Reading the greatest aces & the book mentioned the debut of the Russian 37mm at Kursk & how it decimated the German tanks. I wondered if it decided the day?

I assume you are refering to an aircraft cannon mounted on an Il-2m or other similar aircraft in this respect. The likelihood is that it had a negligible impact on the battlefield and on German armor. The vast majority of German tanks knocked out were by anti-tank guns and mines.
If one looks at aircraft versus armor in the West in 1944 one finds that Allied fighter bombers really did not destroy all that many tanks. In the Falaise pocket for example only about a dozen were verifiably destroyed by aircraft. In the Lorraine campaigns XIX TAF only got a handful with far more falling to tanks, tank destroyers (both self propelled and towed) and, infantry anti-tank weapons like the bazooka.
Given the lower standards of flexiblity, coordination and, tactics that the Red Air Force employed it is not likely they did any better.

The book mentions July 6 IL 2's destroyed 70 8th Panzer division tanks in 20 minutes. And 2 hours of Il 2 attacks were to cost 3rd Panzer division 270 tanks and almost 2000 casualties. 17th Panzer lost 240 vehicles out of 300.

William Green describes the development of the IL 2 in articles in flying review international aug 1965. The new cannon were devastating, he reports, knocking out 70 tanks of the 90th Panzer division alone in 20 minutes near Kursk.

Did the article say how many IL-2's were used to knock out 70 tanks ?
I have alot of regard for William Green's books and know he would not have printed this if it was just Russian propanganda. Still you would have to be a really good shot to hit a moving target on the ground from the air with just time to get a few rounds off. Also did it say how many IL-2's were lost ?

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

Well, given the date of the article and saying it was the "90th Panzer division" probably makes it more Soviet propaganda than truth. Green usually is right on with his information, but not always. History is always subject to revision through new discovery of relevant information, new sources, and just improved methods of fact finding.
As an example of this, virtually every author on AFV states that aside from a bridgelaying Covenator used on Bouganville Island in the Pacific none were used in action. But, I found a photo of one at el Alamein and evidence that about 10 went with the British 10th Armored Division to North Africa to make up for shortages in Crusaders issued. I see no reason this could not easily be another case of an "urban myth" becoming history by way of repetition.
Killing 70 tanks is akin to the Hs 129 Gruppen (4 staffeln + supporting Fw 190F fighter bombers) dispersing a Soviet tank Brigade at Byelgorod. A total of about 64 Hs 129's attacking in relays over several hours managed to destroy or disable about 30 - 60 tanks in this unit in that time.
I doubt that the Soviets could do better.
Just consider that 70 tanks represents about half a panzer division.

I find this a bit hard to swallow. First, 8th Panzer wasn't even involved at Krusk during the German offensive phase. It was with Army Group Center in 2nd Panzer Army in reserve and listed as "in the rear" on that date. 8th Panzer was not committed into action until 12 July and then on the northern shoulder of AGC in the vicinity of Orel during the Soviet counter offensive. It conducted a fighting withdrawal to the Hagen position during this period.
The 3rd Panzer division reported a strength of only 102 tanks, of which 39 were Pz II and older Pz III models, on 6 July. So, either the Germans were incredibly efficent at repairing their vehicles as most were put out of action twice by Soviet estimates or, the Soviets were exaggerating their claim.
3rd Panzer was with Army Group South in 4th Panzer Army with XLVIII Pz corps.
17th Panzer was with Army Group South in 1st Panzer Army, XXIV Panzer Corps near Izyum on 6 July. It took no part in the Krusk fighting and there are no reports that it suffered any major casualities or was involved in heavy fighting on or about that date. Given that 1st Panzer Army was reporting a tank stength of only about 400 AFV total between 2 panzer and 2 panzer grenadier divisions it is somewhat surprising to learn the 17th Panzer had virtually all of that in its on-hand strength.
So, I think the Soviets exaggerated greatly their effectiveness by, say, a factor of 10 or more.

So far I´ve found evidence on the defensive lines in Kursk doing the job stopping the panzers, and in this the Russians were very capable and clever. Plus mines all over the place.

As well quite alot of the Red Army Air force was lost during the first day of Zitadelle as the Russian surprise attack was notec by radar and Germans could get in the air to stop them.

Anyway, I´m not saying the Il 37 mm is not correct but somehow sounds very much like the Germans´ Stuka-G?? ANyone got any pics of Il-2 witht he mentioned cannon under wings? Or where was it positioned?

__________________

The 90th Panzer division did NOT exist.

There was the 90th Light division, which ceased to exist in May 1943 in Tunisia, and there was the 90th Panzergrenadier division, which fought in Italy since its creation in 1943 until the end of the war.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

William Green ! geez I think we have discussed his reseach on his epic Third Reich a/c book before. His operational record in that book of individual a/c was and still is terrible but even in this year is taken as fact. I have to admit 1965 is some time ago and much new evidence in a great multitude of works on Kursk has been found to disprove much of the Soviet claims of destroyed German armor during Kursk and soon after. As TA said Soviet propaganda.....? [img]graemlins/panzer.gif[/img]

Yes I am aware that revision clears up many things in WW2 history. I found the data rather surprising, & that is why I posted it. To see what anyone could add - say regarding it.

No, losses of IL 2's were not mentioned.
There were other issues at Kursk. The suspension problems with new German tanks, not to mention the Russians knew what was coming & prepared dilligently.

I am just attempting to determine exactly to what extent the 37 mm was a factor in blunting the offensive.

Can't remember seeing a pic of the IL-2 with under-wing cannon.
Not saying it can't be done, Germany's Rudel did it, but thats alot of knocked out tanks.

Especially considering the dust,smoke and German air cover.

__________________

Last time I looked, forward firing cannon armament was 2 x 23mm, not 37s.

__________________

This is the critical item. Figures for specific units on a specific date are given in your book.
I will unequivacoally say that these figures are completely wrong and likely completely fictious.
Three Panzer divisions and their supposed losses are given: 3rd, 8th and 17th.

On July 5 these divisions had in their returns the following tank strengths:

3rd: 7 Pz II, 8 Pz III kz (short 50s), 34 Pz III lg (50L60), 17 Pz IIIn (75L24), 2 Pz IV kz (75L24) and, 21 Pz IV lg (75L48). This is a total of 89 tanks on hand.

8th: 17 Pz II, 25 Pz III kz, 30 Pz III lg, 4 Pz IIIn, 8 Pz IV kz, 14 Pz IV lg. Total 98 tanks.

17th: 4 Pz II, 1 Pz III kz, 19 Pz III lg, 9 Pz IIIn, 1 Pz IV kz, 31 Pz IV lg. Total 65 tanks.

These three units were in the following locations:
3rd: With AG South in 4th Panzer Army, XLVIII Pz Corps. The division was deployed between PzGr Div GrossDeutchland (right) and 332nd Infantry Division (left) between Tamarovka and Kyokovo.

8th: With AG Center in reserve. The division was near Byansk at the time.

17th: With AG South, 1st Panzer Army, XXIV Panzer Corps. Near Kharkow.

3rd Panzer had operational strength returns of the following for Pz III and Pz IV on the noted dates of:

July..PzIII..PzIV
6.......30.....26
7.......33.....23
8.......24.....16
11......21.....11

This is the only one of the three divisions I have dailies for.
But, also note that 3rd Panzer reported no losses to aircraft and virtually all of their damaged tanks were mine losses up through the 11th.

The 8th and 17th Panzer took no part in the Kursk Offensive. The 8th was committed to the Orel sailient on the 12th on the north shoulder of the Kursk bulge.
The 17th was never committed to the Kursk area and remained in to the south near Kharkow.
Also note that according to the above figures the 8th Panzer lost nearly 90% of its tanks, the 3rd about 250% and the 17th over 300%!
Given the 3rd's strength returns they must have had one hell of a repair and maintenance program!
Also note, that I was unable to find in any source any reference to any of these divisions suffering catastrophic (and that's the only way to describe that size of loss) losses to aircraft, mines, tanks, artillery, anti-tank fire or any other source.
I do have a reference to the Soviet 2nd air army flying 1322 sorties on the 5th and the 17th air army flying 769 sorties that day. 17th Air Army claimed 40 "enemy vehicles" from those sorties (what type is not given). Both units were flying in support of the Southern shoulder of the bulge.
On the 6th these units flew 1632 sorties.

Basically, the Soviet figures are pure fantasy.

Well, good enough. The book is written by Edward Simns, ( P-51 pilot ),but the quotes are from other sources, William Green etc.

This site has a picture of a 37mm on the IL-2 but it said it was not too successful.

http://www.internetelite.ru/aircrafts/indexq.html

I wish old Russian military men had access to the internet.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

This is correct for most Il-2 versions. The 1943 version, Il-2 Type 3, came in a tank-busting version called the Type 3M.

It had a single fairing-mounted Nudelmann-Suranov NS-37 37mm cannon in each wing, with 40-50 shells each. The cannons were fully automatic with a firing rate of some 250 rounds per minute, and capable of penetrating around 48mm of armour.

Overall this was a very successful design, although not as widely produced as the more common standard versions. That being said, the numbers posted above are certainly fictious or a misrepresentation, as such a blow would shatter entire German formations!

[ 21. March 2005, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Heartland ]

__________________
"Nervous wait for the whistle to blow
Rush of blood and over we go..."
- Iron Maiden, "Paschendale"

Sure. Here is one, from pictures I have scrounged from various sources over the years:

__________________
"Nervous wait for the whistle to blow
Rush of blood and over we go..."
- Iron Maiden, "Paschendale"

Great pic, including a pretty armament girl!

What remains to be seen is how effective this was, or whether they did hit anything!

__________________

Some comments:

The RAF and USAAF succeeding in killing very few tanks, for the reason given in 'Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45' - details on my website [img]smile.gif[/img]

"The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and 20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance. The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."

In contrast, the big airborne anti-tank guns could be very accurate indeed, as the RAF found with the Hurri IID. So it is likely that the big-gun anti-tank aircraft in German and Soviet service were considerably more effective in knocking out tanks than the RAF and USAAF fighter-bombers.

Having said that, the claims appear remarkably high and it is worth noting that they don't seem to be backed up by the kind of after-the-battle verification by observers crawling all over the knocked-out tanks to check what hit them. So I would expect that their actual successes were a long way short of the claims.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

From the few things I have read about it, the setup was good but the recoil was quite bothersome when firing, making it less than popular with the pilots. If I recall correctly, the recoil pushed the nose down when attacking in a dive - I guess this is not entirely amusing when attacking at low altitude.

I'll also note that the original Il-2 was armed with 20mm cannons, which were later upgraded to VYa-23 cannons which some sources claim had sufficient muzzle velocity to be effective against the top armour of many German tanks...I don't know about this though.

Overall I don't think the Il-2 had a huge impact on German tanks... If we look at the armament of the aircraft, it is more suitable for interdiction and soft targets, so I would bet this played a bigger part in its great reputation.

With the 37mm version not widely circulated, the 82mm and 132mm rockets are the main weapons, with all the flaws mentioned by Tony above. A new weapon which was tested and apparently was sucessful was the PTAB anti-armour cluster bomb cassette though. These cassettes were mounted in the small internal bomb bays of the Il-2 Type 3, with a total capacity for some 200 hollow-charge 1.5kg bombs per aircraft. These were first tested in July of 1943 if memory serves, and used to saturate areas up to some 70 meters in length.

Anyways, back on topic, I bet we will have to wait for some later volume in Christer Bergström's Black Cross/Red Star series for a thorough discussion on the 37mm Sturmovik.

__________________
"Nervous wait for the whistle to blow
Rush of blood and over we go..."
- Iron Maiden, "Paschendale"