull armor. But that was really small taget even for experten.

 

30mm had no chance to penetrate T-34 armor from hull side. 

That could be because they used the normal AP round for the 30mm which didn't have as much velocity as the tungsten carbide core one? which would explain it since it's penetration is barely enough to do the job only at close range. Don't know when the HVAP round was introduced but these kind of low caliber high penetrating projectiles were given priority over high caliber tungsten AT rounds when Germany started having short supply of this rare metal.

 

 

Also the T-34 had very similar protection at the sides and at the rear, in fact at the rear it was a bit better because the armor was some degrees more sloped. This diagram is for the first production version, but later versions only changed the turrets and minor things in the hull (like the driver hatch or the transmission acces port, and from 40mm to 45mm both sides and rear for the T-34/85).

 

 

So the sides being more resistant to penetration than the rear couldn't be it.. because they have same thickness and similar angling, with the correct attack run approach they would fare equally.

 

Not exactly true. The reason for the attacks from the rear is not that the 30mm couldn´t penetrate the T34 armore from hull side which it very well did. The reason for attack from behind is that you had to hit something inside the tank that was important for operating it because the ammunition could not carry any explosives inside because of its design was optimized for penetration. In the turret of the tank we have only the crew which could be hit but even if one of them get hit the others could still fight with the tank or get it into savety. If you attacked from  the rear area than you had the best chance to penetraded because there is the weakest armor and you could hit many diffrent vital parts ( engine, transmission, fuel...). By hitting the tank low from the side you could hit the ammunition, parts of the turret system and such thing all needed to operat the tank.

 

 

This could be it... Also the T-34 hull side was packed with fuel and oil tanks between the suspension arms for each roadwheel, even in the crew compartment side. Versus high caliber AT rounds this wasn't very good but I can see the fuel tanks absorbing some of these low caliber fragments once the tank side was penetrated. Also attacking from the rear would favor a "mobility kill" (damaged transmission, engine, radiator, etc) than going for the crew or the ammo in the forward part of the vehicle.

Edited September 10, 2016 by -=PLR=-SuperEtendard

[Asgar]

The Ju 87 D-3 most certainly could carry the 37mm cannon loadout. It's what's known as the G-1. 

and the Hs 129 B-2 could carry the 30mm and 37mm BK, it's what's known as the B-2/Wa (Waffenträger) 

Edited September 10, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[LukeFF]

and the Hs 129 B-2 could carry the 30mm and 37mm BK, it's what's known as the B-2/Wa (Waffenträger) 

 

B-2/Wa is another one of those myths that just won't die. No, there wasn't ever such a naming convention, just like there wasn't a B-3/Wa. 

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

The Ju 87 D-3 most certainly could carry the 37mm cannon loadout. It's what's known as the G-1. 

What I meant was maybe the B-2 could carry the Bk 3.7 same as our the Ju-87 D-3 could carry the Bk 3.7 but if I understood it correctly, it was never really used but added for gameplay.

[707shap_Srbin]

Guys. To make things clear.

 

Hs129B-1 (not B-2) was tested with Bk 3.7, and test showed that aircraft became dangerous to fly and shoot in the air. After tests, triels emded. Bk 3.7 never say any operational use with Hs 129.

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Thanks for the info guys. I really appreciate it. The MK 103 30mm seems like a pretty good tank killer. Especially light tanks  

[LukeFF]

This is a handy guide that Team Daidalos published for the Hs 129 in IL2 1946. It tells you all you need to know about what loadouts are valid and for what timeframes. In particular is this section:

 

List of Loadouts

 

The Hs 129 B-2 contains a number of user-selectable loadouts in Il-2 Sturmovik : 1946 Patch 4.10.

In this chapter mission builders will find comments about their historical relevance.

 

1. Hs 129 B-2/R3 - Mk 101 gunpod

Consistently used from early 1943 on, first operational use by 4./SchG 2 in June 1942. Can be combined at will with 2x SC50 or AB23 on wingracks. Despite being supplemented by the Mk 103 in mid-1943 the Mk 101 remained in service well into 1944 since the Mk 103 did have reliability issues for quite some time.

 

Note! Do not use the Mk 101 on romanian Hs 129s!

 

2. Hs 129 B-2/R3 - Mk 103 gunpod

 

Was introduced in July 1943 (by 4.(Pz)/SchG 1) during the Battle of Kursk and was continuously used until the end of the war. Can be combined at will with 2x SC50 or AB23 on wingracks.

 

Note! Do not use the Mk 103 on romanian Hs 129s!

 

3. Hs 129 B-2/R2 - 4x MG17 gunpod

 

Despite being listed in virtually all official manuals regarding the Hs 129 there is no evidence that it was ever used operationally (because at first bomb loadouts were greatly prefered and then tank-busting was the sole task of the Hs 129). As such it is a non-historical loadout and should not be used.

 

4. SC250

 

This loadout was used on the front but it seemed to have been rare.

 

5. Combinations of SC50 and AB23

 

Bomb loadouts with these types were used quite often (and in 1942 almost exclusively since the pilots didn't like the Mk 101 installations). The most common combination was either a full load of six SC50s or four SC50 on the fuselage rack and two AB23 on the wingracks.

 

6. Hs 129 B-2/Wa - Bk 3.7 gunpod

 

Although tested and supposed to replace the 30mm cannon pods this weapon proved to be a major disappointment. The installation had such a negative effect on flight performance that test flights and development were aborted early. As such this weapon was not used historically and should not be selected in a historical mission.

 

 

In other words: 

 

MK 101: June 1942 - undefined date in 1944. Not used by Romania.

MK 103: July 1943 - war's end. Not used by Romania.

SC250: all dates

SC50: all dates

Bk 3.7: never used operationally

MG 17 gunpod: never used operationally

Hs 129 - Historical Notes for Mission Builders.pdf

Edited September 10, 2016 by LukeFF

[Asgar]

TIL there was no Hs 129 B-2/Wa...or maybe there was, i don't even know anymore

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Thanks for the info guys. I really appreciate it. The MK 103 30mm seems like a pretty good tank killer. Especially light tanks

Yeah, and aiming for the engine/turret roof could deal with almost every tank of WW2 as even the most armored engine decks were around 30mm thick (except crazy things like the Maus ) problem for that would be to get into the right attack angle to do it (a bit of a dive). Maybe for the Hs 129 it would be a bit difficult to perform, but for other planes that also had the MK 103 like the Fw-190 it was possible.

Edited September 10, 2016 by -=PLR=-SuperEtendard

[Gunsmith86]

The FW190 couldn´t carry the MK 103 it was tested with it and showed that this aircraft would need sirius redesign if it should be able to use a cannon as large and powerful as the MK 103 was.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The FW190 couldn´t carry the MK 103 it was tested with it and showed that this aircraft would need sirius redesign if it should be able to use a cannon as large and powerful as the MK 103 was.

 

mmm that sounds strange, there are a few pictures of 190s with those cannons, are all of those from testing? Also it could be either the Mk 101 or MK 103 the one accepted/rejected?

Edited September 10, 2016 by -=PLR=-SuperEtendard

[Gunsmith86]

Yes these pictures are all from the testing and it didn´t matter if MK 101 or MK 103 because both use the same ammunition which is simple to powerful for small fighters that were not build from the beginning to support such large cannons.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Gunsmith86

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

there are a few pictures of 190s with those cannons, are all of those from testing?

 

Yes. It was tested if Fw190 could act as a Panzerjager to replace Hs129. But tests failed - Fw190 was too fast, pilot have not enough time to aim and shoot even in dive. Also, dispersion of fire was soo great, that there was no even one hit in a tank-size target during whole test. Then, Fw190 with 2 MK103 were heavy and s;uggish, and it was desided they would not be able to takeoff from frontline airfields.

 

So, project was totally abandoned. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Were the Me-410s also testing or did they serve with these cannons?

[Gunsmith86]

Some Me 410 did serve with 2x MK 103 cannon.

[707shap_Srbin]

Me410B got 2xMK103 pod in april 1944. ZG76 first got them.

Edited September 10, 2016 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Its gonna be fun to use a plane designed to kill tanks. Looking forward to the MK 103 since that one should include in the Kuban theater according you the info in this thread.

[707shap_Srbin]

MK 101: June 1942 - undefined date in 1944. Not used by Romania. MK 103: July 1943 - war's end. Not used by Romania.

 

Well, to be fair - I totally missed that point.

 

Yes, MK103 saw use only from Battle of Kursk, it is mid-summer 1943. For Battle of Stalingrad (sum.'43 - febr.'43), for battle of Rzhev (sept.-dec.'42) and for Battle of Kuban (spring '43) the only 30mm gunpod was MK101. All aviable photoes confirm this cannon.

 

So, I beleive we will have this drum-feed cannon with 30 rounds. 

 

 

Its gonna be fun to use a plane designed to kill tanks

 

Well, in fact it was designed to change Hs123 in frontline, as multy-porpose assault aircraft, but no dedicated Panzerjager. And only after some month at the front without any AT cannons, they were designed and installed in Hs129. 

Edited September 11, 2016 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar