Hs-129 B-2 discussion

[TG-55Panthercules]

Overshooting it on a straight line as a fighter is an easy way to die, for sure.

 

Just the thought of the 129's rear visibility makes me nervous. You can barely check your wingman's six, let alone your own!

 

I guess that makes it a perfect candidate for those of us with VR who can't really get our heads turned around to check six anyway  

 

Seriously, I'm having a blast trying out my new Rift, but I'm probably going to be sticking to IL-2s and other planes where you can't really see behind you anyway, at least for a while, because at my age I suspect I might really wind up with some serious neck problems trying to whip my head around in a normal fighter with this thing on.

[csThor]

The MK 103 first entered service in July of 1943 at Kursk, right?

Correct. However Mk 101 use prior to early spring 1943 was confined to certain locations and units as most pilots simply had no trust in the weapon and the new role for the aircraft and went on using only bomb loads. It was not before September 1942 that 13.(Panzer)/JG 51 received specialized training on the Mk 101 from an expert sent by the RLM. Only then first successes dissolved the immense skepticism of the pilots. And then the process had to be repeated for the rest of the Staffeln equipped with the Hs 129 B so real use of the aircraft in the tank-busting role did not start before spring 1943.

[Dutchvdm]

The Battle of Kuban is still in early access: the HS-129 hasn't been released yet, and isn't due until November or thereabouts.

According to the last DD the Hs-129 is nearly completed. Can't imagine that they wil hold it of until november then.

 

Grt M

[707shap_Srbin]

Correct. However Mk 101 use prior to early spring 1943 was confined to certain locations and units as most pilots simply had no trust in the weapon and the new role for the aircraft and went on using only bomb loads. It was not before September 1942 that 13.(Panzer)/JG 51 received specialized training on the Mk 101 from an expert sent by the RLM. Only then first successes dissolved the immense skepticism of the pilots. And then the process had to be repeated for the rest of the Staffeln equipped with the Hs 129 B so real use of the aircraft in the tank-busting role did not start before spring 1943.

I have many photos of Hs129B-1 and 2, during autumn 1942, with two bombs SC50 under wings and MK101 under belly.

 

Also, for MK103 in Kuban, need just to look on photoes.

[csThor]

I have many photos of Hs129B-1 and 2, during autumn 1942, with two bombs SC50 under wings and MK101 under belly.

Martin Pegg speaks of a single Staffel being equipped with Mk 101 in time for the Battle of Kharkov in 1942. But because of a complete lack of training they reverted to using bombloads pretty quickly. In fact he speaks of a temper tantrum Milch had thrown when he'd been told the remaining Mk 101s were left in storage back in Germany because nobody had shown up to collect them. And further parts of his book on II./SchG 1 at Stalingrad speaks of bombs only.

Edited August 12, 2017 by csThor

[707shap_Srbin]

5./, 6./, and Stab II./Schl.G.1 aircrafts in summer and autumn 1942.

 

 

4./Schl.G.1 aircraft during winter 1942/43.

 

 

Also, try to remeber Eduard Kent's death He promoted low-level cannon attack on tank. 4./Schl.G.1, with 13./JG51 used MK101 during winter 1942/43. Also, 4./Schl.G.2 used MK101 in Afrika during same period of time.

 

As for MK103, Yes, i've checked my photos and cant find it during Kuban. You are right.

Edited August 12, 2017 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[Juri_JS]

Does one of the Hs-129 experts here have any information on 13.(Pz)/JG51 during Operation Mars in November/December 1942? All I know is that they were based at Dugino, but I can't find any information on the missions flown during this time.

[707shap_Srbin]

I have full loss list for all Hs129 Staffeln, including PzJgStaffel./JG51, so may be it will help. Also, for this Staffel there are very feiw photos.

 

[Juri_JS]

13.(Pz)/JG51 losses for November/December 1942 would be very useful for me.

[707shap_Srbin]

DATE RANG NAME VORNAME Fate1 Fate2 STAFFEL MUSTER W.Nr. VbKz StKz Bruch UMST1 ORT Pl.Qu.

 

10.08.42 NN NN oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.247 100 Own bomb explosion Fl.Pl. Dugino

12.08.42 Uffz Herbert Widlack verw. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.241 80 Overturned on landing Fl.Pl. Dugino

03.09.42 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.248 95 Bombenwurf. Fl.Pl. Dugino

03.09.42 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.251 15 Bombenwurf. Fl.Pl. Dugino

26.09.42 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.228 DE+ZV 80 emlanding due to engine damage 47721

24.11.42 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.252 20 Emlanding due to engine failure Orscha

26.11.42 Lt Günther Jolas verw. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.238 6+ 50 Flakbeschuß Vitebsk

03.01.43 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.274 DQ+ZJ 100 Emlanding due engine failure. A/c caught fire. Kalinovka-Palke

04.01.43 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.270 DQ+ZF 100 Von eigener Truppe zerstört. Kobbne-Savet-Lenino

10.03.43 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.343 GG+EP 20 Bedienungsfehler. Fl.Pl. Poltawa

29.05.43 Lt Friedrich Seuken verm. Pz.Jg.St./JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.404 J+ 100 Flakbeschuß. W Krymskaya 75235

01.06.43 Fw Rainer Siebrecht gef. Pz.Jg.St./JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.140718 K+ 100 Krasnodar - Apscheronsk / W of Krymskaya

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

How durable was this aircraft? Is it going to be like the Stuka which falls apart in a couple hits?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

How durable was this aircraft? Is it going to be like the Stuka which falls apart in a couple hits?

 

Don't know about structural strenght. But the pilot is well protected frontally, maybe even better than the IL-2. The engines are radial and have fire extinguishes (at least they had in IL-2 1946), but are only armored at the bottom. The oil radiators are armored at the bottom as well.

 

Against ground fire from the front or below it would have similar protection to the IL-2. But when fired from the side or the rear, the engines, fuel tanks and oil radiators would be more vulnerable I guess.

Edited August 12, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

maybe even better than the IL-2.

 

No, it is not true.

 

Armor plates of Hs129 were less durable then Il-2 had. They were thinner, straight and of worser steel. 

[Asgar]

No, it is not true.

 

Armor plates of Hs129 were less durable then Il-2 had. They were thinner, straight and of worser steel. 

worse steel? is that information form the same anecdote that talks about the bad steel in Tiger tanks?

Edited August 13, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

No, it is not true.

 

Armor plates of Hs129 were less durable then Il-2 had. They were thinner, straight and of worser steel. 

 

As far as I know the frontal armor in the Hs 129 nose was 12mm plates, compared to the IL-2's 4mm or 6mm. But in the IL-2 they were more angled, and also there was the engine in between. I think it's kinda a compromise and wouldn't know for sure. Another plus for the 129 is that it had thicker armored glass, it's 75mm vs the IL-2's 64mm if i'm correct, but it isn't that much of a difference.

 

 

worse steel? is that information form the same anedote that talks about the bad steel in Tiger tanks?

 

I think what he means is that the Soviet armor was harder? Like in the T-34.  Harder armor makes it more resistant against rounds of similar caliber than the thickness of the plate, but it's weaker against high caliber shells. In planes it kinda makes sense because they would have good resistance against 7mm rounds, and against 20mm or 30mm they wouldn't have enough resistance anyways so it's a "nothing to lose" situation.

 

For the T-34 it was an advantage against 37mm and 50mm rounds but once the Germans started fielding 75mm and 88mm the high hardness armor was detrimental.

Edited August 12, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[707shap_Srbin]

worse steel? is that information form the same anedote that talks about the bad steel in Tiger tanks?

 

Soviet armor AB-2 was 1,5 times more effective then german homogenious armor, used in armor plates. It was prooven and several shooting trials.

 

As for armoured glasses, german glass had better transparency (better visibility), but soviet armour glass (K-4 type, used in IL-2 and fighters) had 1,4 times better resistance.

 

I'll check my documents, I think it will be interesting for You  UPD: Found that. 

 

Also, Luftwaffe pilots, who flew Hs129, note that most dangerous for Hs129 was small-arms fire - large fuel tanks and engines were unprotected (5mm plates were almost inaffective).

Edited August 13, 2017 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The Il-2 wasn´t made with molten frying pans from grandma´s cupboard. Soviet engineers designed a special type of alloy to improve resistance without adding on weight. As a result, the Il-2 managed to pack an armour suite which gave meaningful protection without making the aircraft too heavy. To my best knowledge, the Hs-129 packed similarly thick armour (positioned against ground fire, however, whereas the Il-2 still had some insurance against rear hemisphere attacks) but made with a less-specialised alloy, thus, in layman terms, worst steel which led to lower resistance.

 

However, having two engines is a great way to get home after heavy combat so there´s that.

 

EDIT: The 110 man beat me to it, with better information too.

Edited August 13, 2017 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[JtD]

It would be nice to have more than snippets from some magazine to judge the quality of the armour. I've said it before, some numbers and some mechanics of the evaluation go against what I know, in part against what I know to be correct. The jump from Brinell hardness to thickness ratio in post #2 is plain wrong.

[Habu]

I have full loss list for all Hs129 Staffeln, including PzJgStaffel./JG51, so may be it will help. Also, for this Staffel there are very feiw photos.

 

22 (2) копия.jpg47.jpghs129 4.jpg

Do you have a book which have theses informations, or is it your research from several books ?

If it's a book, may you give us teh title please.

 

I'm interrest by all the staffel which use that plane on the eastern front, which can help me to find the location and the period.

[Juri_JS]

 

DATE RANG NAME VORNAME Fate1 Fate2 STAFFEL MUSTER W.Nr. VbKz StKz Bruch UMST1 ORT Pl.Qu.

 

10.08.42 NN NN oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.247 100 Own bomb explosion Fl.Pl. Dugino

12.08.42 Uffz Herbert Widlack verw. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.241 80 Overturned on landing Fl.Pl. Dugino

03.09.42 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.248 95 Bombenwurf. Fl.Pl. Dugino

03.09.42 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.251 15 Bombenwurf. Fl.Pl. Dugino

26.09.42 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.228 DE+ZV 80 emlanding due to engine damage 47721

24.11.42 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.252 20 Emlanding due to engine failure Orscha

26.11.42 Lt Günther Jolas verw. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.238 6+ 50 Flakbeschuß Vitebsk

03.01.43 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.274 DQ+ZJ 100 Emlanding due engine failure. A/c caught fire. Kalinovka-Palke

04.01.43 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.270 DQ+ZF 100 Von eigener Truppe zerstört. Kobbne-Savet-Lenino

10.03.43 oV. 13.(Pz)/JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.343 GG+EP 20 Bedienungsfehler. Fl.Pl. Poltawa

29.05.43 Lt Friedrich Seuken verm. Pz.Jg.St./JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.404 J+ 100 Flakbeschuß. W Krymskaya 75235

01.06.43 Fw Rainer Siebrecht gef. Pz.Jg.St./JG51 Hs 129B-2 W.Nr.140718 K+ 100 Krasnodar - Apscheronsk / W of Krymskaya

 

Thank you.

 

It's strange that "Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen" for 13.(Pz)/JG51 shows no losses in November and five in December. I know that damaged aircraft that could be easily repaired were not always listed, which explains that the November losses don't appear in the statistic, but I am surprised that your list shows no losses for December when the battle around the Rzhev salient was in full swing.

[Nocke]

not a single loss by enemy fighters, if I read that list correctly?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It would be nice to have more than snippets from some magazine to judge the quality of the armour. I've said it before, some numbers and some mechanics of the evaluation go against what I know, in part against what I know to be correct. The jump from Brinell hardness to thickness ratio in post #2 is plain wrong.

How's your Russian, JtD? Run this through Google Translate, it's a comparison of Soviet and German armour used in aviation. https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/4258-sravnenie-nemeckogo-i-sovetskogo-bronirovaniya/

[707shap_Srbin]

not a single loss by enemy fighters, if I read that list correctly?

Yes. Only 1 loss, named just "Engine damage on combat mission", so it could be Flak, or enemy fighters.

 

Overall, there was 8:1 ratio for Hs129 loss reasons, for Flak : Enemy fighters.

[JtD]

Run this through Google Translate, it's a comparison of Soviet and German armour used in aviation.

Yes, its what I'm referring to and it all boils down to a quote of a magazine and an invalid BH - thickness correlation.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Ah, got it. If to paint a more accurate picture, which information would be needed? I'm not well-versed in the specifics of armour but I can at least help with finding the correct numbers for evaluation.

[Wulf]

Yes. Only 1 loss, named just "Engine damage on combat mission", so it could be Flak, or enemy fighters.

 

Overall, there was 8:1 ratio for Hs129 loss reasons, for Flak : Enemy fighters.

 

 

As far as I'm aware, Hs 129 units were only deployed in areas where the Luftwaffe had firstly established local air superiority.  So I suspect the H2 129s low rate of loss to enemy fighters had much more to do with the absence of VVS fighters in the areas where it was used rather than anything to do with the quality or quantity of the on-board armour.

 

If the Luftwaffe wasn't at all keen to see the thing used in a contested air space, I think we can reasonably assume it would have been a dead duck without fighter cover. 

Edited August 13, 2017 by Wulf

[JtD]

Ah, got it. If to paint a more accurate picture, which information would be needed? I'm not well-versed in the specifics of armour but I can at least help with finding the correct numbers for evaluation.

An actual test report would go a long way. Plus I would like to see a non-Soviet source, ideally German, to even out the perspective. 170kg/mm² is what I found in a German source for Soviet aviation armour, but also just 'magazine style'.

Relevant material quantities would be tensile strength, ductility and hardness, as well as a general description (technology and manufacturing), but an actual (side by side) test is a lot more conclusive.

If they arrive at the conclusion that a 3.4mm Soviet aviation armour plate is the equivalent of a 6mm German plate, did they actually test a 3.4mm plate?

[csThor]

As far as I'm aware, Hs 129 units were only deployed in areas where the Luftwaffe had firstly established local air superiority.

Not really. The interesting fact is that the Hs 129 were usually employed over german territory only and the soviet fighters only ventured into german territory when escorting bombers or Sturmoviks. Given how strictly the VVS chained its fighter force to very specific objects and disallowed any great amount of individual initiative it was simply a matter of Hs 129s rarely met soviet fighters ... and when they did the soviet pilotscwere all too often prohibited from chasing them (because they were chained to a specific location).

[707shap_Srbin]

Yes, Thor, absolutely right.

 

In early 1943, Luftwaffe HQ found, that Hs129 as antitank aircraft was effective only with massive assault with all aviable STaffeln.  It was prooven in december-january in area between Stalingrad and Voronezh. What LW HQ missed then, was a AAA. In winter 1942/43, Hs129's flew over german-held territory, and Hs129's met very feiw AAA.

 

But when Kuban struggle begun, initially Hs129 Staffeln started to fly a advancive missions to attack tank concentrations on soviet-held territory. Yes, that kind of targets were covered with massive quantity of AAA batteries of all caliber. Murdering, unsustainable losses followed.

 

In may 1943, germans realised, that Hs129 could be throun into action only against enemy tank-breakthrows, i.e. soviet tanks (without any serious AAA cover) on german-held territory.

 

And as a move of magic wand, losses went low

 

Another blow for Panzerjager pilots was a Citadel. Again, when flying against breakthroughs of soviet armour into german-held territory, losses were sustainable. But if Hs129 were called to move into enemy airspace, low and slow aircraft was an ideal target for soviet AAA crews. Same thing, bye the way, was with Il-2's

 

Vulnerability for enemy groundfire (unprotected wingfueltanks+engines), inability to fly long enough on one engine, losses of tungsten ores in Donbass/Nikopol areas in 1943, losses of Gnome-Rhone engine factories in France in 1944 made fate of Hs129 as a tunk hunter to a halt in mid 1944. Decision was made to test a Fw190F-8/Pb with cumulative Panzerblitz rockets.

Edited August 13, 2017 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[Gunsmith86]

Relevant material quantities would be tensile strength, ductility and hardness, as well as a general description (technology and manufacturing)

 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t04bbh9e054cuw2/WWII_Ballistics-_Armor_and_Gunnery.pdf?dl=0

[JtD]

Nice read there, Gunsmith. Of course, the guns are a bit larger than typically found on aircraft , but it very well illustrates that there's a load more to penetration and armour quality than just taking Brinell hardness and translating them 1:1 to thickness ratios.

[Nocke]

 ... any chance for a short answer to the question what the MK103 should be able to do to a T34, for someone too lazy to read and understand all that? 

[707shap_Srbin]

Well... T-34 was penetrable from the rear and from sides in a pistol-range. KV and IS were impossible to kill with 30mm cannons.

 

Keep in mind, that up to mid-1943, there was a huge percent of light tanks in Red Army. All of them were easy targets for Hs129.

Edited August 13, 2017 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[Asgar]

Last data i saw was 75-95mm penetration at 300m for the tungsten ammo. I see if i can find that source again

Edited August 13, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[Habu]

Panzerbar, what do you call light tank please ?

[707shap_Srbin]

Panzerbar, what do you call light tank please ?

 

During 1942 were produced and recieved from Lend-Lease: 

Light tanks: 4474 Т-60, 4883 Т-70 + 812 М-3 "Lee", 977 М-3 "Stewart", 959 Mk.III "Valentine", 

Medium tanks: 12553 Т-34 + 36 М-4 "Sherman", 626 Mk.II "Matilda", 

Heavy tanks: 1753 КВ, 780 КВ-1С и 102 КВ-8 , 84 Mk.IV "Churchill".

 

During 1943 were produced and recieved from Lend-Lease: 

Light tanks: 3343 Т-70, 120 Т-80, 1928 Су-76, 164 М-3 "Lee", 255 М-3 "Stewart", 1776 Mk.III "Valentine", 

Medium tanks:15812 Т-34, 630 Су-122, 750 Су-85, 469 М-4 "Sherman", 147 Mk.II "Matilda",

Heavy tanks: 452 КВ-1С, 35 КВ-8, 148 КВ-85, 130 ИС-1, 102 ИС-2 + 704 СУ-152 + 179 Mk.IV  "Churchill"

Last data i saw was 75-95mm penetration at 300m for the tungsten ammo. I see if i can find that source again

 

This one?

 

ERR: Typo error, You should read not MK108 but MK103

 

This is from german manuals. Penetration of german armour. In theory.

Edited August 13, 2017 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[Habu]

THX, it will help me for futur mission.

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

When I see the Penetration Power of the Stuka somewhat tells me HS-129 have to snipe the command cupola of the T-34 but looking forward to the HS-129...

[Finkeren]

When I see the Penetration Power of the Stuka somewhat tells me HS-129 have to snipe the command cupola of the T-34 but looking forward to the HS-129...

There are other targets than T-34s. During the second half of 1943 the Su-76 had become quite common and would be an easy and valuable target for the Hs-129.

[JtD]

Well... T-34 was penetrable from the rear and from sides in a pistol-range.

What's the difference between 45mm on the sides and 45mm on the front? Why would 45mm be a problem for the 30mm tungsten core ammunition?