Russian 37 mm, deciding factor at Kursk?

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.

 

Incidentally, you'll find details of all of the WW2 airborne anti-tank guns, their ammunition, performance and their carrying aircraft in the article on 'tankbusters' on my website.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

I would also add to this discussion that Soviet aerial tactics of the period do not lend themselves well to anti-tank operations. The Il-2 was by doctrine employed in groups of 4 to 36 aircraft flying in groups of 4. The normal formation was to fly in a right or left echelon, again in groups of 4 usually 2 groups abreast with subsequent groups trailing the first. Tactics of the 1943 period called for arriving on target at 750 to 1500 meters roughly in altitude. The attack aircraft would then attack their targets in groups using a moderate diving attack.
There doesn't appear to be alot of flexibility in how these attacks are arranged or executed. Certainly nothing on the order of Western Allied use of Typhoon or Thunderbolt aircraft in ground support is indicated. There is really no means available to the Soviets to use direct air-ground coordination real-time like was seen in the West later in the war. Instead, strikes were pre-planned in consultation with the ground units supported.
I cannot see how a tank busting aircraft could be all that effective in such a doctrinal system. This too, indicates that the Soviets likely fictionalized the results these aircraft achieved in order to justify their existance. After all, failure in the Soviet Union in that era was often a life threatening experiance.

 

I don't know. My few discussions with Chirster do not give me any confidence in his work. So, we may be waiting a good while.

 

Really? Are we talking factual errors, or what?

I only have the second part in the series, but it certainly seems well researched and well-written.

 

No, Heart, it is more along the lines...at least in general...of pig headedness. Christer seems very set that he is right and really doesn't want anyone to point out, however politely and well researched they may be, incomplete or incorrect information he has. I haven't read his book on air combat in the East so, I will reserve any comment on that directly until I do.