John Kettler Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Wanted to be sure those of you who don't play CMAK saw these items, since they make fascinating reading. Begin cross post. From a review of Rudel's biography, compiled by someone with wide experience talking to pilots on both sides. Notice not just his combat kill credits, but look at the number of sorties he flew, distance flown, fuel consumed and ordnance expended. Even if you put a 90% tank kill haircut on this ultra experienced veteran, he still personally destroyed virtually an entire U.S. WW II tank battalion equivalent by himself! http://www.powells.com/biblio?PID=28513&cgi=product&isbn=1125967641 Here's an interview, originally in MILITARY HISTORY magazine, with another Stuka tankbuster pilot by the name of Neumann. Note particularly what he says about how close the open fire ranges were, 400 meters vs. T-34s, later adjusted down to a mere 100 meters vs. Stalin tanks. Note also that the Russians apparently were plenty concerned about these planes, otherwise, why would each tank be towing a flak weapon, likely a 14.5mm ZPU-4? Thought his comment on not bothering to count tank kills was of considerable interest. http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/hermann_neumann.htm Regards, John Kettler [ February 21, 2007, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Wanted to be sure those of you who don't play CMAK saw these items, since they make fascinating reading. Begin cross post. From a review of Rudel's biography, compiled by someone with wide experience talking to pilots on both sides. Notice not just his combat kill credits, but look at the number of sorties he flew, distance flown, fuel consumed and ordnance expended. Even if you put a 90% tank kill haircut on this ultra experienced veteran, he still personally destroyed virtually an entire U.S. WW II tank battalion equivalent by himself! http://www.powells.com/biblio?PID=28513&cgi=product&isbn=1125967641 Here's an interview, originally in MILITARY HISTORY magazine, with another Stuka tankbuster pilot by the name of Neumann. Note particularly what he says about how close the open fire ranges were, 400 meters vs. T-34s, later adjusted down to a mere 100 meters vs. Stalin tanks. Note also that the Russians apparently were plenty concerned about these planes, otherwise, why would each tank be towing a flak weapon, likely a 14.5mm ZPU-4? Thought his comment on not bothering to count tank kills was of considerable interest. http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/hermann_neumann.htm Regards, John Kettler [ February 21, 2007, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fußball Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 That was a very good read, thanks for that. Tschüß! Erich 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fußball Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 That was a very good read, thanks for that. Tschüß! Erich 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Fussball, You're welcome. Found it while trying to run down an interview done with Rudel during a conference on the Blitzfighter, a cheap ground attack aircraft concept that eventually became the A-10. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Fussball, You're welcome. Found it while trying to run down an interview done with Rudel during a conference on the Blitzfighter, a cheap ground attack aircraft concept that eventually became the A-10. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Originally posted by John Kettler: http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/hermann_neumann.htm That is the biggest rubbish I have read about in ages. 40mm autocannon shooting HEAT? Right... A KV-2 turret flying so high that the place goes under it on it's way out of the dive? Right... Every Russian tank towing it's own 4-barrel AA gun? Just for starters, where do all these quads come from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Originally posted by John Kettler: http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/hermann_neumann.htm That is the biggest rubbish I have read about in ages. 40mm autocannon shooting HEAT? Right... A KV-2 turret flying so high that the place goes under it on it's way out of the dive? Right... Every Russian tank towing it's own 4-barrel AA gun? Just for starters, where do all these quads come from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I learned that the best way to crash a plane was to have it land sideways so that the wheels broke off first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I learned that the best way to crash a plane was to have it land sideways so that the wheels broke off first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 : Originally posted by John Kettler: Here's an interview, originally in MILITARY HISTORY magazine, with another Stuka tankbuster pilot by the name of Neumann. Note particularly what he says about how close the open fire ranges were, 400 meters vs. T-34s, later adjusted down to a mere 100 meters vs. Stalin tanks. Note also that the Russians apparently were plenty concerned about these planes, otherwise, why would each tank be towing a flak weapon, likely a 14.5mm ZPU-4? Thought his comment on not bothering to count tank kills was of considerable interest. http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/hermann_neumann.htm His interview is so full of rubbish as to be worthless. The Russians didn't have a 4-barreled AA gun in WW2 after 1941 when they had 4 maxims mounted on trucks. The ZPU-4 wasn't accepted into service until 1949. He mentions a KV-2 - which went out of service early 1942, but he didnt' start flying until 1943 by which time KV-2's had long gone.... Quote interviews all you like, but it would be more useful if they were credible..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 : Originally posted by John Kettler: Here's an interview, originally in MILITARY HISTORY magazine, with another Stuka tankbuster pilot by the name of Neumann. Note particularly what he says about how close the open fire ranges were, 400 meters vs. T-34s, later adjusted down to a mere 100 meters vs. Stalin tanks. Note also that the Russians apparently were plenty concerned about these planes, otherwise, why would each tank be towing a flak weapon, likely a 14.5mm ZPU-4? Thought his comment on not bothering to count tank kills was of considerable interest. http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/hermann_neumann.htm His interview is so full of rubbish as to be worthless. The Russians didn't have a 4-barreled AA gun in WW2 after 1941 when they had 4 maxims mounted on trucks. The ZPU-4 wasn't accepted into service until 1949. He mentions a KV-2 - which went out of service early 1942, but he didnt' start flying until 1943 by which time KV-2's had long gone.... Quote interviews all you like, but it would be more useful if they were credible..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I think the Russians did get quad .50cal under lend-lease. But they were mounted on M3 halftracks. In any case. That interview shows as clearly as it gets that this many hasn't even seen a Stuka or a IS-2 up front, ever. I mailed the owner of the site. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I think the Russians did get quad .50cal under lend-lease. But they were mounted on M3 halftracks. In any case. That interview shows as clearly as it gets that this many hasn't even seen a Stuka or a IS-2 up front, ever. I mailed the owner of the site. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 Redwolf, I went back through the interview, for the HEAT remark flummoxed me. What I think he's saying, albeit badly, is that the add-on spaced antiPanzerfaust/Panzerschreck armor so upset the flight path of/broke up the PzGr 40 type projectile that it was unable to penetrate. Considering that the tungsten carbide core was in a light alloy sheath, this doesn't seem shocking to me. Also, Neumann doesn't say he was in any screaming dive while attacking the KV-II, whose turret is well described. Stalin's Organist and Redwolf, I replied to the Russian AA gun issue in the original CMAK thread on .50 cal. MGs vs. tanks. I think that what Neumann described might well be credible for an OMG type unit expected to race ahead of the rest of the force, therefore requiring its own air defense capability. I suggest in the other thread that since the quad AA gun couldn't have been the ZPU-4, it might've been the towed version of the Maxson Quad .50 mount. I haven't yet been able to determine whether any were supplied under Lend lease to Russia, though. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 Redwolf, I went back through the interview, for the HEAT remark flummoxed me. What I think he's saying, albeit badly, is that the add-on spaced antiPanzerfaust/Panzerschreck armor so upset the flight path of/broke up the PzGr 40 type projectile that it was unable to penetrate. Considering that the tungsten carbide core was in a light alloy sheath, this doesn't seem shocking to me. Also, Neumann doesn't say he was in any screaming dive while attacking the KV-II, whose turret is well described. Stalin's Organist and Redwolf, I replied to the Russian AA gun issue in the original CMAK thread on .50 cal. MGs vs. tanks. I think that what Neumann described might well be credible for an OMG type unit expected to race ahead of the rest of the force, therefore requiring its own air defense capability. I suggest in the other thread that since the quad AA gun couldn't have been the ZPU-4, it might've been the towed version of the Maxson Quad .50 mount. I haven't yet been able to determine whether any were supplied under Lend lease to Russia, though. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: He mentions a KV-2 - which went out of service early 1942, but he didnt' start flying until 1943 by which time KV-2's had long gone.... Nothing in Soviet or German inventory ever went out of service. They would go out of production but any modeler worth his salt can show you photos of vehicles that were fighting long after they were stopped being produced. My all time favorite is a PzII in the fighting in the Seelowe Heights area in 1945. I'm not saying what he hit. I'm just saying that a KV-2 in 1943 is entirely possible. Another instance of later war use is the PzIII's at Kursk and long after. The war is full of such examples. As for turrets being blown off...the Germans had a saying that a T-34 tipped his hat to a Tiger. Meaning so many turrets were blown off it was a normal occurance. I suppose you dispute the fact that Rudel put a bomb down the smoke stack of a Russian battleship as well? Or could that not have happened either? Oh yes, and I would agree that the Hood didn't blow up with a single salvo from the Bismark. Were any of you flying Stukas at this time? To have any first hand knowledge of this? Military History magazine is a very reputable historical source. I'm not saying they are infallable, because nobody is, but they aren't going to just fabricate a story like CBS does. It's too easy to dispute. And a story with that much detail in it would be disputed quickly by the experts. Don't you think? MR [ February 21, 2007, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: He mentions a KV-2 - which went out of service early 1942, but he didnt' start flying until 1943 by which time KV-2's had long gone.... Nothing in Soviet or German inventory ever went out of service. They would go out of production but any modeler worth his salt can show you photos of vehicles that were fighting long after they were stopped being produced. My all time favorite is a PzII in the fighting in the Seelowe Heights area in 1945. I'm not saying what he hit. I'm just saying that a KV-2 in 1943 is entirely possible. Another instance of later war use is the PzIII's at Kursk and long after. The war is full of such examples. As for turrets being blown off...the Germans had a saying that a T-34 tipped his hat to a Tiger. Meaning so many turrets were blown off it was a normal occurance. I suppose you dispute the fact that Rudel put a bomb down the smoke stack of a Russian battleship as well? Or could that not have happened either? Oh yes, and I would agree that the Hood didn't blow up with a single salvo from the Bismark. Were any of you flying Stukas at this time? To have any first hand knowledge of this? Military History magazine is a very reputable historical source. I'm not saying they are infallable, because nobody is, but they aren't going to just fabricate a story like CBS does. It's too easy to dispute. And a story with that much detail in it would be disputed quickly by the experts. Don't you think? MR [ February 21, 2007, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 There is no possibility that there weer KV-2's in front line service in 1943. Productio was stopped in 1941, the type had unique ammunition requirements and only 334 were built. It is nothing like a Pz-2 or the T-40 that was still in service in Leningrad in 1944 - it requires unique ammunition, it is unreliable, it is heavy so requires transporters. Wiki says that 2 KV-2's were used by the Finns through the war and 1 was used by hte Germans vs US troops in 1945 - maybe he attacked one of those? Pz-3's were still being BUILT in 1943 - their use at Kursk is not surprising in the least, while Pz 2's were used as training and recce tanks - the last was BUILT in 1944!! One or more still working in 1945 is not surprising either. [ February 21, 2007, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 There is no possibility that there weer KV-2's in front line service in 1943. Productio was stopped in 1941, the type had unique ammunition requirements and only 334 were built. It is nothing like a Pz-2 or the T-40 that was still in service in Leningrad in 1944 - it requires unique ammunition, it is unreliable, it is heavy so requires transporters. Wiki says that 2 KV-2's were used by the Finns through the war and 1 was used by hte Germans vs US troops in 1945 - maybe he attacked one of those? Pz-3's were still being BUILT in 1943 - their use at Kursk is not surprising in the least, while Pz 2's were used as training and recce tanks - the last was BUILT in 1944!! One or more still working in 1945 is not surprising either. [ February 21, 2007, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: There is no possibility that there weer KV-2's in front line service in 1943. Productio was stopped in 1941, the type had unique ammunition requirements and only 334 were built. It is nothing like a Pz-2 or the T-40 that was still in service in Leningrad in 1944 - it requires unique ammunition, it is unreliable, it is heavy so requires transporters. Wiki says that 2 KV-2's were used by the Finns through the war and 1 was used by hte Germans vs US troops in 1945 - maybe he attacked one of those? Pz-3's were still being BUILT in 1943 - their use at Kursk is not surprising in the least, while Pz 2's were used as training and recce tanks - the last was BUILT in 1944!! One or more still working in 1945 is not surprising either. 152mm shells were common in the Soviet army. All manner of PzII's and PzIII's were used until they were destroyed. I'm talking about PzIII's armed with the 37mm and short 50mm guns. The Red Army was known for sending obsolete or less capable armor to less important sectors of the front. A KV-2 could easily have survived until 1943. And he didn't say he attacked 20 of them...only one. So, then, it's okay for the Germans to use any and everything they had for as long as it lasted but not the Soviets? I see. No wonder the Red Army won the war. MR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: There is no possibility that there weer KV-2's in front line service in 1943. Productio was stopped in 1941, the type had unique ammunition requirements and only 334 were built. It is nothing like a Pz-2 or the T-40 that was still in service in Leningrad in 1944 - it requires unique ammunition, it is unreliable, it is heavy so requires transporters. Wiki says that 2 KV-2's were used by the Finns through the war and 1 was used by hte Germans vs US troops in 1945 - maybe he attacked one of those? Pz-3's were still being BUILT in 1943 - their use at Kursk is not surprising in the least, while Pz 2's were used as training and recce tanks - the last was BUILT in 1944!! One or more still working in 1945 is not surprising either. 152mm shells were common in the Soviet army. All manner of PzII's and PzIII's were used until they were destroyed. I'm talking about PzIII's armed with the 37mm and short 50mm guns. The Red Army was known for sending obsolete or less capable armor to less important sectors of the front. A KV-2 could easily have survived until 1943. And he didn't say he attacked 20 of them...only one. So, then, it's okay for the Germans to use any and everything they had for as long as it lasted but not the Soviets? I see. No wonder the Red Army won the war. MR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I don't know how many times it has to be repeated before any of the fanboys pay the slightest attention, but own side claims of air to ground kills are completely worthless. Every one ever subjected to full OR scrutiny and comparison to other side actual losses, has proven wrong not just by a factor of 2 like other loss claims, not by a factor of 10 which one posters seems to think impossibly generous, but by a factor of 50. Not the most outlandish claims, the routine ones, everyday reports. There is no reason whatever to think Rudel was anything other than a self promoting Baron Munchausen, talking up his prefered weapon system in an attempt to garner more resources for them and the like. You can't believe a single word he says. There is no reason to. The evaporating tank armies destroyed by air attack that his claims imply, are simply nowhere in evidence in the actual operational history of the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I don't know how many times it has to be repeated before any of the fanboys pay the slightest attention, but own side claims of air to ground kills are completely worthless. Every one ever subjected to full OR scrutiny and comparison to other side actual losses, has proven wrong not just by a factor of 2 like other loss claims, not by a factor of 10 which one posters seems to think impossibly generous, but by a factor of 50. Not the most outlandish claims, the routine ones, everyday reports. There is no reason whatever to think Rudel was anything other than a self promoting Baron Munchausen, talking up his prefered weapon system in an attempt to garner more resources for them and the like. You can't believe a single word he says. There is no reason to. The evaporating tank armies destroyed by air attack that his claims imply, are simply nowhere in evidence in the actual operational history of the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Originally posted by Redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I learned that the best way to crash a plane was to have it land sideways so that the wheels broke off first. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.