PDA

View Full Version : Ju-87 G2 "Kanonvogel"-"Panzerknacker" Questions



Freiwillige
06-22-2008, 01:41 PM
Okay so I watched this video about the stuka G2 and I was impressed with its Firepower!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg

But ive found in game it seems to have far less power. Also in the movie it seems that there is little convergance for the Flak 18's. I understand that to crack a t-34 you should come at it high side or high rear but I just cant seem to get kills consitantly with this thing. It almost acts like slow firing 20mm's!

Andbody else have any tips or luck with this Beautifull bird of death?

Freiwillige
06-22-2008, 01:41 PM
Okay so I watched this video about the stuka G2 and I was impressed with its Firepower!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg

But ive found in game it seems to have far less power. Also in the movie it seems that there is little convergance for the Flak 18's. I understand that to crack a t-34 you should come at it high side or high rear but I just cant seem to get kills consitantly with this thing. It almost acts like slow firing 20mm's!

Andbody else have any tips or luck with this Beautifull bird of death?

JtD
06-22-2008, 02:09 PM
If you come in at 40? and hit about anywhere except for the tracks, the T-34 is gone. Are you sure you are hitting every time you fire? Try setting arcade=1 in the config.ini to see where you are hitting. I find it the most effective AT weapon the Luftwaffe has, at least as long as you have air superiority and little AAA to deal with.

csThor
06-22-2008, 10:13 PM
IMO the damage model of the tanks is too simplistic - and quite frankly I think the soviet tanks are a bit on the well-meaning side regarding their armor. The only approach I found to produce reasonably consistent results is the one JtD wrote. I prefer to attack the T-34 from behind and aim for the engine compartment. Works rather well ...

Oh and that video shows the field testing of the new G-1 in the Kuban area - shooting at rowing boats the soviets used to land troops behind the german defenses. The "extreme" explosions come from the HE ammo they used for these missions - shooting valuable Wolfram-rounds at rowing boats would have been a costly overkill. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
06-22-2008, 10:38 PM
Too bad we can't opt for the HE rounds instead for other kinds of missions not involving heavy armor.

Freiwillige
06-23-2008, 02:54 AM
How do you know its HE rounds? I agree Tungsten was rare in Germany and they didnt have much to make ammo out of, but I never heard of the G firing anything else. Also did you know that those are Flak 18's AA guns remounted on the Stuka?

csThor
06-23-2008, 03:34 AM
Because the use of standard FLAK ammunition (HE) was specifically mentioned in several books? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-23-2008, 04:07 AM
Its all about hitting the right place.

Hit the top of the tank and hes gone.

EVen the BK37 with HE on the Me110G2 makes a great tankbuster in the sim if you hit the top of the tank. You need to come in at a steep angle, so you WILL crash into the ground a lot while practising.

As long as you have air superiority and some good fighter cover from teammates you can decimate tank columns and win the map.

TinyTim
06-23-2008, 06:25 AM
I seem to recall reading somewhere about LW standard tactics when attacking russian tanks (where terrain permitted):
they flew just a few meters above the ground, horisontally, firing a couple of rounds into a back or side of the tank.

Freiwillige
06-23-2008, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
I seem to recall reading somewhere about LW standard tactics when attacking russian tanks (where terrain permitted):
they flew just a few meters above the ground, horisontally, firing a couple of rounds into a back or side of the tank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats what I have read too. Rudel would fly low then right before the attack he would pop up just a pinch and attack the rear in a shalow dive of 20/30 degrees.

JSG72
06-23-2008, 04:54 PM
I find this Flyng so low. A little perplexing as. How do you know which way the tank is facing?
The tungsten 37mm shells were porported to be able to crack the T-34s armour from any side.(Dependant on deflection).

Was it a case of "A hit was a kill".

Difficult to say?

Comeon yee Charts? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Freiwillige
06-23-2008, 05:15 PM
The 37mm could not crack the front of a t-34. Also you fly toi the objective at a decent altitude 1k spot the armor and direction of travel then fly behind 1k out and hit the deck and come at the rear at 1000 meters pull up and nose over 300 to 500m max then line up your site and pound your targets. Of course hitting something is another story! Practice has me destroying 1/2 the time up from 1/4 the time!
As long as you hit from the side or rear and you connect then boom!

As for how they confirmed kills IRL I guess you could just tell if the round penatrated or bounced off. If it stoped moving and caught fire your good. IF it stopped moving and the crew bailed out, again your good for the kill.
Basically if you stopped the tank it was a kill even if you just destroyed the tracks.

JSG72
06-23-2008, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The 37mm could not crack the front of a t-34. Also you fly toi the objective at a decent altitude 1k spot the armor and direction of travel then fly behind 1k out and hit the deck and come at the rear at 1000 meters pull up and nose over 300 to 500m max then line up your site and pound your targets. Of course hitting something is another story! Practice has me destroying 1/2 the time up from 1/4 the time!
As long as you hit from the side or rear and you connect then boom!

As for how they confirmed kills IRL I guess you could just tell if the round penatrated or bounced off. If it stoped moving and caught fire your good. IF it stopped moving and the crew bailed out, again your good for the kill.
Basically if you stopped the tank it was a kill even if you just destroyed the tracks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was a decent altitude?(1k, 3000 ft?? and you can spot them??)
And at the Attack altitude. How do you know if the tank has stopped/crew bail out/smoked.?
Surely? You are there and gone. Do you go round for a third pass? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Sorry, if I sound inept. But I get shot down by AA. more often than nought.

Freiwillige
06-24-2008, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The 37mm could not crack the front of a t-34. Also you fly toi the objective at a decent altitude 1k spot the armor and direction of travel then fly behind 1k out and hit the deck and come at the rear at 1000 meters pull up and nose over 300 to 500m max then line up your site and pound your targets. Of course hitting something is another story! Practice has me destroying 1/2 the time up from 1/4 the time!
As long as you hit from the side or rear and you connect then boom!

As for how they confirmed kills IRL I guess you could just tell if the round penatrated or bounced off. If it stoped moving and caught fire your good. IF it stopped moving and the crew bailed out, again your good for the kill.
Basically if you stopped the tank it was a kill even if you just destroyed the tracks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was a decent altitude?(1k, 3000 ft?? and you can spot them??)
And at the Attack altitude. How do you know if the tank has stopped/crew bail out/smoked.?
Surely? You are there and gone. Do you go round for a third pass? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Sorry, if I sound inept. But I get shot down by AA. more often than nought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A decent altitude would be 1k to 500m. And you know in game if you have destroyed your target because it blows up and turns black. And yes I keep going back until im out of ammo. Also if your using QMB turn off the AAA option. the column usually has its own AAA you dont need 800 more scattered around the countryside. Keep in mind that Ju-87 G's usually attcked the spearhead of a russian assault so they would not have all those fixed AAA guns around the front line.

BWaltteri
06-25-2008, 04:21 AM
Because Stuka was mounted with the same 37mm Cannon as the early war infantry I wonder does this explain why ground forces' 37mm's can't destroy a thing. They can't destroy BT-7 or a truck either.

Unless they hit the engine from above.

Freiwillige
06-25-2008, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BWaltteri:
Because Stuka was mounted with the same 37mm Cannon as the early war infantry I wonder does this explain why ground forces' 37mm's can't destroy a thing. They can't destroy BT-7 or a truck either.

Unless they hit the engine from above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not the same gun. Its a BK 3.7 / Flak 18 37 millimeter gun. Basically an AA gun with specialized Tungsten core ammo to knock out tanks.

BWaltteri
06-26-2008, 01:59 AM
Sorry.

tragentsmith
06-26-2008, 03:56 AM
Besides, the 37 mm PaK 35/36 did pretty well against the tanks of all nations from 1939 to 1941 (except the heavy allied tanks like the british Matilda or the french B1bis and Somua S35). It's really when the germans had to face the T34 and KV1 on the eastern front that the gun became totally obsolete against tanks. It had no problem against a BT7 or a T26.

But in late 1941, even the 50 mm PaK 36/37 was obsolete. That's why they switched as fast as possible to the 75 mm PaK40.

Tux_UK
06-26-2008, 05:43 AM
One thing to remember is that, in real life, it was and is extraordinarily difficult for an aircraft to destroy a full AFV (anything more than a light tank) using guns light enough to be carried and fired whilst airborne. A-10s just about manage it these days, but they are far more effective when they employ guided AT missiles (Hellfire, etc.). The fact it's so easy in-game is for the most part a fabrication on Oleg's part to make the game more playable and allow certain legends to be recreated. In real-life ground attack aircraft are far more usefully employed attacking supply lines and other 'soft' targets.

Attacking tanks, you first off have to hit the target. A heavy, unmanoeuvrable plane does not allow many effective evasive manoeuvres to be carried out, so Ju-87s, for example, are unlikely to potter about at 1000m above the battlefield lining up their attacks with precision and room for adjustments once the atatck run has begun. This is what AAA is designed to punish you for. Low altitude attacks are therefore in order, thereby vastly reducing the pilot's time 'on target' and therefore the time he has to adjust his aim and fire. Combine this with the turbulence likely to be encountered at low-level over a battlefield, pilot nerves, recoil disturbance if more than a single round from each gun is fired (assuming you have time to even consider a second shot on the same pass) and the fact that you are still likely to be taking incoming AAA fire, and a single 37mm hit to a full AFV target per run begins to look like a vaguely possible, if not a positively improbable result.

Then you have to penetrate the armour. This is far more difficult than it sounds, especially when an air-fired round is so unlikely to strike its target at a 90deg angle, and is unlikely to be fired from closer than 200-300m (except very occasionally, by particularly brave/ skilled pilots). The BK 3.7, for example, could penetrate the T-34 from any aspect provided that it was fired from within 100m and that the round impacted at 90deg to the armour plating. Incorporate sloped armour and the aircraft's angle of attack (on the tank, not to be confused with aerodynamic angle of attack) and you begin to rely heavily on attacking the tank from the rear or at very high dive angles onto the roof. This latter course of action then brings up the problem of exposure to AAA once more.

Once you've penetrated the tank, you need your projectile to cause sufficient damage within the tank ('Behind Armour Effect') to cause it to be knocked out, or to cause the crew to abandon it. 37mm rounds were notoriously unreliable for this, when fired at such a large target as a T-34, and so several penetrating rounds usually had to be pumped into the tank before the desired results were obtained and it was removed from the fight (sometimes as many as 5-6). This was difficult enough to achieve with a concealed, rock-steady infantry AT gun. Also, the Ju-87G carried a mere 6 rounds per gun. If you want to hit with both rounds fired each time, then add 'precisely estimating range and convergence' to the list of difficulties near the top of the post. If not (welcome back to the real world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), then you begin to see that the chances of a Ju-87G truly 'knocking out' a single AFV of the T-34 class or larger per sortie are very, very, very low for anyone other than an absolute master of the art.


As a side issue, let's assume that Hans-Ulrich Rudel was one such master, since he was undoubtedly a skillful pilot and leader of men. Rudel flew over 2500 missions. Let's assume that the 'over', however few it may be, accounts for the time he spent gaining experience and achieving 'masterdom' at the art of killing tanks. He is therefore claiming (519 being the number I see quoted most often) more than one tank destroyed in every five sorties, on average. If we're generous, we can estimate that 2000 of those mission were dedicated anti-tank missions flown in the Ju-87G, though in reality it was undoubtedly fewer. If we're generous a second time we can assume that Rudel encountered and attacked Soviet tanks on 1000 occasions - that sound reasonable? We now find a claim of more than one tank destroyed for evey two encounters with Soviet armour. Rudel himself goes even further than this, however, and claims to have destroyed multiple tanks per sortie on multiple occasions! Surely this is not 'mastery', but some form of divinity that we are looking at here! On one occasion Rudel claims to have destroyed more than six tanks on a single mission - so on at least one attack run he must have hit, and destroyed(!), two separate tanks with the two rounds fired from his guns!!

The brutal, boring, uninspiring fact is that Ulrich Rudel's claim of over 500 tanks destroyed is a ludicrous exaggeration over what he will actually have achieved. The manner in which he claims to have achieved it prompts me to consider the man an outright liar. Combined with the other outlandish claims made in his name, and I think what we are looking at here is the most brazen piece of Nazi propaganda I've encountered. The man had been made into a living legend by the dying stages of the war, and as such was invaluable to Goebbel's propaganda-machine. From the Soviets' point of view, what better way to further crush German morale and help achieve a swift end to the war than to try and annihilate said legend? I'd say that accomplishment has to be worth at least, what, 100,000 Rubles? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[EDIT]: Just found this link and thought it may be of some interest: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

TinyTim
06-26-2008, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
On one occasion Rudel claims to have destroyed more than six tanks on a single mission - so on at least one attack run he must have hit, and destroyed(!), two separate tanks with the two rounds fired from his guns!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ju87G carried 12 shells per gun.

Chruisto
06-26-2008, 07:12 AM
I would assume Rudel simply claimed a kill for every tank he hit. A tank can count as knocked out if you shot one of its tracks and therefore render it unable to move.

But still I think he overclaimed quite a lot...

Tux_UK
06-26-2008, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
On one occasion Rudel claims to have destroyed more than six tanks on a single mission - so on at least one attack run he must have hit, and destroyed(!), two separate tanks with the two rounds fired from his guns!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ju87G carried 12 shells per gun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it carried 6 shells per gun. 12 in total.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
I would assume Rudel simply claimed a kill for every tank he hit. A tank can count as knocked out if you shot one of its tracks and therefore render it unable to move.

But still I think he overclaimed quite a lot... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If he claimed a 'kill' for every tank he hit then he must have cared little for the actual effect he was having on the war below him compared to how many 'kills' he could claim per sortie. As explained above, a single air-fired 37mm round that hits a T-34 has a very low chance of penetrating and destroying the tank. Even if the chances are as good as 50:50, which they aren't, Rudel only actually destroyed 250 tanks, based on the assumption that he considered a 'hit' to be a 'kill' and that he did, in fact, hit every tank he claimed to have done. Any pilot honestly trying to help out the german ground forces would repeatedly attack a single target until it was visibly removed from the fight, i.e. crew bails or the tank catches fire.

*On a side note, even then it is no guarantee that the Stuka has scored the kill. In all likelihood the T-34 would have been coming under fire from all sorts of concealed, buried, wheeled and tracked sources. Of course, a Stuka pilot has no way of knowing whether the T-34 that he just attacked, and which is now on fire, ran over a mine or took an 88mm AT shell to the flank from a concealed gun, or whatever. In this case the kill claim would be made in good faith.

A 37mm round could, conceivably, damage a T-34's tracks and therefore immobilise the tank. That tank does not, however, count as 'knocked out'. Not to anyone on the ground and within 2km of it, anyway. If the T-34 is in the combat zone the immobilisation will have done little to reduce the threat posed by the tank itself. It will have made it slightly easier for ground forces to single out and finish off, but no less lethal to said forces. If the tank is not in the combat zone then it will simply be repaired and ready to go again very shortly after the Ju-87s have left.

BWaltteri
06-26-2008, 08:47 AM
Rudel's score is 518+, plus means more. Germans did effect some kill confirmation too.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
Any pilot honestly trying to help out the german ground forces would repeatedly attack a single target until it was visibly removed from the fight, i.e. crew bails or the tank catches fire.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't have to, if the tank engine cathes fire, the crew will boil unless it bails out immediately. WW2 tanks didn't have swimming pools nor convenient heaters for crew because any extra head would risk the engine to explode.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:

A 37mm round could, conceivably, damage a T-34's tracks and therefore immobilise the tank. That tank does not, however, count as 'knocked out'. Not to anyone on the ground and within 2km of it, anyway. If the T-34 is in the combat zone the immobilisation will have done little to reduce the threat posed by the tank itself. It will have made it slightly easier for ground forces to single out and finish off, but no less lethal to said forces. If the tank is not in the combat zone then it will simply be repared and ready to go again very shortly after the Ju-87s have left. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

37mm did nothing against tracks of T-34.

It had been suicide for the crew to remain on immobile tank. Experienced infantry, or just anyone who could told the troops what to do, could destroy tank even without proper AT weapons. A smoke box underneath the tank would suffocate the crew. An immobile tank cannot fight against infantry that stands right next to it.

tragentsmith
06-26-2008, 08:51 AM
Well, I dunno about Rudel. The tanks were really badly armored on the top of the turret and on the engine. So even a 37 mm high velocity gun could knock it down (not necessarily killing the crew or making it explode, but disabling it by breaking the track / engine). Besides, Rudel might have also chosen the light tanks instead of the big tanks. He was not chsing always the biggest tank possible on the battlefield.
Third point is, if JU87G was so ineficient, why did they build so many ? And replaced them by Hs129 ? If it was so bad, they would just have abandoned the idea. You don't throw precious resources out of the window like that on the battlefield.

So if you resume you have in 1943 - 1945 :

Good armored russian tanks against ground AT guns, but really thin on the top and a really exposed engine if you attack from top and behind. Even the T34 or KV1.

Slow tanks offroad. So not so hard to hit. A T34 was moving around 4 - 5 kph on the battlefield and not really faster. Remember that you had no electronic aiming equipment. For a precise shot, you had to stop. You could fire while rolling, but the probability of a scoring hit is very tiny. It's not a modern AFV doing 60 - 80 offroad with an electronic tracking device for the main gun.

The russians had not a really good "cover the tanks with AAA while they are forcing the enemy frontline" doctrine. AAA positions need time to be installed. You can do that quickly after you have gained a territory, but not so good on the middle of the battlefield. They AA trucks were not armored and easy targets for german HMGs or strafing aircrafts.

So the argument of AAA cover is not worth.Their doctrine was more : throw a lot of forces at the german and we do it again and again if we don't crush them at the first assault. It was only in late 1944 that the russians decided to stop a bit with that tactic of throwing forces carelessly of the lost lives to save a bit of soldiers.
In fact, they feared to have a lack of soldiers if they continued to sacrifice them at such a rate. Remember that they lost over 20 millions soldiers and civilians during the , in just 4 years.

I think it's probable that Rudel overclaims, but just don't say that what he did is impossible, because we have no clue at all how it was at the time to fly a stuka over the russian front in air to ground missions.

I guess we should be there to know the truth. Unfortunately, no time machine exist.

TinyTim
06-26-2008, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Ju87G carried 12 shells per gun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it carried 6 shells per gun. 12 in total. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any reliable source on this?

luftluuver
06-26-2008, 09:14 AM
Early production carried 6 rnd/gun which was later increased to 12 rnd/gun.

6 rnd clips double stacked

Tux_UK
06-26-2008, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BWaltteri:
Doesn't have to, if the tank engine cathes fire, the crew will boil unless it bails out immediately. WW2 tanks didn't have swimming pools nor convenient heaters for crew because any extra head would risk the engine to explode. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I said. For a pilot to think he's knocked a tank out he should either see it catch fire or observe the crew bailing out.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BWaltteri:
37mm did nothing against tracks of T-34. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough; I was being generous in order to address the distinction between 'immobilised' and 'knocked out'.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BWaltteri:
It had been suicide for the crew to remain on immobile tank. Experienced infantry, or just anyone who could told the troops what to do, could destroy tank even without proper AT weapons. A smoke box underneath the tank would suffocate the crew. An immobile tank cannot fight against infantry that stands right next to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if the Soviets have forgotten everything they ever knew about combined arms and providing infantry support for armoured forces. By the time Rudel was getting into the swing of things in his 87G the Red Army was well on its way to being an outstandingly effective military force. Come 1944 they no longer threw unsupported armoured divisions against german PAK fronts but had a perfectly firm grasp of sound, if not excellent, battlefield strategy and tactics.

In your scenario you appear to be talking of a lone T-34 immobilised deep into no-man's land. Such an occurence was not the norm. Where Rudel's 'fire brigade' unit would be used was where the germans desparately needed every piece of available help to try and stem the tide of a Soviet advance. An immobilised T-34 in the midst of a Soviet advance is not in imminent danger except from targetted artillery fire and the tanks' old foe, the well-positioned AT gun. It takes time, space and balls of steel for individual infantry to attack an armed and turreted tank at the best of times, let alone when the thing is, in all likelihood, supported by two platoon-mates and a multitude of overwatching machine guns and infantry units.

Think of it this way; an immobilised T-34 basically becomes a 360deg steel plate-armoured pillbox. Include the rest of the tanks from the immobilised T-34's unit and infantry support and supporting fire from towards the rear of the advance and it is not an easy target.

If the T-34 was immobilised during a german advance and over-run by infantry, then yes, you are right; in that case it is done for. Only very rarely did Ju-87Gs have the luxury of supporting a full-scale german advance, however.

Tux_UK
06-26-2008, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tragentsmith:
Well, I dunno about Rudel. The tanks were really badly armored on the top of the turret and on the engine. So even a 37 mm high velocity gun could knock it down (not necessarily killing the crew or making it explode, but disabling it by breaking the track / engine). Besides, Rudel might have also chosen the light tanks instead of the big tanks. He was not chsing always the biggest tank possible on the battlefield.
Third point is, if JU87G was so ineficient, why did they build so many ? And replaced them by Hs129 ? If it was so bad, they would just have abandoned the idea. You don't throw precious resources out of the window like that on the battlefield.

So if you resume you have in 1943 - 1945 :

Good armored russian tanks against ground AT guns, but really thin on the top and a really exposed engine if you attack from top and behind. Even the T34 or KV1.

Slow tanks offroad. So not so hard to hit. A T34 was moving around 4 - 5 kph on the battlefield and not really faster. Remember that you had no electronic aiming equipment. For a precise shot, you had to stop. You could fire while rolling, but the probability of a scoring hit is very tiny. It's not a modern AFV doing 60 - 80 offroad with an electronic tracking device for the main gun.

The russians had not a really good "cover the tanks with AAA while they are forcing the enemy frontline" doctrine. AAA positions need time to be installed. You can do that quickly after you have gained a territory, but not so good on the middle of the battlefield. They AA trucks were not armored and easy targets for german HMGs or strafing aircrafts.

So the argument of AAA cover is not worth.Their doctrine was more : throw a lot of forces at the german and we do it again and again if we don't crush them at the first assault. It was only in late 1944 that the russians decided to stop a bit with that tactic of throwing forces carelessly of the lost lives to save a bit of soldiers.
In fact, they feared to have a lack of soldiers if they continued to sacrifice them at such a rate. Remember that they lost over 20 millions soldiers and civilians during the , in just 4 years.

I think it's probable that Rudel overclaims, but just don't say that what he did is impossible, because we have no clue at all how it was at the time to fly a stuka over the russian front in air to ground missions.

I guess we should be there to know the truth. Unfortunately, no time machine exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1.
Engine damage, I concede, is probably the most likely way to kill a tank from the air. You are then looking at hitting the engine deck - an area of, what, 4 square metres? Then you have to hope the engine is set on fire by the solid (non-incendiary) Tungsten core, otherwise you have an immobilisation at best.

2.
Light tanks? Possibly. However he has no qualms with claiming to have killed T-34s and, if I remember correctly, even KVs and IS-2s. If the 'tanks' he claimed to have killed were, in fact, light AFVs such as scout vehicles, armoured cars and obsolete 1930s tin-cans then the achievement becomes far less spectacular. It would also tend to reinforce my argument about the inneffectiveness of aircraft vs fully-armoured vehicles.

3.
According to my srouces 208 Ju-87Gs were built. That's not many, I'm afraid. As for being 'replaced' by the Hs-129, they just weren't. The Hs-129 had a short production run which was quickly terminated and the aircraft simply ran out as they were lost in service. The Ju-87G carried on beyond that point and was actually due to be replaced by the Fw-190 in its ground attack configuration. Big, heavy, weak (in real terms) AT guns were rejected in favour of speed/ survivability and multiple rocket/ bomb-based munitions. This is because ground-attack aircraft were absolutely invaluable for interdicting and destroying soft enemy targets which were beyond the reach of ground forces, such as supply columns. Several 'anti-tank' devices for mounting on the Fw-190 were under development at the end of the war, but none of them included the mounting of a specialised AT gun. Rockets or bombs with hollow-charge warheads were seen as the way forwards.
Secondly, there is the morale value of having air support, from the germans' point of view. Even in the early war, when german land forces could almost over-run soviet forces at will, infantry were known to take cover and wait for each successive flight of Ju-87Bs to come in and help them out, simply because of the massive boost to morale it gave them to see and hear their own aircraft overhead.

4.
T-34s could well be making 10-15mph on an off-road advance, depending on the situation. Even so, the majority of the pilot's difficulty is in flying through turbulent air, nervous, *possibly* (I'll concede that) being shot at and trying to hit a relatively small vehicle in one of two, maybe three vulnerable spots.

5.
Actually, I think, in the circumstances, that we can quite confidently label Rudel's personal claims as false, at least in the majority. Whether he made them in good faith or not is really another argument. The practical difficulties that his equipment would have had destroying enemy tanks, no matter how good he was, are too great. For all practical purposes we can say that his claims are impossible.

If a guy claims to have shot down 50 IL-2s in 100 encounters, whilst flying a Ki-43, what do you say? It is, like almost anything, possible: he could hit the pilot every time, he could aim for the bombload, he could score 50% hits with his rifle-calibre ammunition on the fuel tanks every time. It is, however, so highly unlikely to be true that we assume it to be false. He simply didn't have the equipment to perform the feat.

Tux_UK
06-26-2008, 09:56 AM
I have only rarely seen reference to the 'overloading' of a Stuka G with two clips per gun. The vast majority of references I can find online speak of the single-clip, six-round version.

As for hard references, I have none here with me but when I visit home in the next few weeks I can try and dig them up if you like? One of the downsides of being a student is having to leave most of your reference library 'at home', lol.

luftluuver
06-26-2008, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Hs-129 had a short production run which was quickly terminated and the aircraft simply ran out as they were lost in service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1160+ is a short production run? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Ju 87G production ceased in Oct 44, one month after the Hs129 production ended. Ju 87D production ended in the summer of 1944.

The Hs129 soldered on into April 1945 with 10.(Pz.)SG 9 and 14.(Pz.)SG 9.

Tux_UK
06-26-2008, 10:13 AM
Yes, 1160+ is bloody short for what is, apparently, an effective tank-killing aircraft. In fact, the 129 was probably as effective as airborne AT guns got, and it was still cancelled before the much older Ju-87 was. If it was actually an outstanding tank killer, do you not think more would have been produced than that?!

Whether or not they 'soldiered on' with a Staffel here and there, the fact is they were deemed insufficiently effective to justify their continued production. 'Soldiering on', 'running out', it's all the same thing.

Airborne AT guns didn't work against full AFVs. Not nearly well enough to be worth their cost, anyway. The best way for a ground attack aircraft to stop a tank is to strafe the c**p out of its fuel supply column with 20mm and a half-decent bombload.

joeap
06-26-2008, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
Airborne AT guns didn't work against full AFVs. Not nearly well enough to be worth their cost, anyway. The best way for a ground attack aircraft to stop a tank is to strafe the c**p out of its fuel supply column with 20mm and a half-decent bombload. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Most tanks were knocked out by AT guns (on the ground) IIRC.

JSG72
06-26-2008, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
Airborne AT guns didn't work against full AFVs. Not nearly well enough to be worth their cost, anyway. The best way for a ground attack aircraft to stop a tank is to strafe the c**p out of its fuel supply column with 20mm and a half-decent bombload. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Most tanks were knocked out by AT guns (on the ground) IIRC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1
From many referances I have, and read. The prefered method of destroying tanks was with bombs.
The Hs 129s, armed with the MK101 and later MK103 were used against light tanks and vehicles in Africa and the Russian front. With many pilots having the guns removed and bombs used instead. The PAK 40 was only used by a couple of Staffeln. and although the gun was capable the plane became far too vulernable.

Because the JU87g was an attack aircraft and had no divebrakes it could not divebomb the tanks. Which would probably have been more effective.(Assuming, they were able to spot them in the first place.)So it was upgunned to tackle the plenty of targets around and this could be any vehicle.

Falcke
06-26-2008, 04:48 PM
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/l...68-6.html#post253975 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/luftwaffe-cannons-machineguns-topic-6368-6.html#post253975)

Scroll down to post #80

Contains some nice pictures of German tests with MK101 versus KV1 tank.
I don't think the thickness of the armor on the tanks like the T34 needs to be overestimated. Side, rear and top armor was fairly thin. And a plane coming in under an angle will also remove the advantage given by the sloped armor (granted the plane comes from a good direction).

And this is 30mm, while the Stuka fires 37mm.

Freiwillige
06-26-2008, 05:36 PM
Rheinmetall-Borsig BK3.7, 37x265mmR Rheinmetall, Germany, 1942
295Kg. 37x263B. 640g. 820m/s. 160rpm. S-Recoil. Mod.AA gun(FLAK18)

This aircraft gun was based on the FlaK18 anti-aircraft gun of the 1930s. It was used both as an heavy aircraft destroyer and tankbuster. It fed from 6-round clips inserted from the side. The APCR round introduced in 1944 was in short supply because of severe lack of tungsten.

The Junkers Ju 87G-1 Kanonenvogel ground attack aircraft (1943) carried two guns with 12 rounds per gun below the wings, while the Henschel Hs 129B-2/Wa heavy fighter (1943) carried one as a belly gun with 6 rounds ready to use, plus 66 in reserve.

I doubt that T-34's were much problem for the Stuka either from the Back or the top. Armor in those areas is light even on a IS2. Also that video on U-tube I posted show's just how accurate those guns were and they were no where near getting real close.

Tux_UK
06-27-2008, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Falcke:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/l...68-6.html#post253975 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/luftwaffe-cannons-machineguns-topic-6368-6.html#post253975)

Scroll down to post #80

Contains some nice pictures of German tests with MK101 versus KV1 tank.
I don't think the thickness of the armor on the tanks like the T34 needs to be overestimated. Side, rear and top armor was fairly thin. And a plane coming in under an angle will also remove the advantage given by the sloped armor (granted the plane comes from a good direction).

And this is 30mm, while the Stuka fires 37mm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those photographs appear to show a series of partial penetrations with one or two full penetrations. Such a large tank is likely to require at least two or three full penetrations from 30mm Tungsten rounds in order to knock it out, except occasionally by chance. The gun that did the damage in those photos would rarely account for a destroyed tank when used in the air-gound role.

Yes, the top and, occasionally, side armour would appear vulnerable to these guns, but the engine decks of tanks are not large relative to the entire vehicle. They will be difficult to hit and you wil, once again, require multiple penetrations.

If the Stuka attacks from dead 12 o'clock, it needs to dive at a 60deg angle to eliminate the T-34's sloped-armour advantage. That is too steep for a Ju-87G attacking from 1000m altitude. If it doesn't attack from dead 12, then the T-34 will also effectively have the armour sloped in two dimensions relative to the Stuka.

The calibre certainly isn't irrelevant, but I would warn strongly against assuming that a larger calibre affords better penetration. It is a lot more complicated than that. Three examples: The Soviet ZiS-3 76mm AT gun was far less effective than the ZiS-2 57mm gun at penetrating armour. The German 75/L70 was better than the Tiger's 88mm KwK 36. The Soviet 122mm, as mounted on the IS-2, was inferior to their 100mm AT gun.

Look, never have I argued that the guns mounted by these aircraft are incapable of knocking out a full AFV, given the right conditions. My argument is that, to all intents and purposes, they just plain didn't. There are too many obstacles to be overcome with regards to identifying targets, lining up an attack run on the rear of your selected target (assuming that the tanks continue moving in a straight line and don't change direction) and then hitting the bloody thing in a 'weak spot', and all that is before we even get started on the weapon's capabilities. Speculate all you like about precision aiming of solid projectiles at an area smaller than that of a single bed, lucky hits smashing through vision blocks or plate armour haviong its bolts shot off and being detached by the bullet, whatever. It didn't often happen.

The Luftwaffe armed just over 200 Ju-87s with guns and then had done with them. They built just over 1000 Hs-129s - many of them without AT guns - and then had done with them. The Soviets produced a small proportion of Il-2s with heavy AT cannon slung under the wings, but soon reverted to lighter, general purpose armamant. All of these aircraft/ gun combinations were capable of destroying enemy armour. None of them did destroy enough to be worth the time, effort and cost.

Tux_UK
06-27-2008, 05:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Also that video on U-tube I posted show's just how accurate those guns were and they were no where near getting real close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, if that video shows anything it shows that the only targets that could be reliably hit were ships, and even then repeated misses were the norm. Ships are enormous - absolutely huge - compared to tanks. None of the smaller targets on that video appear to receive direct hits, as would be required in the AT role.

Let's also not forget that that is a carefully selected series of gun camera shots designed to show the Ju-87 at its most effective. Such spectacular results are not to be expected on every attack, even on ships.

JSG72
06-27-2008, 11:38 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I am totally in agreement with Tux_UK on all his points.
All accounts I have read do not put up any convincing arguements for Airborne guns against tanks as an economical method of destruction.(Tungsten cored shells carried by aircraft were a complete waste of a rare element in Germany) There may have been proficiant experts? But they were few and far between. Hence the reason Big gun planes were only used by one or two squadrons within, any airforce. They all tried it out but results were not as successful as anticipated.
A bomb crater with a tank lying on its side or with the turret blown off, was a guarantee of destruction. Smoke or flame, was not.

The introduction of hollowcharge rockets was more promising.
However, towards the end of the War they or tactics to use them were still in their infancy with only a couple of squadrons again, utelising them.

When I was young I was fascinated by planes with "Big Guns" when I got older and was able to read about them and well....

A couple of References;

Hs 129 "Panzerjaeger". By Martin Pegg

Aggressors Volume one "Tank busters Vs Combat vehicles". By Alex Vanags-Baginskis

German Anti tank aircraft. "Tank hunters and
Assault aircraft of the Luftwaffe". By Manfred Griehl and Joachim Dressel

Armoured Firepower. " The Development of tank armament. 1939-45. By Peter Gudgin.

Luftwaffe Schlachtgruppen. By John Weal

Happy reading. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BTW. I do have them amongst others. I can quote them. Any page/passage. If you like? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Freiwillige
06-27-2008, 01:41 PM
Well yes they made just over 200 Ju-87G's. The G was the last model produced. They stopped all Stuka production shortly after that. But how many more were D-5's that were converted? Also A Stuka is a slow and very stable aircraft. First of all those boats that were huge, were in fact very small river crossing wooden boats probably about the size of a t-34. Also nobody claims that a 37mm flak 18 can knock out a t-34 from the front. Rudel always attacked from the rear and trained his fellow mates to do the same. Also not just the engine lid is weak, the whole top of any tank is very lightly armored and I do beleive that a flak 18 can punch thru with relative ease. And spotting massed t-34's lol isnt much of a problem as seen here at 28 seconds.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=54PSlFEEE7Q&amp;feature=related

and targeting isnt that hard as seen here.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=54PSlFEEE7Q&amp;feature=related

luftluuver
06-27-2008, 01:43 PM
So who has looked any stats on rocket and bomb hits on AFVs?

The Brits found that rockets had an ~0.5% chance of hitting in combat.

Can't find the source but bombs missed by a large distance &gt; not close enough to do any damage.

Tux_UK
06-27-2008, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I am totally in agreement with Tux_UK on all his points.
All accounts I have read do not put up any convincing arguements for Airborne guns against tanks as an economical method of destruction.(Tungsten cored shells carried by aircraft were a complete waste of a rare element in Germany) There may have been proficiant experts? But they were few and far between. Hence the reason Big gun planes were only used by one or two squadrons within, any airforce. They all tried it out but results were not as successful as anticipated.
A bomb crater with a tank lying on its side or with the turret blown off, was a guarantee of destruction. Smoke or flame, was not.

The introduction of hollowcharge rockets was more promising.
However, towards the end of the War they or tactics to use them were still in their infancy with only a couple of squadrons again, utelising them.

When I was young I was fascinated by planes with "Big Guns" when I got older and was able to read about them and well....

A couple of References;

Hs 129 "Panzerjaeger". By Martin Pegg

Aggressors Volume one "Tank busters Vs Combat vehicles". By Alex Vanags-Baginskis

German Anti tank aircraft. "Tank hunters and
Assault aircraft of the Luftwaffe". By Manfred Griehl and Joachim Dressel

Armoured Firepower. " The Development of tank armament. 1939-45. By Peter Gudgin.

Luftwaffe Schlachtgruppen. By John Weal

Happy reading. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BTW. I do have them amongst others. I can quote them. Any page/passage. If you like? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. Give the Tungsten to the ground units and let all those excess 50L60 guns reliably kill T-34s. It does no good thumping into the earth next to a tank, as would happen all too often when fired from a Stuka.

I appreciate the hard references, JSG72. I would find it hard to blame people for not believing what I've posted since I haven't provided any sources for my information - they're all at 'home', as I explained. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Without them I could just be spouting hot air, or firing 37mm rounds, from a Stuka, at a KV - I doubt the targets will pay much attention either way... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tux_UK
06-27-2008, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
So who has looked any stats on rocket and bomb hits on AFVs?

The Brits found that rockets had an ~0.5% chance of hitting in combat.

Can't find the source but bombs missed by a large distance &gt; not close enough to do any damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's very true and all adds up to the fact that aircraft were, to all intents and purposes, utterly ineffective at directly destroying full AFVs. Until the advent of napalm they simply didn't have the weaponry available to do the job. Bombs and rockets were very good general-purpose weapons though as well as being theoretically capable of destroying a tank. The same was not true of airborne AT guns.

Tux_UK
06-27-2008, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Well yes they made just over 200 Ju-87G's. The G was the last model produced. They stopped all Stuka production shortly after that. But how many more were D-5's that were converted? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That I can't say, precisely, without access to references. I would be very surprised if it was a very large number though.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Also A Stuka is a slow and very stable aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed; it will be relatively easy to aim in the Stuka when compared to, say, an I-16. Still bloody difficult though.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
First of all those boats that were huge, were in fact very small river crossing wooden boats probably about the size of a t-34. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they weren't all like that. There were several very large boats fired at from range. Also, have you seen a T-34 in the flesh? They're not very big. You could fit one in my front room. Unless they were rowing boats for carrying 7-8 people and nothing more, they will have been bigger than a T-34.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Also nobody claims that a 37mm flak 18 can knock out a t-34 from the front. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it can, given a 90deg angle of impact and a range of less than 100m. That's not the point though.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Rudel always attacked from the rear and trained his fellow mates to do the same. Also not just the engine lid is weak, the whole top of any tank is very lightly armored and I do beleive that a flak 18 can punch thru with relative ease. And spotting massed t-34's lol isnt much of a problem as seen here at 28 seconds.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=54PSlFEEE7Q&amp;feature=related

and targeting isnt that hard as seen here.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=54PSlFEEE7Q&amp;feature=related </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It absolutely can penetrate the top, as I've always admitted. That's just not the point.

If you're simply arguing that the weapon could, in theory, kill a T-34, then you are, and always have been, correct. My argument is not that they couldn't, but that they didn't. They didn't for a whole host of reasons (including the relatively marginal ability of the gun to cause damage) which I have outlined before. In theory it may have worked, which is why people tried it in the first place. In practice it was simply too difficult, and didn't work.

I think you accidentally posted the same vid twice btw. They're both apparently of an Hs-129 attacking a tank which could be an early T-34, but which also looks distinctly like a member of the T-60 series.

JtD
06-27-2008, 02:07 PM
I think that British pilots preferred the 40mm Hurricane over any other airborne AT weapon for it's efficiency.

And there is no doubt that the G model Stukas killed a load of Soviet tanks. So I don't know why guns should be incapable of destroying a tank.

This is a video of Rudel attacking a T-34 he probably claimed as destroyed later. (http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Kasino/Filme/JG4-Movie-34.mpg)

Just so you guys know what you're talking about.

Tux_UK
06-27-2008, 02:20 PM
With all due respect, JtD, the pilots can think what they like about the effectiveness of their attacks on full AFVs. I'm not in any way disparaging their efforts, you understand, but I do doubt that they were seriously effective at knocking out anything heavier than an early mark Panzer (I/ II/ etc).

Why is there no doubt? The only evidence we can point to is that provided by the pilots themselves, who had precious little idea how much of an effect their rounds were having, as illustrated by that footage. If Rudel claimed that tank as killed then he must either have had a far better view of it than that or have been a very optimistic man indeed!

How often do you read accounts from Soviet armoured units of Ju-87s decimating their tanks? I have never read a single Russian account mentioning airborne AT guns as a significant threat to their medium tanks.

If anyone here is a regular at the Battlefront forums (the people who made the Combat Mission series of games) they may know of a series of posts by JasonC addressing the effectiveness of aircraft against AFVs. As soon as the forums are back online I'll provide a link.

JSG72
06-27-2008, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I think that British pilots preferred the 40mm Hurricane over any other airborne AT weapon for it's efficiency.

And there is no doubt that the G model Stukas killed a load of Soviet tanks. So I don't know why guns should be incapable of destroying a tank.

This is a video of Rudel attacking a T-34 he probably claimed as destroyed later. (http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Kasino/Filme/JG4-Movie-34.mpg)

Just so you guys know what you're talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hurricane IId/IV flew in the Western Desert against the Auto jumble that was the Afrika Korps. How succesful would such a plane have been against a concealed target in the Villiers Bocage?
The Typhoon gained its Glory here because of circumstance. Not because of ability http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Guns can kill tanks! Obviously in perfect circumstances. I.E. Test firings or within the wide open spaces of the Russian Steppe or the Western Desert.

Videos. Are there to be seen as Propaganda.(Where's the one that shows the number of takes to get the perfect shot?)

One video, doesn't make up for the hundreds of claims. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Freiwillige
06-27-2008, 02:41 PM
Sorry tux here is the other video. Thx for pointing that out.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WRUj6RiCj4w&amp;feature=related

Phil_K
06-27-2008, 03:15 PM
Well, I guess the question that hasn't been asked is whether Rudel claimed all his 519 tank kills when flying the Ju-87G? Or did he claim some/most of them flying other Ju-87 variants using dropped munitions?

I would agree with the general gist of this thread that claiming 519 tanks using the "G" variant somewhat beggars belief, but if he only claimed a small proportion of them using that model, then it may be more believeable.

JSG72
06-27-2008, 03:37 PM
I wouldn't dwell on Rudel. His first "tank kill" wasn't until 1943. with the D-3. Armed with the 37mm kannon .

So. We have a famous pilot (Sank the "Marat" ) who has to keep that fame up.

He has got to be the guy?

You may find this phenomena nowadays. Its called "Fast Tracking".

I am sure you have been disappointed by this method of Propaganda in 2008?

You will learn a lot from the German War Machine. (The U.S. did. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif)

JtD
06-27-2008, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
With all due respect, JtD, the pilots can think what they like about the effectiveness of their attacks on full AFVs. I'm not in any way disparaging their efforts, you understand, but I do doubt that they were seriously effective at knocking out anything heavier than an early mark Panzer (I/ II/ etc). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With "etc." standing for everything up to and including tanks of the size of a Panther then we can agree. Fact is that guns of that calibre would penetrate armor in the range of 50mm, of course depending on exact range and angle, even without special hardcore ammo. That's a lot more than the tanks back then carried. It's also true that a penetrating hit will do a lot of damage to the internals of a tank by sending hot splinters or high speed molten metal through the tank. So if you hit, you stand a good chance of killing the tank, not necessarily with one hit, but some will do. The chances of hitting a tank with the guns was considered a lot higher with guns than with rockets, about 25% under testing conditions. Cannons are far easier to aim than rockets.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why is there no doubt? The only evidence we can point to is that provided by the pilots themselves, who had precious little idea how much of an effect their rounds were having, as illustrated by that footage. If Rudel claimed that tank as killed then he must either have had a far better view of it than that or have been a very optimistic man indeed! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, he didn't only have a low res video of the scene. But even there one can see that the tank is burning. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How often do you read accounts from Soviet armoured units of Ju-87s decimating their tanks? I have never read a single Russian account mentioning airborne AT guns as a significant threat to their medium tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're funny. How often do you think cannon armed Stuka decimated Russian armored units? With which of the dozen Stukas available? How many of the 100000 tanks the Soviets had in WW2? And finally, how often have you heard late war Russian accounts mentioning the decimation of armored units by aircraft at all?

Fact is that WW2 aircraft were totally ineffective tank killers in WW2. Because they usually failed to get the harm close enough to the tank. Guns, however, were the most precise weapon available and capable of killing a tank.

Tux_UK
06-27-2008, 04:17 PM
I can only agree that Rudel appears to have been 'adopted' by the German propaganda machine. It certainly isn't unheard of for such a man to be 'fast-tracked' in such a way for propaganda purposes. Take, for example, Alexei Stakhanov, the Soviet coal miner who was reported to have mined a record 102 tons of coal - 14 times his quota - on one shift, and then was turned into an icon for other workers to emulate in speeding up production. In reality he had all sorts of assistance during the shift in question - his achievement was a carefully arranged fabrication intended purely for propaganda purposes.

As such I would certainly take any information or data relating to Rudel's personal achievements with a very generous pinch of salt.

The new video Freiwillige has posted does show tanks as relatively easy to locate when in open steppe, as they often were on the Russian Front. It also shows the Stukas firing from what looks like a few hundred metres away from the tanks, although it's hard to tell. They also fire only a single 'burst' per attack run. It's a very interesting piece of footage. Very difficult to identify the extent of any damage done to the tanks though, especially given the source/ purpose of the footage, etc.

JtD
06-27-2008, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:

The Hurricane IId/IV flew in the Western Desert against the Auto jumble that was the Afrika Korps. How succesful would such a plane have been against a concealed target in the Villiers Bocage? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These gunboats were at a rather large danger by AAA, as they made perfect targets. So the target area not only had to be clear of fighters, but also low on AAA. Something rocket carrying planes have less trouble with. Obviously, gunboats weren't first first choice in the late WW2 western front environment.

Btw, the British did a couple (did anyone bring this up yet?) of studies to get an estimate on the aircraft AT capabilities, two in Normandy, one in the Ardennes. Tanks destroyed by aircraft:

Result:
Panthers: 14 out of 213
Tiger: 1 out of 40
PzIV: 9 out of 121

In the period August 7th to 10th, Allied air forces claimed to have destroyed 252 tanks, but in fact only 9 were destroyed by air weapons.

You know what, I think you guys should check this article out. (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html)

Tux_UK
06-27-2008, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
With all due respect, JtD, the pilots can think what they like about the effectiveness of their attacks on full AFVs. I'm not in any way disparaging their efforts, you understand, but I do doubt that they were seriously effective at knocking out anything heavier than an early mark Panzer (I/ II/ etc). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With "etc." standing for everything up to and including tanks of the size of a Panther then we can agree. Fact is that guns of that calibre would penetrate armor in the range of 50mm, of course depending on exact range and angle, even without special hardcore ammo. That's a lot more than the tanks back then carried. It's also true that a penetrating hit will do a lot of damage to the internals of a tank by sending hot splinters or high speed molten metal through the tank. So if you hit, you stand a good chance of killing the tank, not necessarily with one hit, but some will do. The chances of hitting a tank with the guns was considered a lot higher with guns than with rockets, about 25% under testing conditions. Cannons are far easier to aim than rockets.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why is there no doubt? The only evidence we can point to is that provided by the pilots themselves, who had precious little idea how much of an effect their rounds were having, as illustrated by that footage. If Rudel claimed that tank as killed then he must either have had a far better view of it than that or have been a very optimistic man indeed! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, he didn't only have a low res video of the scene. But even there one can see that the tank is burning. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How often do you read accounts from Soviet armoured units of Ju-87s decimating their tanks? I have never read a single Russian account mentioning airborne AT guns as a significant threat to their medium tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're funny. How often do you think cannon armed Stuka decimated Russian armored units? With which of the dozen Stukas available? How many of the 100000 tanks the Soviets had in WW2? And finally, how often have you heard late war Russian accounts mentioning the decimation of armored units by aircraft at all?

Fact is that WW2 aircraft were totally ineffective tank killers in WW2. Because they usually failed to get the harm close enough to the tank. Guns, however, were the most precise weapon available and capable of killing a tank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, in theory the guns carried by 'AT-aircraft' could have knocked out anything up to and including a Panther. I've never disputed the physical ability of the guns in question to knock out the tanks in question. They would never have mounted the things if they didn't have the power to penetrate enemy armour. The reason I specifically named the Pz I and II though is because it is likely that those tanks could be knocked out from any aspect with relatively few small-calibre AT hits due to their thin armour and cramped (read 'vulnerable') interior design. Heavier tanks begin to shrug off those air-fired AT rounds that do hit, unless they hit a specific part. They are also bigger and so much more capable of surviving a small-calibre pentration by a round that carries no HE charge to increase the behind armour effect.

The point is that most full AFVs, by which I mean medium tanks and heavier, will, on average, require multiple hits from such small-calibre weapons in order that enough rounds penetrate vulnerable spots to destroy the tank. My contention is that said tanks will, again on average, require more such hits than an airborne AT-gun carrier will, on average, be able to deliver. The result is that the vast majority of tanks attacked with air-fired AT guns will survive.

If 25% accuracy was achieved during tests (and we don't know whether they hit the tank at vulnerable spots or whether any hit was a 'hit'), would you agree we can use a figure of, perhaps, 15% accuracy on operations, at best? So, being very generous, a Ju-87G pilot might expect to land 2 rounds of his 24 (for the 'overloaded' version) on target. Based on the experiences of ground-based AT gun crews using calibres anything below 75mm, those two hits would have only a slight chance of penetrating and destroying the tank. I will post specific quotes/ sources as soon as I can get my hands on them.

I wasn't trying to be a smart-ar$e with the rhetorical questions I posed, by the awy, so I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was simply continuing to contest the notion that aircraft (in this case gun-armed aircraft in particular) were effective tank killers - a point on which we appear to agree.

Tux_UK
06-27-2008, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:

The Hurricane IId/IV flew in the Western Desert against the Auto jumble that was the Afrika Korps. How succesful would such a plane have been against a concealed target in the Villiers Bocage? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These gunboats were at a rather large danger by AAA, as they made perfect targets. So the target area not only had to be clear of fighters, but also low on AAA. Something rocket carrying planes have less trouble with. Obviously, gunboats weren't first first choice in the late WW2 western front environment.

Btw, the British did a couple (did anyone bring this up yet?) of studies to get an estimate on the aircraft AT capabilities, two in Normandy, one in the Ardennes. Tanks destroyed by aircraft:

Result:
Panthers: 14 out of 213
Tiger: 1 out of 40
PzIV: 9 out of 121

In the period August 7th to 10th, Allied air forces claimed to have destroyed 252 tanks, but in fact only 9 were destroyed by air weapons.

You know what, I think you guys should check this article out. (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I absolutely agree with you - I always have. Aircraft were hopeless tank killers. My point is simply that specialised, gun-armed aircraft were no good either!

It all stemmed from Freiwillige's original post and the dicussion that ensued concerning how best to kill a tank in-game, and how 'difficult' it is. I wanted to make the point that killing tanks in-game is far easier than it was in real life, and that gun-armed aircraft weren't anywhere near as effective as certain sources will lead you to believe.

Freiwillige
06-27-2008, 06:57 PM
Well in north afrika those cannon toting hurricanes had quit the effect on the German/Italian forces. It was so effective that the Germans copied the idea with the Stuka/ Hs129/BF110.

The argument is not that these weapons can knock out T-34's, but how often did they.

And then there is the old, Rudel is a propoganda myth veiw. This also has been claimed of Hartmann, Rall and many other "Aces" of the Third Reich.

The fact is that Just like the cannon armed Huricanes that tore up Rommel in Africa, Stuka G's knocked out alot of soviet armor with t-34's being the most prolific type.

I found this in an article about the Kursk offensive
"New to the German air ****nal were Junkers Ju-87G Stuka dive bombers equipped with a 37mm cannon under each wing. The experimental craft proved leathal in the hands of experianced pilots. Captain Hans Ulrich Rudel, Commanding a special squadron of nine Ju-87G-1 tank busting stuka's, flew in support of the 3rd SS Panzer division Totenkopf. During Rudels first sortie of the campaign, four Soviet tanks exploded under his cannons hammer blows; By that evening his tally had risen to 12."-Kevin Hymel
WWII magazine Pg.30 Feb 1998

There is more on HS 129's during that battle but I think the point is made.

Tux_UK
06-28-2008, 06:06 AM
Oh dear. Do you realise how incredibly unlikely it is that a single T-34 ever exploded following penetration by a solid Tungsten projectile? If that account is true the 'tanks' in question were almost certainly very light models, or possibly even armoured cars. Something to which a 37mm Tungsten round would cause catastrophic damage with a single hit by the mere force of its impact, in any case.

The Hurricanes certainly did have an effect - the worst that the germans had ever been attacked by up until that point was machine gun-armed and light bomb-carrying P-40s and Hurricanes. Hurricane IIDs and IVs will have caused absolute havoc wherever they caught german forces in the open, destroying armoured cars, half tracks and light tanks with single hits from their 40mm Vickers S. I very much doubt that Pz IIIs, IVs or VIs suffered many losses at their hands however.

You are exactly right about the argument being as to how often/ easily T-34s were knocked out by airborne AT guns. The answer is not very. Anything the size and weight of a T-34 is not vulnerable enough to 37mm T rounds to have suffered significant losses to Ju-87Gs hitting with, at best, two rounds per sortie.

The only cause for doubt about german fighter pilots' enormous tallies are the numbers themselves, which are on the brink of beggaring belief simply because they outstrip those of other nations' pilots by a considerable margin. There's no real, practical reason why a very good pilot flying Bf 109s for the Luftwaffe over the Eastern Front couldn't have shot down even more than 354 aircraft, really, apart from certain time constraints. There were enough target aircraft about, 109s were capable enough versus the standard opposition, and their armament and ammunition load was capable of completely wiping out more than one aircraft per mission. Hartmann was an exceptional pilot who flew continuously for a long time against thousands of enemy aircraft, and he killed more than anyone else. Big deal.

Rudel claimed to have destroyed over 500 enemy tanks! That's quite apart from the huge numbers of other equipment he claimed to have wrecked - that's just tanks! Tanks are very, very difficult to knock out with Rudel's equipment and yet some of his claims include 6 or more in a single mission!!! The two (Hartmann and Rudel) are not comparable.

By all means believe that T-34s did die at the hands of gun-armed aircraft. It's almost certainly true. Even Rudel may have destroyed as many as 10 or 20. Please, though, try and absolve yourself of the idea that such a feat was regularly achieved.

JSG72
06-28-2008, 06:32 AM
OK!

Just had a look through a couple of my references.

"Aces of the Reich" by Gorden Williamson

And first I would like to say that after rereading I respect Rudels acheivments during WW2 with his sheer courage and tenacity with no end of skill. His combat record certainly did, merit the awards granted to him.
1 battleship (Bomb)
1 cruiser (Bomb)
1 destroyer (Bomb)
70 landing craft (Guns)
4 armoured trains ?
800+ military vehicles (Bombs and guns)
500+ tanks (bombs and mostly guns)
Shot down 30 times and rescued 6 fellow shot down fliers.
Lost a leg and still flew Tank busting sorties
A remarkable acheivment.

Away from Rudel. Other Luftwaffe Gun toting Tankbusters were:

Anton Korol of 10(Pz)/SG2 (99 tanks and never so much as being hit by the opposition)
Wilhelm Joswig of SG2 (88 Tanks)
Rudolf Ruffer of 10(Pz)/SG9 (70 Tanks with the Hs 129.
At least 18 known German Tankbuster pilots destroyed more than 25 Tanks in their career.
Only 10 of them survived the War.

"Aggressors" by Alex Vanags Baginskis

Gives totals for No 6 Squadron. During its 3 operational periods in N. Africa With 319 sorties.

1 PzKw IV Ausf F2 (Hit)
21PzKw IV (15 hit 6 Destroyed)
1 PzKw III Ausf J (Hit)
65 PzKw III (42 Hit 23 Destroyed)
5 PzKw IIs (Destroyed)
14 Italian M13s (6 Destroyed)
6 Captured crusader (Hit)
19 Captured Stuart Honies (13 Hit 6 Destroyed)
12 unidentified tanks(Hit)
34 Armouredcars (29 Hit 5 Destroyed)
17 Half Tracks (14 Hit 3 Destroyed)
and another 126 vehicles/Guns (Hit or Destroyed)

6 Squadron. Lost 47 Hurricane IIDs (40 in combat and 7 in accidents) and only 1 was shot down by a fighter!

JtD
06-28-2008, 07:38 AM
Tux, airborne 37mm guns are very much capable of blowing up T-34 sized targets. It is not the problem that the gun is incapable of doing this job, and it also not unlikely to happen. I don't know what you think is happening when a projectile penetrates, but it means a load of trouble for the tank. Fires, dead crew and ammo explosions would not be a rare thing to happen.

The weak point with the guns is the problem to hit the target. The weak point here is not the plane, and not the gun. It is the pilot. If you put an ace into a G Stuka, someone who has hundreds of hours on that type, you dramatically improve the performance of the overall package. So while noob 0815 may have difficulties hitting with just 10% of the shots, it is very well possible that an expert like Rudel managed 50+% hits each sortie.

I don't consider myself a dedicated Ju-87G jockey, but I am a very experienced and good player. I took the Ju-87G1 for a spin the the QMB, fighting against Soviet tanks on the Smolensk map. Within 11 minutes, I killed 7 of the 8 tanks and scored 18 hits with the 24 shots. You can try to find a less experienced player (ideally, you'd be one and could do it for yourself) and see if he/she gets anywhere near that result, say within 3 tries.

The pilot makes a huge difference here.

Tux_UK
06-28-2008, 09:00 AM
I used to be quite a good sim-pilot, but I haven't played regularly for a very long time. I remember working quite well with you, on occasion, on UK Ded1 way back when. Anyway, I took up the challenge and destroyed all 8 tanks, using all my ammunition in the process, at the first time of asking.

At that rate you and I both would equal the third best Luftwaffe pilot in 11 encounters with enemy tanks. Out of interest, what do you think Il-2 gets wrong here, assuming you agree that killing T-34s and tanks in general is too easy in game? Aiming or gun/ tank modelling?

I realise that 37mm solid Tugsten penetrations will cause damage (and how) but not often enough in one go to knock out a tank the size of a T-34. If it did then why would anyone bother mounting bloody great 75mm+ high velocity weapons on their tanks and AT gun trolleys? I know there are benefits with regards to the HE firepower of larger calibre guns, but that doesn't explain why AT guns the world over were gradually enlarging the size and weight of the projectile they fired. Why not stick to lower, lighter, faster-firing calibres?

I still contend that even 50% hits with 24 shells would probably only be enough to reliably take out 3 T-34s, at best.

JtD
06-28-2008, 09:17 AM
In FB, ground objects have no damaged model. You do xxx amount of penetrating damage, and that's it. It is totally simplified, it's not being calculated which component is getting damaged. As the 37mm guns damage value is larger than xxx for a T-34, it dies as soon as a single hit penetrates. Which, of course, makes killing tanks a lot easier than it should be. And then there is the pilot, we don't die if we crash. We shoot from a closer distance, we take higher risks.

I think the biggest difference of airborne and ground based AT guns is the angle they hit the target at. And of course the weight matters, it's better to mount a 30mm cannon than a 120mm cannon in a plane, even if that means that you have to use special (and more expensive?) ammunition. And, as you already said, a tank has a lot more to do than to just kill enemy armor.

The A-10 with the 30mm cannon did reportedly take out Iraqi armor just a few years back. You could see it on the news. That's a smaller caliber against way better armor than there was on a T-34.

Btw, on average Rudel claimed a destroyed tank for every 5 missions he flew. And considering how the German used him and his abilities, his claims are not totally out of question. Well, not more than anybody else's, probably less.

Good job with the tanks yourself. I knew you sounded somehow familiar, but couldn't quite sort out where from.

msalama
06-28-2008, 09:29 AM
Hey guys, size doesn't always matter in tank-busting either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Take the Russian PRTD 41 anti-tank rifle for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTRD

The bugger used 14.5mm Tungsten core rounds. Wasn't very effective, but still succeeded in killing a Panzer or two in its time...

S!

Tux_UK
06-28-2008, 10:57 AM
Aye, that it did. I think Russian doctrine called for ATRs to aim and repeatedly fire at the commanders' cupolas on heavier german tanks. Many a tank ended up blind after vision blocks were cracked and replacement stocks ran out. Some unfortunate tank commanders were even taken to hospital with horrific head injuries where the vision blocks had been driven back into their face by an impacting ATR bullet! The rifles were most effective against lighter armour such as half tracks and armoured cars though.

@ JtD: The A-10 uses a fully automatic cannon firing depleted Uranium rounds. This allows for multiple hits, making multiple penetrations possible. Once the core has penetrated the depleted Uranium has an incendiary effect inside the tank, adding to the damage done.

Larger calibres were introduced because, firstly, it was easier to make them penetrate due to their increased mass. Secondly however, and no less important, larger calibres caused far greater damage once they were inside the tank through the sheer amount of material they comprised, or through being able to carry a delayed-action HE charge. Smaller calibres had no room in the shell for such payloads.

One of British tanks' major weaknesses in early war scenarios was that, even when their solid 40mm AP shot did penetrate tanks, the behind armour effect often wasn't enough to knock the tank out. A piece of hot steel punched a hole in the armour, sent some hot shards flying, and then that was that. Sure, some crew might be injured or killed, and damage could be done to the interior, but more often than not it didn't happen - the only ill-effect suffered by the tank was a disconcerted or panicked crew. The lack of a secondary incendiary or explosive effect was a serious disadvantage. The same is true of solid Tungsten cores, except that its increased density relative to steel allows it to penetrate further and carry a little more kinetic energy with it into the tank, making damage slightly more likely to be caused.

Freiwillige
06-28-2008, 02:36 PM
@JSG72, Good info on the Hurri's of Afrika.

@Tux_UK, You asked if the 37mm was so good then why did AFV's and anit tank guns feild much larger guns? several reasons including, Range, angle at target, Ammo type.

First of lets compare a Panther tank to the Ju-87G Stuka. The panther's ideal range for an engament would be upwards of 1,800 meters or less. The Stuka's would be 5-300 meters. Also the stuka can get at the top of a t-34 while the Panther usually has to slam its way thru the front armor! Also the aircraft is diving in at 300kmh. Thats an extra 300 Kmh the flak 18's throwing its rounds into the side/top of a t-34.

And JtD/Tux, I cannot get but maybe two in the same scenario and ive been trying for days. Some times its one shot one kill and other times ill pump several rounds into the side or back and nothing happens so congrats to you both that is impressive. And im not a noob, Been flying combat sims since my 286!

JtD
06-29-2008, 12:37 AM
I think the behind armor effect is good enough to warrant a single tank kill for every 5 missions flown by one of the most skilled ground attack pilots of the war.

Freiwillige, I think you might want to dive at a steeper angle. And maybe you go into the config.ini and set arcade=1. With that, you can see exactly where you've been hitting the target.

RAZORBACK-47
06-29-2008, 01:34 AM
Do you think Rudel would have risked his life, flying around with a ju-87G-1/G-2, if it didn't produce results? The G-1/G-2 were VERY effective against soviet armour. The problem being, you had to have air superiority for it to operate. Do you think Rudel would have flown around in a useless,
overweight Ju-87 if it didn't work?Also he mostly
used a G-1/G-2 to knock out enemy spearheads, which were over extented, and had little air cover.

PanzerAce
06-29-2008, 03:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
Hey guys, size doesn't always matter in tank-busting either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Take the Russian PRTD 41 anti-tank rifle for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTRD

The bugger used 14.5mm Tungsten core rounds. Wasn't very effective, but still succeeded in killing a Panzer or two in its time...

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*rolls eyes* Tell you what, you get behind a PTRD, or hell, a PTRS, and I'll get into a Panther. You can take the first shot from anywhere, you don't even have to tell me where you are, and I guarantee that only one of us is going to walk off the field, and it isn't going to be the guy with the rifle.

In other words: Tank &gt; Rifle. Tungsten and insane Mv can compensate to some extent, but the rifle will still get the short end of the stick in the end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think Russian doctrine called for ATRs to aim and repeatedly fire at the commanders' cupolas on heavier german tanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever fired a rifle with ****ty notched irons like the PTRD/S had? I'll give you a hint: You aren't going to be aiming at vision blocks at any kind of range that would give you a life expectancy of more than 2 minutes. Doctrine said that if you were cursed enough to find yourself with a PTRD/S to aim for the tread, because atleast that would slow the tank down.



I REALLY wish some of you guys would take some lessons in ballistics and/or actually get out onto a shooting range before you post in some of these threads. Reading this honestly hurt with some of the claims that I saw thrown around.

Tux_UK
06-29-2008, 05:31 AM
Mate, if you consider posting politely and properly reading the post you're responding to then I'll consider completing a course in ballistics before I post on anything military-related.

Actually, I may as well tell you now; I'm not going to do it and I doubt anyone else is, so the first bit's up to you.

You may be right about doctrine calling for aiming at treads - it rings a bell now I come to think of it. I think I may have confused 'MG Vs Heavy Armour' doctrine with 'ATR Vs Heavy Armour' doctrine, actually. Either way vision blocks suffered at close range http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I'm pretty sure the PTRD/S was very much responsible for killing several lighter Panzers (read Is/ IIs/ 38s) in its time - no-one would ever claim that it was effective against Panthers though! I think you thought spotted an opportunity to flash your rifle experience around and snatched at it without wondering whether you actually have anything useful to contribute to the thread... Perhaps some reading lessons are in order before you next post in some of these threads?

I apologise in advance if this post causes you pain.

Tux_UK
06-29-2008, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
Do you think Rudel would have risked his life, flying around with a ju-87G-1/G-2, if it didn't produce results? The G-1/G-2 were VERY effective against soviet armour. The problem being, you had to have air superiority for it to operate. Do you think Rudel would have flown around in a useless,
overweight Ju-87 if it didn't work?Also he mostly
used a G-1/G-2 to knock out enemy spearheads, which were over extented, and had little air cover. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rudel would have risked his life flying whatever he was bloody well told to! Not only was he in the Luftwaffe, and thus bound to follow orders, but he was a very enthusiastic and unrepentant Nazi who would have leapt at the chance to fulfill his Fuhrer's wishes no matter how risky they may have been.

If what you say is true, then the Ju-87G-1/ G-2 has to be the most stunningly inneffective 'very effective' weapon I have ever read about: A few hundred produced... two or three pilots did quite well in them... production halted... general idea abandoned by all nations until more effective weaponry appears decades later.

Tux_UK
06-29-2008, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I think the behind armor effect is good enough to warrant a single tank kill for every 5 missions flown by one of the most skilled ground attack pilots of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if he encountered and hit a tank in every one of his 2500-odd missions. He didn't do that, as I'm sure you'll agree. As I noted in one of my earliest posts, if we're generous then we can imagine him having engaged enemy armour on something around 1000 occasions. The engagement:kill ratio now becomes two to one. On its own that would be amazing but believable, but, again as I pointed out in my first post, the nature of Rudel's claims is what prompts me to consider him a liar. Claiming more than six full AFVs destroyed in a single mission is not conducive to persuading me to treat any of his other claims entirely seriously.

If Hartmann included amongst his claims instances where he claimed to have downed 25 aircraft in a single engagement, I would react the same way. It would be possible to argue that his ammunition load was technically up to the job, provided incredibly accurate shooting and a bit of luck with where his rounds hit, but I still don't think I'd believe it. That would then cause me to question the validity of his other 329 claims.

KG26_Alpha
06-29-2008, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Okay so I watched this video about the stuka G2 and I was impressed with its Firepower!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg

But ive found in game it seems to have far less power. Also in the movie it seems that there is little convergance for the Flak 18's. I understand that to crack a t-34 you should come at it high side or high rear but I just cant seem to get kills consitantly with this thing. It almost acts like slow firing 20mm's!

Andbody else have any tips or luck with this Beautifull bird of death? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"(on-)board cannon 37) was a 37mm anti-tank/bomber autocannon based on the earlier 37 mm Flak 18 made by Rheinmetall. It was mounted on World War II Luftwaffe aircraft such as the anti-tank or bomber-destroyer versions of the Junkers Ju 87D-3 and G-2, Henschel Hs 129B-2/R3, Messerschmitt Bf 110G-2/R1-3, and others. The cannon could be attached under the wings or fuselage of the aircraft as a self-contained pod with a 12-round magazine. It fired APCR (Tungsten hard core) ammunition or high explosive shells in 37x263B mm caliber at 160 rounds per minute."

Something happened with the armament around the time the BF110 was being adjusted from ground attack to bomber interceptor, the bf110 BK was lifted some degrees from the original released aircraft and the BK loading seemed to have a effect on the rof and tank killing effectiveness on the Stuka it slowed down so now the 12 rounds per gun have to have the convergence set just right with the balance of visibility stability and aoa not forgetting a safe distance to clear the target, in IL2 you have to get perilously close to kill tanks where as the films I've seen of Stuka pilots "plinking" off tanks from greater altitudes than we can in IL2 1946, in the earlier versions of the sim it wasnt a problem killing tanks, the IL2 Sturmovik 3m IIRC has no problem killing anything with its cannons.

So I would put the Stuka we have at present as useless and my preference is take bombs and move some mud http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Shame flipping tanks with bombs isn't modelled !!!

JSG72
06-29-2008, 08:45 AM
I watched a commercially available Video last month. That showed a WW2 German made, training film of how to deal with Russian Anti tank teams.

It was The Panther Tank! and it did show you the effect of Soviet Rifle men firing at the drivers vision block with the DP. 1928!
This tactic stopped the tank and allowed the rest of the team to approach the tank and attack with Molotov cocktails over the engine bay.

Spare vision blocks were carried. and as it was a Panther D it had pistol ports in the turret.
The commander opened the cartridge ejection hatch and swept the Tank team off the engine cover and the driver, drove over the slit trench and proceeded to "Shimmy" the tank so that it sunk down and crushed the enemy.

I had a loan of the video . I'll post the name tommorow. If anyone is interested?

Tux_UK
06-29-2008, 09:10 AM
Sounds like gruesome stuff! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JtD
06-29-2008, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:

Claiming more than six full AFVs destroyed in a single mission is not conducive to persuading me to treat any of his other claims entirely seriously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe he stopped them, maybe he got lucky, maybe he overclaimed. We don't know for sure. I'm pretty sure he could have managed to hit 7 tanks. Whatever the effect was. "Destroying" a tank is a wide field anyway. There is a lot of things that can be fixed again.

PanzerAce
06-29-2008, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
Mate, if you consider posting politely and properly reading the post you're responding to then I'll consider completing a course in ballistics before I post on anything military-related.

Actually, I may as well tell you now; I'm not going to do it and I doubt anyone else is, so the first bit's up to you.

You may be right about doctrine calling for aiming at treads - it rings a bell now I come to think of it. I think I may have confused 'MG Vs Heavy Armour' doctrine with 'ATR Vs Heavy Armour' doctrine, actually. Either way vision blocks suffered at close range http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I'm pretty sure the PTRD/S was very much responsible for killing several lighter Panzers (read Is/ IIs/ 38s) in its time - no-one would ever claim that it was effective against Panthers though! I think you thought spotted an opportunity to flash your rifle experience around and snatched at it without wondering whether you actually have anything useful to contribute to the thread... Perhaps some reading lessons are in order before you next post in some of these threads?

I apologise in advance if this post causes you pain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I just call it like I see it. I see people on here claiming both ends of the spectrum: that a little 14.5 is the solution to all of life's problems, and that a 37mm going through an engine block will 'only' immobilize the tank, as if somehow engine blocks are easy to fix.

RAZORBACK-47
06-29-2008, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
Do you think Rudel would have risked his life, flying around with a ju-87G-1/G-2, if it didn't produce results? The G-1/G-2 were VERY effective against soviet armour. The problem being, you had to have air superiority for it to operate. Do you think Rudel would have flown around in a useless,
overweight Ju-87 if it didn't work?Also he mostly
used a G-1/G-2 to knock out enemy spearheads, which were over extented, and had little air cover. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rudel would have risked his life flying whatever he was bloody well told to! Not only was he in the Luftwaffe, and thus bound to follow orders, but he was a very enthusiastic and unrepentant Nazi who would have leapt at the chance to fulfill his Fuhrer's wishes no matter how risky they may have been.

If what you say is true, then the Ju-87G-1/ G-2 has to be the most stunningly inneffective 'very effective' weapon I have ever read about: A few hundred produced... two or three pilots did quite well in them... production halted... general idea abandoned by all nations until more effective weaponry appears decades later. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ju-87G was a very effective weapon if you had air superiority. It was well suited for knocking out enemy spearheads. The point being, Germany didn't have air superiority.The other problem with the Ju-87G was its speed, it was far to slow to "hit and run". It made a nice target for the AAA at such a slow speed. Do you understand? You can't fly around in a slow overweight Stuka, and knock out tanks, without air cover. That is why it was obsolete by 1944/45.

JSG72
06-29-2008, 04:12 PM
Whoa!

Stop here.(Jeez I thought I was drunk? (Yes! and so what?).

You can have all the armour in the world. But someone will come up with an answer to beat it.

We! With 60 odd years of hindsight can.

Wake up! Noobs. The world has moved on 63years. And we know what went wrong in WW2.

If only. They had thought of spraying. "Long Range" paint over those "Vision Blocks"? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh Dear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif I fear I have just instigated a $50,000.000 dollar viability survey?

Sorry. America. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Tux_UK
06-29-2008, 04:20 PM
@ PanzerAce: It certainly wouldn't be easy to fix. Neither would the tank be knocked out, in the real sense. My point was never that an immobilisation was of no consequence, just that it would only have a limited effect on the battle in progress and would be fixed within a few hours afterwards.

@ JtD: You are, of course, right in everything you say there. Even though killing a tank is undeniably a 'wide field', however, it is still foolhardy to the point of being just plain dishonest to claim a 'hit' as a 'kill' every time. 'Knocking out' a tank, as I have always understood it, comprises reducing a tank to little more than scrap metal. By all means claim, and receive due credit for, immobilising or temporarily disabling a tank - it is a worthwhile accomplishment. If someone produces an official document that recognises that a 'kill' awarded to a Luftwaffe ground-attack pilot is understood to mean anything from an immobilisation to a full 'knock-out', then I will readily concede that Hans-Ulrich Rudel's claims could be accurate. As it is, 500+ knock-outs by a single pilot just doesn't ring true to me at all.

Just by way of comparison, I take it you've heard of Michael Wittmann? He was the most successful tank commander of all time before he was killed in Normandy, and, along with his outstanding gunner, Bobby Woll, was credited with the destruction of 141 tanks and 132 AT guns in five years of service. This is a phenomenal achievement, assuming it is accurate. Statistics show that the average WWII AFV could expect to kill fewer than one enemy AFVs before it itself was removed from the fight, and Wittmann was officially credited with over 140. That is less than 1/4 the number of tanks that a pilot in a (relatively) weakly armed and difficult-to-aim aircraft was credited with in less than four years.

Lol.

Tux_UK
06-29-2008, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
Do you think Rudel would have risked his life, flying around with a ju-87G-1/G-2, if it didn't produce results? The G-1/G-2 were VERY effective against soviet armour. The problem being, you had to have air superiority for it to operate. Do you think Rudel would have flown around in a useless,
overweight Ju-87 if it didn't work?Also he mostly
used a G-1/G-2 to knock out enemy spearheads, which were over extented, and had little air cover. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rudel would have risked his life flying whatever he was bloody well told to! Not only was he in the Luftwaffe, and thus bound to follow orders, but he was a very enthusiastic and unrepentant Nazi who would have leapt at the chance to fulfill his Fuhrer's wishes no matter how risky they may have been.

If what you say is true, then the Ju-87G-1/ G-2 has to be the most stunningly inneffective 'very effective' weapon I have ever read about: A few hundred produced... two or three pilots did quite well in them... production halted... general idea abandoned by all nations until more effective weaponry appears decades later. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ju-87G was a very effective weapon if you had air superiority. It was well suited for knocking out enemy spearheads. The point being, Germany didn't have air superiority.The other problem with the Ju-87G was its speed, it was far to slow to "hit and run". It made a nice target for the AAA at such a slow speed. Do you understand? You can't fly around in a slow overweight Stuka, and knock out tanks, without air cover. That is why it was obsolete by 1944/45. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Luftwaffe remained basically capable of asserting air superiority over a limited area of the battlefield on the Eastern Front until the last days of the war. If they wanted to hit one area with Ju-87Gs they could quite easily arrange an escort force to provide cover (and hope they didn't run into a regiment of Yaks, lol).

If the Ju-87G was that effective they'd have had Staffeln so-equipped along the length and breadth of the front, used as 'fire brigades' to blunt Soviet spearheads and provided with strong escorts where necessary.

Everything following the second sentence of your post appears to be an argument for the fact that The Ju-87G was ineffective, except in your argument it's due to a lack of air-superiority? I take it we both agree that Hans-Ulrich Rudel's claims beggar belief, in the circumstances?

I also still contest the claim that the Ju-87G was a 'very effective' AT weapon. It could kill tanks, but it was really very difficult to actually do so.

Seriously, if you were offered a company of Pz IVHs or a Staffel of Ju-87Gs to defend against a Soviet armoured spearhead, which would you honestly choose?

JSG72
06-29-2008, 04:39 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tux_Uk
I was siding with you for a Mo! But when you mentioned Stats?
Well as you may, or may not well know?

Stats. Are only there, to encourage employment. In an over burgeoning economy.

As B.F. said " There are lies. Damn lies. And there are statistics.

I am afraid, that is my philosophy. Forever! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
You fight this on your own.

Tux_UK
06-29-2008, 04:41 PM
P.S.: JSG72 might think that he's drunk, but I know that I am! I do apologise for any ridiculous errors I've made, lol.

Good night all! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tux_UK
06-29-2008, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tux_Uk
I was siding with you for a Mo! But when you mentioned Stats?
Well as you may, or may not well know?

Stats. Are only there, to encourage employment. In an over burgeoning economy.

As B.F. said " There are lies. Damn lies. And there are statistics.

I am afraid, that is my philosophy. Forever! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
You fight this on your own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, I don't, by any means, believe that statistics govern what actually goes on in real life (especially in a combat zone). They only ever describe the sum total of what occurs under a given set of circumstances, with varying degrees of accuracy. By that I mean I don't believe that the above statistic proves that no individual tank ever did account for more than one enemy tank; I was just using it to introduce a sense of perspective to the claims that were under discussion.

According to statistics, U-boats were the greatest threat a Sherman ever faced. By far and away more M4s were lost in transit, at sea, than in action against the Germans or Japanese. That's not to say that a 16-year-old German rifleman with a grenade bundle is to be scoffed at, however. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JSG72
06-29-2008, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tux_Uk
I was siding with you for a Mo! But when you mentioned Stats?
Well as you may, or may not well know?

Stats. Are only there, to encourage employment. In an over burgeoning economy.

As B.F. said " There are lies. Damn lies. And there are statistics.

I am afraid, that is my philosophy. Forever! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
You fight this on your own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, I don't, by any means, believe that statistics govern what actually goes on in real life (especially in a combat zone). They only ever describe the sum total of what occurs under a given set of circumstances, with varying degrees of accuracy. By that I mean I don't believe that the above statistic proves that no individual tank ever did account for more than one enemy tank; I was just using it to introduce a sense of perspective to the claims that were under discussion.

According to statistics, U-boats were the greatest threat a Sherman ever faced. By far and away more M4s were lost in transit, at sea, than in action against the Germans or Japanese. That's not to say that a 16-year-old German rifleman with a grenade bundle is to be scoffed at, however. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that is your answer? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Freiwillige
06-29-2008, 05:50 PM
I will assume that knocked out means removed from the order of battle. Both the Russians and the Germans had an amazing ability to repair tanks. As long as the damage was not catastrophic. Even if punched thru with a 75mm!
Ive heard stories of T-34's that were hosed out, Patched and in battle the next day. Such is simplicity!

So yea destroying every tank with an explosion is not likely, but taking them out of the battle and killing crew and immobillising the vehical is probably pretty easy. Tux you said
"Just by way of comparison, I take it you've heard of Michael Wittmann? He was the most successful tank commander of all time before he was killed in Normandy, and, along with his outstanding gunner, Bobby Woll, was credited with the destruction of 141 tanks and 132 AT guns in five years of service. This is a phenomenal achievement, assuming it is accurate. Statistics show that the average WWII AFV could expect to kill fewer than one enemy AFVs before it itself was removed from the fight, and Wittmann was officially credited with over 140. That is less than 1/4 the number of tanks that a pilot in a (relatively) weakly armed and difficult-to-aim aircraft was credited with in less than four years."

I dont think that 37mm cannons are weakly armed.
And as for difficult to aim? The stuka was about as stable as you can get!

Also Whitmann drove a PzKpw VI (Tiger) Vs mostly T-34\76. Tigers decimated T-34's
at almost all ranges. Head on it could destroy a T-34 at 2,000 meters where as a T-34 couldnt punch thru the tigers frontal armor at any range. So that score is about right I would think. Also comparing Whitman to Rudel is not that good being that a Tiger moves at like 20Mph on the road and a stuka 300. Also spotting would be easier from the air.

JtD
06-29-2008, 10:32 PM
@Tux:

Rudel would certainly have had more opportunities to attack tanks than Wittmann, because of the higher mobility.

In his Stuka, Rudel would sometimes get a personal escort of a Staffel or whatever available shielding him, and that sometimes was him alone, from fighters and AAA threats so that he could go to kill some tanks.

If the Stuka was that effective they wouldn't have sent a single one escorted by a dozen fighters, but half a dozen escorted by half a dozen fighters. But Rudel was effective in that plane, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with that escort thing that much.

I think that if you kill a tanks engine and thus remove him from the fight (for instance and armored spearhead that just broke through your lines), it is at least a mission kill.

And if I had to chose between the PzIV and the Stukas, I'd base my decision on the distance between the enemy spearhead and my unit. For anything above 50km, I'd probably go for the Stukas. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

msalama
06-29-2008, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">little 14.5 is the solution to all of life's problems </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you smoking? Or did you just omit the wasn't-very-effective part of my post on purpose?

b2spirita
06-30-2008, 05:43 AM
Stolen from another thread, look what he has to say on 37 mil guns.

http://www.iremember.ru/pilots/khukhrikov/khukhrikov.html

tragentsmith
06-30-2008, 05:52 AM
A propos German tank aces, don't forget Kurt Knispel : 168 tanks destroyed on the eastern front. And this guy was all but a propaganda hero. He was not paying attention to hierarchy, he was unshaved, he was the equivalent of M****ille but in a tank.

And he never received his knight's cross, surely because he was caught punching a Feldgendarm that was mistreating a russian POW...

http://www.alanhamby.com/aces.shtml

It's not the tank, it's the tank commander.....

I need to say one more thing. This debate reminds me of the movie of Terry Gilliam : The baron of Münchenhausen.... The part where the heroïc soldier (impersonated by Sting) is presented to the mayor/deputy of the town.

The official ask : "Is it true that you are the officer that managed singlehanded to destroy four of the turks artillery guns and liberated 12 of our men in the same occasion ?

Heroïc soldier : "Well, I try to do my job as best as I can..."

Official (speaking to the other soldiers ) : "Shoot him.... His heroïc actions are not logically explainable, and he's demoralising the rest of the troops while doing them. We can't tolerate such people that are doing more than what is logically explainable. No man can do such an amount of damages to the enemy singlehanded...."

Freiwillige
06-30-2008, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by b2spirita:
Stolen from another thread, look what he has to say on 37 mil guns.

http://www.iremember.ru/pilots/khukhrikov/khukhrikov.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russian and German weapons are differant. The platform using the weapon is differant. The ammo is differant. The Germans made some excellent armor peircing ammo. Russian equipment was a bit behind.

The panther tank and the Sherman tank both had 75mm guns But one was far deadlier than the other

JSG72
06-30-2008, 10:20 AM
The DVD/video I was Talking about earlier?

IS..
http://www.ihffilm.com/dvd122.html

joeap
06-30-2008, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by b2spirita:
Stolen from another thread, look what he has to say on 37 mil guns.

http://www.iremember.ru/pilots/khukhrikov/khukhrikov.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russian and German weapons are differant. The platform using the weapon is differant. The ammo is differant. The Germans made some excellent armor peircing ammo. Russian equipment was a bit behind.

The panther tank and the Sherman tank both had 75mm guns But one was far deadlier than the other </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ja ja, always uber!!! Zats why we won ze war.



...or maybe?

fenderkicker
03-31-2010, 07:14 AM
I have the same opinion as Tux_UK (his post from page 1).

Whenever I read stories about Hans Rudel and his tank-kills, I started questioning if this is possible at all. Considering that JU-87 is the lamest duck on the sky (concerning speed) – it's hard to believe he could score this much hits flying over the battlefield.

I can't proove it but I think german nazi propaganda was pushing its hero quite a bit.

M_Gunz
03-31-2010, 08:21 AM
Tiger Tank top armor at 25mm, how hard to penetrate and kill a medium tank with a 37mm gun from above?
IL2 destroyed many German tanks with 23mm cannon as well. Check the top armor.

It doesn't compare to A-10 vs T-72 or T-80.

TinyTim
03-31-2010, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Considering that JU-87 is the lamest duck on the sky (concerning speed) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Assuming you have total air dominance and AAA is already wiped out, then "slow and stable" means an advantage when shooting heavy cannons. IMO.

Frankthetank36
03-31-2010, 12:21 PM
What about the IL-2 Type 3M? The thing had 37mm anti-tank guns but they were fully automatic (and carried much more ammo than the Stuka). Yet strangely, most Il-2's were equipped with only 20 or 23-mm cannons. As for the ineffectiveness of planes against tanks, I've read several times about an incident in the Battle of Kursk where the Germans lost 70 tanks in 20 minutes to Sturmoviks, although I don't know what type of IL-2 was used or how heavy the tanks were. If the 3M was really effective as an anti-tank plane, you would think that it would have been produced in greater numbers than the smaller-cannons variants. I do find that I can usually take out a tank or three in the game by flying directly over their road and dropping cassettes.

M_Gunz
03-31-2010, 12:46 PM
AT guns on the ground seldom had oblique shots at the -top- of the tank. They shot at the thicker
front, side or rear armor. It's not the same as hitting the top from aircraft.

The planes also dropped bombs and used rockets. There are films taken at Kursk showing tanks flipped
into the air by blasts delivered from above.

JtD
03-31-2010, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
What about the IL-2 Type 3M? The thing had 37mm anti-tank guns but they were fully automatic (and carried much more ammo than the Stuka). Yet strangely, most Il-2's were equipped with only 20 or 23-mm cannons. As for the ineffectiveness of planes against tanks, I've read several times about an incident in the Battle of Kursk where the Germans lost 70 tanks in 20 minutes to Sturmoviks, although I don't know what type of IL-2 was used or how heavy the tanks were. If the 3M was really effective as an anti-tank plane, you would think that it would have been produced in greater numbers than the smaller-cannons variants. I do find that I can usually take out a tank or three in the game by flying directly over their road and dropping cassettes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These guns did cost the il-2 a lot of performance and were not as easy to use as in game. The best way against tanks were still bombs. That said, the majority of targets weren't tanks, but soft or lightly armored targets, where the 23mm cannons were much more effective than the 37mm ones. So they used the version that gave the plane the best performance and was better suited to deal with 95+% of the targets around.

LLv34_Flanker
03-31-2010, 01:01 PM
S!

The 37mm IL-2 was not that big success as one might think. The guns were big and heavy, recoil was massive and hampered the plane which was already stressed to it's limits with all the armor and stuff.

Same applied with the big gun Yak-9's, they were not that easy to fly and shoot as in IL-2. Yak is very light compared to IL-2 and the recoil made it impossible to shoot off more than a couple of rounds before aim was all over the sky. In IL2 it is more like a railgun without vices http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TinyTim
03-31-2010, 02:17 PM
IRL, Cassettes and PTABs were the real tank butchers in IL-2's arsenal, not rockets or NS-37s.

In IL-2 - rockets are perfectly accurate (while IRL they had one hell of a dispersion, especially the heavy (B)RS-132) and NS-37 seems too effective versus tanks compared to the German Flak 18 counterpart. You can kill a Panther flying horisontaly just above ground shooting into the tank's side without much trouble, and a Tiger in a 40deg+ dive, shooting the top. With Ju-87 you already need to dive from above and shoot the top on the early T-34s for a reasonable chances of success.

I haven't seriously tested anti tank capabilities of various 37mm and 40mm cannons in game, but it seems that either Russian tanks are much stronger (armor wise) than their German counterparts, either Russian 37x195 ammo (NS-37) is whole lot stronger than Tungsten Carbide 37x263 of Flak 18.

Even with a 75mm cannon on a Hs-129 you won't always destroy a T-34 flying horisontally.

Frankthetank36
03-31-2010, 02:45 PM
So aircraft really were an effective threat to tanks, provided they were armed with hundreds of bomblets instead of guns or big bombs?

stalkervision
03-31-2010, 03:46 PM
You really need to equp your Stuka with a nasty pair of fifty Caliber Brownings. That will take out those darn tanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WTE_Galway
03-31-2010, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chruisto:
I would assume Rudel simply claimed a kill for every tank he hit. A tank can count as knocked out if you shot one of its tracks and therefore render it unable to move.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
You really need to equp your Stuka with a nasty pair of fifty Caliber Brownings. That will take out those darn tanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly.

RAAF P51's in Korea regularly reported knocking out T34 with 0.50 cal into the engine compartment.

The tank didn't explode and probably only took 5 minutes to repair after the battle but that is beside the point.

of course if they had bounced the 0.50 cal off the ground .. :P

stalkervision
03-31-2010, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chruisto:
I would assume Rudel simply claimed a kill for every tank he hit. A tank can count as knocked out if you shot one of its tracks and therefore render it unable to move.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
You really need to equp your Stuka with a nasty pair of fifty Caliber Brownings. That will take out those darn tanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly.

RAAF P51's in Korea regularly reported knocking out T34 with 0.50 cal into the engine compartment.

The tank didn't explode and probably only took 5 minutes to repair after the battle but that is beside the point.

of course if they had bounced the 0.50 cal off the ground .. :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See of course I'm right. Why do you think the M1/a1 abrams still has one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Those german cannon were a joke. Look at Robert Johnson in his p-47. They couldn't even shoot him down after they riddled his aircraft with cannon shells! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif