Hs-129 B-2 discussion

[707shap_Srbin]

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?

I mean a hull after the wheels. Not angled 45mm upper side hull plate.

[707shap_Srbin]

Also,

"to hit the tank" is not equal with "to penetrate an armour"

"to penetrate an armour" is not equal with to destroy it.

 

30mm tungsten core shells does not explode inside a tank. It must penetrate an armour, and splinters of tungsten core and armor must fatally damage crew or systems of tank to disable it. Fuel tanks, or engine, or ammo storage. But after penetrating a moderate thick armour, splinters from tungsten core of 30-37mm shell had very little energy, to make any fatal damage. It was documented, that in some occasions tungsten core splinters could not penetrate a tank crewman winter uniform after penetrating a armored hull!

 

Inmost cases for Medium and Heavy tanks under german Panzerjager attack, tanks became damaged or temporarly disabled (damaged engines, wheels e.t.c.). Not destroyed. And, for 1943 and onwards, battlefield always went to winner (Red Army), many tanks were repaired ad sent to action again. That is why PTAB's were preferred by VVS,  HVAR by Allies, and Panzerblitz by Luftwaffe. After direct hit, tank was totally destroyed beyound repair.

[Asgar]

 

 

That is why PTAB's were preferred by VVS,  HVAR by Allies, and Panzerblitz by Luftwaffe. After direct hit, tank was totally destroyed beyound repair.

 

yeah, the Americans loved the HVARs, they could knock out 160 German tanks in a day, even if there were only 40 tanks operating in the area :D 

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

yeah, the Americans loved the HVARs, they could knock out 160 German tanks in a day, even if there were only 40 tanks operating in the area :D 

Aha They have an example of Rudel in front of them. Also, Bruno Meyer's Hs129 guys with > 80 claimed on 16 july 1943 against <10 actually destroyed are standing near Rudel

[Asgar]

Aha They have an example of Rudel in front of them. Also, Bruno Meyer's Hs129 guys with > 80 claimed on 16 july 1943 against <10 actually destroyed are standing near Rudel

yeah, everyone overclaimed. especially when it comes to the ground targets. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

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.

 

With enough angle of approach the T-34 could also be penetrated from the front. With the chart you posted at 300 meters the 45mm plate can be penetrated down to 60°. Since the T-34's front is 45mm angled at 60° from the vertical, and the sides at 40° from the vertical, which I think were 40mm as if i'm correct they were upgraded to 45mm with the later T-34/85.

 

Playing a bit with the angles you can conclude that with a 30° dive the 30mm would get the front at 300m. Against the less sloped sides it would take just a 10° dive to penetrate it.

 

I also have seen a bit higher penetration numbers for the gun, approaching around 90mm of pen against a flat plate at 100 meters. This would make it viable against the flat sides of the KV-1's 75mm at close range and fairly perpendicular approaches. You also have the lighter 1943 KV-1S which had less side armor, 60mm.  About the turrets... it's kinda hard because there were quite some variation in the turrets, the early ones with 75mm, but then in late 1941 and 1942 they had turrets with more armor (90mm, 105mm, even 120mm).

 

[707shap_Srbin]

It is only a theory :0 Lets see, when Hs129 will be released

[LukeFF]

Does anyone have the published convergence values for the MK 101, MG 151, MG 151/20, and the MG 17 for the Hs 129? I have the MK 103 manual, which lists a value of 800m (crossing the sight line), but that is it.

Edited August 14, 2017 by LukeFF

[JtD]

800m is the second time the H-grenade crosses the sight line (drops below), values for other types of shells are different. No info on the other guns, though.

 

That is why PTAB's were preferred by VVS, HVAR by Allies, and Panzerblitz by Luftwaffe. After direct hit, tank was totally destroyed beyond repair.

Certainly harder hitting than a small shell, still, even here the tanks were often repairable. Being repairable is totally normal for a 'destroyed' tank. German forces repaired about 4000 tanks and self propelled guns in January 44 (repair service units only), while losing less than 1000 and producing about 1200.

 

Anyway, the MK103 on the Hs129 was good in the role because

a) guns in general were by far the most efficient way of attacking tanks from the air, way more accurate than any other weapon in WW2

b) the gun in this installation was particularly accurate and wasn't limited to shooting within a small convergence range

c) had the power to penetrate all armour mounted on any vehicle up to medium tanks

d) had a high rate of fire and a large ammo supply.

As far as airborne AT weapons of WW2 go, it doesn't get better than this. You keep arguing as if the Hs129 was close to a flying joke, an incapable gun mounted on a crappy, fragile plane, with the only claim to fame being the ludicrous overclaiming done by the pilots. That's just very one sided.

[Cybermat47]

Rudel? Overclaiming?!

 

Are you suggesting that a hardcore Nazi who was best friends with a proud child murderer and an apartheid supporter was wrong about something?

Edited August 14, 2017 by FFS_Cybermat47

[LukeFF]

Rudel? Overclaiming?!

 

Are you suggesting that a hardcore Nazi who was best friends with a proud child murderer and an apartheid supporter was wrong about something?

 

Let's not drag this thread off-topic.

[Voidhunger]

With enough angle of approach the T-34 could also be penetrated from the front. With the chart you posted at 300 meters the 45mm plate can be penetrated down to 60°. Since the T-34's front is 45mm angled at 60° from the vertical, and the sides at 40° from the vertical, which I think were 40mm as if i'm correct they were upgraded to 45mm with the later T-34/85.

 

Playing a bit with the angles you can conclude that with a 30° dive the 30mm would get the front at 300m. Against the less sloped sides it would take just a 10° dive to penetrate it.

 

I also have seen a bit higher penetration numbers for the gun, approaching around 90mm of pen against a flat plate at 100 meters. This would make it viable against the flat sides of the KV-1's 75mm at close range and fairly perpendicular approaches. You also have the lighter 1943 KV-1S which had less side armor, 60mm. About the turrets... it's kinda hard because there were quite some variation in the turrets, the early ones with 75mm, but then in late 1941 and 1942 they had turrets with more armor (90mm, 105mm, even 120mm).

T34/76 and T34/85 had both 45mm thick front hull sloped armor.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

T34/76 and T34/85 had both 45mm thick front hull sloped armor.

 

Yes, I was talking about the side armor... still not much of a difference.

 

As far as airborne AT weapons of WW2 go, it doesn't get better than this.

 

Imho the 50mm in the Me 410 is better. But iirc they weren't used much against tanks.

[JtD]

4 times the weight, 1/10th the rate of fire for the gun; liquid cooled engines, poor protection, more unstable gun platform for the plane and a protruding muzzle that put the flash right into the pilots eyes for the combination of both.

 

Quite a few significant drawbacks. On the plus side, of course, higher speed, range, penetration power and a rear gunner, but overall, imho, not better. Also, you could get two Hs129 for the price of one Me410.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Well rate of fire isn't that much needed, just a couple of shots would be enough with the 50mm (basically the same gun the Pz III had). Better penetration is good, and since that's with the steel AP round, better performance against angles and no need to use precious tungsten. If it's available though then penetration against heavy tanks side is guaranteed.

 

I agree with the higher vulnerability. Having the 50mm in the 129 would be better I guess.

Edited August 14, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Asgar]

Well rate of fire isn't that much needed, just a couple of shots would be enough with the 50mm (basically the same gun the Pz III had). Better penetration is good, and since that's with the steel AP round, better performance against angles and no need to use precious tungsten. If it's available though then penetration against heavy tanks side is guaranteed.

 

I agree with the higher vulnerability. Having the 50mm in the 129 would be better I guess.

that would probably be a lot of fun :D

[JtD]

Well rate of fire isn't that much needed, just a couple of shots would be enough with the 50mm (basically the same gun the Pz III had).

Well, the low rate of fire of the BK 50 means you're going to get one (well aimed) or two (not so well aimed) shots off in every attack run, whereas the Hs129 is going to deliver around 10. Given the generally rather low hit probability, the average pilot was probably better off with the rapid firing gun - provided it offered sufficient penetration power against the particular target. It's not so much about the number of hits, as it is about hitting at all before you need to leave the area.

 

But, speaking of the Me410, it also had the option of carrying 2 MK103 with 100 rounds each, quite tempting as well. It's just that I consider the Hs129 the better ground attack aircraft of the two, so that even with twice the armament on board of the Me410, I'd hesitate to consider it the better AT weapon. But 2xMK103 imho beats 1xBK50 for most occasions.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I found with IL-2: 1946 when the Hs129 was added to the series that it was easily the most efficient anti-tank weapon in the Luftwaffe arsenal. Even better than the Ju87G with its BK3,7. The reason being that the Hs129 was an easy shot and you carried enough ammo to make it worthwhile. At least with the MK103 which I ended up using quite a lot. The counter rotating propellers also helped make sure that you didn't drift too far off center due to engine torque.

 

The MK101 was fine but the added ammo capacity of the MK103 really made it shine.

 

Can't wait. Even more excited now that its been announced that its only a week and a bit (by now) away from completion and I'm guessing available in the September patch given about 4 weeks of testing.

[Cybermat47]

Was the 37mm ever used operationally on Hs-129 B-2s? I've heard some say no, and others say that it was used in small numbers due to the introduction of the B-3.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Was the 37mm ever used operationally on Hs-129 B-2s? I've heard some say no, and others say that it was used in small numbers due to the introduction of the B-3.

 

I've researched it before and others who are even more definitive on their research with the Hs129 say no. It was never used.

[707shap_Srbin]

Was the 37mm ever used operationally on Hs-129 B-2s? I've heard some say no, and others say that it was used in small numbers due to the introduction of the B-3.

 

No. Look here.