Ju-87/G Stuka tankbuster info (cross post fm CMAK)

[Tero]

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>

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

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.

Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey (using FW-190 and ju-87D) was credited with 200 tank kills during their stint in the Karelian Isthmus front in the summer of 1944. The Finns hold the Stuka pilots in high regard and acknowleged the fact that the Ju-87 was fully capable of disabling massed armour preparing for attack.

If you want to enter the debate asto what is considered a kill then be my guest. Kuhlmey planes were material in preventing several attacks by taking out the armour massed armour just before they moved out.

This is why I would not cathegorically dismiss Rudels claims off hand as pure BS.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

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.

Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey (using FW-190 and ju-87D) was credited with 200 tank kills during their stint in the Karelian Isthmus front in the summer of 1944. The Finns hold the Stuka pilots in high regard and acknowleged the fact that the Ju-87 was fully capable of disabling massed armour preparing for attack.

If you want to enter the debate asto what is considered a kill then be my guest. Kuhlmey planes were material in preventing several attacks by taking out the armour massed armour just before they moved out.

This is why I would not cathegorically dismiss Rudels claims off hand as pure BS.

[JasonC]

Tero - claims are horsefeathers. Show me the Russian side loss reports with cause or time of loss coinciding with the supposedly instrumental air attacks. This can't be remotely hard if the kills are real.

[JasonC]

Tero - claims are horsefeathers. Show me the Russian side loss reports with cause or time of loss coinciding with the supposedly instrumental air attacks. This can't be remotely hard if the kills are real.

[Hetzer38]

I think this a a better Rudel-source...

Hans Ulrich Rudel

...lots of nice photos!

Cheers, Hetzer38.

[Hetzer38]

I think this a a better Rudel-source...

Hans Ulrich Rudel

...lots of nice photos!

Cheers, Hetzer38.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Wiki says that 2 KV-2's were used by the Finns through the war

Really, it says that? I didn't know that, and I don't think it's true. IIRC two KV-1's were captured.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Wiki says that 2 KV-2's were used by the Finns through the war

Really, it says that? I didn't know that, and I don't think it's true. IIRC two KV-1's were captured.

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Tero - claims are horsefeathers. Show me the Russian side loss reports with cause or time of loss coinciding with the supposedly instrumental air attacks. This can't be remotely hard if the kills are real.

Yes, because the Soviets never inflated their own kill figures while "neglecting" to report their own losses, especially disastrous operations. Mars, anyone?

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Tero - claims are horsefeathers. Show me the Russian side loss reports with cause or time of loss coinciding with the supposedly instrumental air attacks. This can't be remotely hard if the kills are real.

Yes, because the Soviets never inflated their own kill figures while "neglecting" to report their own losses, especially disastrous operations. Mars, anyone?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Shmavis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

Tero - claims are horsefeathers. Show me the Russian side loss reports with cause or time of loss coinciding with the supposedly instrumental air attacks. This can't be remotely hard if the kills are real.

Yes, because the Soviets never inflated their own kill figures while "neglecting" to report their own losses, especially disastrous operations. Mars, anyone? </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Shmavis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

Tero - claims are horsefeathers. Show me the Russian side loss reports with cause or time of loss coinciding with the supposedly instrumental air attacks. This can't be remotely hard if the kills are real.

Yes, because the Soviets never inflated their own kill figures while "neglecting" to report their own losses, especially disastrous operations. Mars, anyone? </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Mad Russian:

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

152mm shells of various types were used by the artillery, yes, and then late in the war by assault guns. But don't you think that it would have complicated the supply to have maybe one or two KV-2 in a heavy regiment otherwise equipped with KV-1's?

Contrast this with that there is photographic evidence that Soviets still used T-26's in Karelia in late summer 1944. If they were to be supplied with 45mm shells, that was easy because infantry AT defense relied on that calibre ATG's.

Add to that that the KV was a heavy tank, thus even more likely to break down than Soviet tanks usually were. Quote from Russian Battlefield:

The most of KV-2 tanks were lost because of breakdowns. For example, 41st Tank Division lost 22 KV-2 tanks of 33 tanks total. The only 5 tanks were destroyed by the enemy, other 17 tanks were abandoned because of breakdowns or run out of fuel.

Anyway, a German flyboy calls a tank a KV-2. Why should anyone consider it likely that he could have told the difference between KV-1 and KV-2 while piloting an aircraft? Or even between a KV and T-34? Every German tank was a Tiger, every German gun an eighty-eight...

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Mad Russian:

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

152mm shells of various types were used by the artillery, yes, and then late in the war by assault guns. But don't you think that it would have complicated the supply to have maybe one or two KV-2 in a heavy regiment otherwise equipped with KV-1's?

Contrast this with that there is photographic evidence that Soviets still used T-26's in Karelia in late summer 1944. If they were to be supplied with 45mm shells, that was easy because infantry AT defense relied on that calibre ATG's.

Add to that that the KV was a heavy tank, thus even more likely to break down than Soviet tanks usually were. Quote from Russian Battlefield:

The most of KV-2 tanks were lost because of breakdowns. For example, 41st Tank Division lost 22 KV-2 tanks of 33 tanks total. The only 5 tanks were destroyed by the enemy, other 17 tanks were abandoned because of breakdowns or run out of fuel.

Anyway, a German flyboy calls a tank a KV-2. Why should anyone consider it likely that he could have told the difference between KV-1 and KV-2 while piloting an aircraft? Or even between a KV and T-34? Every German tank was a Tiger, every German gun an eighty-eight...

[JasonC]

Shmavis - congratulations, that was the greatest pointless non sequitur this site has seen in many a moon.

When side A claims kills of N against side B, you go to side Bs records of its own losses and find N/2 or N/50. Each side's records of its own losses are believable, of the other guy's are always, always wrong, and always, always in the same direction. National biases (who is A and who is have exactly nothing to do with it.

[JasonC]

Shmavis - congratulations, that was the greatest pointless non sequitur this site has seen in many a moon.

When side A claims kills of N against side B, you go to side Bs records of its own losses and find N/2 or N/50. Each side's records of its own losses are believable, of the other guy's are always, always wrong, and always, always in the same direction. National biases (who is A and who is have exactly nothing to do with it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Anyway, a German flyboy calls a tank a KV-2. Why should anyone consider it likely that he could have told the difference between KV-1 and KV-2 while piloting an aircraft? Or even between a KV and T-34? Every German tank was a Tiger, every German gun an eighty-eight...

Quite. And would a pilot really not claim an abandoned tank he shot up as a kill?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Anyway, a German flyboy calls a tank a KV-2. Why should anyone consider it likely that he could have told the difference between KV-1 and KV-2 while piloting an aircraft? Or even between a KV and T-34? Every German tank was a Tiger, every German gun an eighty-eight...

Quite. And would a pilot really not claim an abandoned tank he shot up as a kill?

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Mad Russian:

Indeed they were, but the KV-2 fired a special reduced charge unique to itself.

Anmd yes my error reading Wiki - it says they had 2 KV's, a model 1940 and a 1941, not 2 KV-2's

Flyboys were expected to have a reasionable clue as to what they were attacking, and a KV-2 in 1943 wouldn't be something you'd be expecting to see nor would it be something so greatly feared - the Germans had probably forgotten about them by then!!

[ February 22, 2007, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Mad Russian:

Indeed they were, but the KV-2 fired a special reduced charge unique to itself.

Anmd yes my error reading Wiki - it says they had 2 KV's, a model 1940 and a 1941, not 2 KV-2's

Flyboys were expected to have a reasionable clue as to what they were attacking, and a KV-2 in 1943 wouldn't be something you'd be expecting to see nor would it be something so greatly feared - the Germans had probably forgotten about them by then!!

[ February 22, 2007, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Tero:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Tero:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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>

[Sergei]

Possibly because even on an even airstrip, if a front-heavy plane (which all these single engine planes were) aplies wheel brake too hard while landing, the plane might somersault. On a rough surface that might happen very easily. And even if you did so, one might break while other doesn't, making the wing hit the ground and who knows what. Not that belly landing is particularly safe either. Anyway, I have avoided crashing any airplanes other than everytime I play Il-2. :mad:

[Sergei]

Possibly because even on an even airstrip, if a front-heavy plane (which all these single engine planes were) aplies wheel brake too hard while landing, the plane might somersault. On a rough surface that might happen very easily. And even if you did so, one might break while other doesn't, making the wing hit the ground and who knows what. Not that belly landing is particularly safe either. Anyway, I have avoided crashing any airplanes other than everytime I play Il-2. :mad: