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

[John Kettler]

Bigduke6,

I appreciate your entering the lists, so to speak, and bringing a Russian combat report exemplar with you. Just so we're clear, I haven't read STUKA PILOT in many years, thus am in no position to comment in detail on your killing dozens of tanks scenario. Simple math, though, tells me that, in aggregate, even if we track tank kills per sortie, the number couldn't have been more than around 0.33, because you have, in round numbers, 1500 sorties after the Ju-87G arrived and only around 500 tank kills claimed. This means that on many missions Rudel got nothing by way of results. If he ever got a dozen on a ubersuccessful single mission (0 misses, 100% lethality), then this means many other missions were even drier holes than indicated. Thanks also for providing your take based on lots of reading lots of Russian historical accounts.

Amedeo,

Remarkable find!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Stalin's Organist,

The Soviet Union classified laundry soap production!

On a more serious note, thanks to the availability, post collapse, of the former Soviet Archives, we know that Stalin not only grossly underreported his casualties in the Battle of Berlin,

Clasified is not under-reporting.

Yes we know that casualties from hte Battle of berlin were understated, but to then apply that to the whole war is pure supposition.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Stalin's Organist,

The Soviet Union classified laundry soap production!

On a more serious note, thanks to the availability, post collapse, of the former Soviet Archives, we know that Stalin not only grossly underreported his casualties in the Battle of Berlin,

Clasified is not under-reporting.

Yes we know that casualties from hte Battle of berlin were understated, but to then apply that to the whole war is pure supposition.

[John Kettler]

Bigduke6,

Disregarding for the moment the notion of any annihilating air attack on a Russian tank formation,

do any of your sources specify a Luftwaffe antitank attack in which we know a) the number of tank busting aircraft involved, the type of aircraft, c) size of formation attacked, and d) a breakdown of resultant combat damage and losses?

IOW, I'm less interested in the fact that the X

Tank Brigade, Y Regiment, Z Battalion came under air attack on a certain date and time, at a certain grid location, and after delay of some duration A, continued its assigned mission than I am in what the outcome of the attack was in terms of tanks destroyed, tanks damaged but battlefield repairable, and tanks requiring evacuation for major repair at a higher echelon. Please tell me you've got such an account somewhere in your voluminous references! Meanwhile, I'll see whether there's anything useful at Red Army Studies.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Bigduke6,

Disregarding for the moment the notion of any annihilating air attack on a Russian tank formation,

do any of your sources specify a Luftwaffe antitank attack in which we know a) the number of tank busting aircraft involved, the type of aircraft, c) size of formation attacked, and d) a breakdown of resultant combat damage and losses?

IOW, I'm less interested in the fact that the X

Tank Brigade, Y Regiment, Z Battalion came under air attack on a certain date and time, at a certain grid location, and after delay of some duration A, continued its assigned mission than I am in what the outcome of the attack was in terms of tanks destroyed, tanks damaged but battlefield repairable, and tanks requiring evacuation for major repair at a higher echelon. Please tell me you've got such an account somewhere in your voluminous references! Meanwhile, I'll see whether there's anything useful at Red Army Studies.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Amedeo:

Although I'm sceptical (euphemism) about most of what (probably bona fide) the interviewed veteran said, it's worth noting that according to the Kursk Data Base used in the KOSAVE studies (see here ), there were ten KV-2 heavy tanks operating with the Voronezhkii Front units in July 1943.

Chomp, chomp....sound of hat being eaten.

So it does. 10 of them - then apparently x-ferred to 3 Mech Corps and fairly rapidly reducing to 1 by "Day 14" - other worksheets in the data give 5 destroyed on day 12, and various numbers listed as damaged or in repair - adding up to not more than 5 after day 12 of course!!

IIRC 10 would be 2 complete heavy tank or assault gun companies - 1 HQ and 2 platoons each of 2 vehicles.

However I also note that the pilot in question didn't join a unit until December 1944

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Amedeo:

Although I'm sceptical (euphemism) about most of what (probably bona fide) the interviewed veteran said, it's worth noting that according to the Kursk Data Base used in the KOSAVE studies (see here ), there were ten KV-2 heavy tanks operating with the Voronezhkii Front units in July 1943.

Chomp, chomp....sound of hat being eaten.

So it does. 10 of them - then apparently x-ferred to 3 Mech Corps and fairly rapidly reducing to 1 by "Day 14" - other worksheets in the data give 5 destroyed on day 12, and various numbers listed as damaged or in repair - adding up to not more than 5 after day 12 of course!!

IIRC 10 would be 2 complete heavy tank or assault gun companies - 1 HQ and 2 platoons each of 2 vehicles.

However I also note that the pilot in question didn't join a unit until December 1944

[John Kettler]

VIZh is proving to be a bust, because the scale of activity it addresses is pretty high and because the level of detail is fairly low for what we're looking at. Thus, in VIZh 7, 1982, we find a piece on keeping air defense functioning in forward units and a lengthy discourse on how tank repairs were done, but not one example in which what caused the problem in the first place is addressed, merely the corrective measures taken. The closest I've gotten so far is basically an F-Kill fraction.

http://www.redarmystudies.net/listing.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

VIZh is proving to be a bust, because the scale of activity it addresses is pretty high and because the level of detail is fairly low for what we're looking at. Thus, in VIZh 7, 1982, we find a piece on keeping air defense functioning in forward units and a lengthy discourse on how tank repairs were done, but not one example in which what caused the problem in the first place is addressed, merely the corrective measures taken. The closest I've gotten so far is basically an F-Kill fraction.

http://www.redarmystudies.net/listing.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Bigduke6,

Partial progress.

From von Salza's post here

http://www.redarmystudies.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62&PN=1

Burdeiny's 2nd Guards Tank Corps suffered heavily too as the Armoured concentration prior to the attack was detected by German aerial reconnaisance. It started it's attack at 12.00 and after limited progress suffered an unmerciful attack from German aircraft and the SS Totenkopf Panzer Regiment losing 50 tanks in the process. 4 Squadrons of Henschel HS-109 armed with A/T 30mm cannon broke up the Soviet attack and became the first recorded incident where an armoured attack was largely halted by airpower alone.

He cites Glantz's KURSK as the source, but the closest I can get are pages 110-111 in which Burdeiny's 2d Guards Tank Corps attack across the Lipovyi Donets River generates a II SS Panzer Corps request for air attack (methinks Bruno Meyer's boys in Hs-129s, not Hs-109s). The result is tersely described on page 111.

Although the Soviet assault was repelled by the Luftwaffe and General Burdeiny's 2d guards Tank Corps was severely maimed in the process, the Soviet attack required that SS Panzer Division Totenkopf engage the new threat until relief by infantry could be arranged.

(goes away and researches some, then returns)

Turns out I read the wrong page (von Salza was citing p. 135) for the above quote, thanks to some bizarre writing practices in the KURSK book in which information on a given event is scattered over multiple locations. I found that out by reading this most useful thread over on The

Dupuy Institute Forum regarding German tank killing aircraft at Kursk. The discussion is extensive and deep.

The Kursk thread

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000016.html

There are some heavy hitters there, including our own Jeff Duquette, ordnance grog. Speaking of such matters, some of you may be interested in acquiring Chinn's classic BuOrd set THE MACHINE GUN on CD. What makes this of particular interest is that there is in-depth treatment of German BK installations for tank busting aircraft. (Don't have it yet myself--funding!) I know this because Jim Steuard of AFV-G2 magazine and a former ordnance sergeant and tanker brought his personally snagged when declassified and declared obsolete set with him to an IPMS meeting I attended decades ago in which he briefed us on the Ju-87G in the tank busting role. He had the German manuals for the gun and special ammo, too!

THE MACHINE GUN on CD or by download

http://www.emilitarymanuals.com/chinn.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[ February 24, 2007, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[John Kettler]

Bigduke6,

Partial progress.

From von Salza's post here

http://www.redarmystudies.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62&PN=1

Burdeiny's 2nd Guards Tank Corps suffered heavily too as the Armoured concentration prior to the attack was detected by German aerial reconnaisance. It started it's attack at 12.00 and after limited progress suffered an unmerciful attack from German aircraft and the SS Totenkopf Panzer Regiment losing 50 tanks in the process. 4 Squadrons of Henschel HS-109 armed with A/T 30mm cannon broke up the Soviet attack and became the first recorded incident where an armoured attack was largely halted by airpower alone.

He cites Glantz's KURSK as the source, but the closest I can get are pages 110-111 in which Burdeiny's 2d Guards Tank Corps attack across the Lipovyi Donets River generates a II SS Panzer Corps request for air attack (methinks Bruno Meyer's boys in Hs-129s, not Hs-109s). The result is tersely described on page 111.

Although the Soviet assault was repelled by the Luftwaffe and General Burdeiny's 2d guards Tank Corps was severely maimed in the process, the Soviet attack required that SS Panzer Division Totenkopf engage the new threat until relief by infantry could be arranged.

(goes away and researches some, then returns)

Turns out I read the wrong page (von Salza was citing p. 135) for the above quote, thanks to some bizarre writing practices in the KURSK book in which information on a given event is scattered over multiple locations. I found that out by reading this most useful thread over on The

Dupuy Institute Forum regarding German tank killing aircraft at Kursk. The discussion is extensive and deep.

The Kursk thread

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000016.html

There are some heavy hitters there, including our own Jeff Duquette, ordnance grog. Speaking of such matters, some of you may be interested in acquiring Chinn's classic BuOrd set THE MACHINE GUN on CD. What makes this of particular interest is that there is in-depth treatment of German BK installations for tank busting aircraft. (Don't have it yet myself--funding!) I know this because Jim Steuard of AFV-G2 magazine and a former ordnance sergeant and tanker brought his personally snagged when declassified and declared obsolete set with him to an IPMS meeting I attended decades ago in which he briefed us on the Ju-87G in the tank busting role. He had the German manuals for the gun and special ammo, too!

THE MACHINE GUN on CD or by download

http://www.emilitarymanuals.com/chinn.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[ February 24, 2007, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[JasonC]

On Russian side losses, their staff studies, not their propaganda, show them taking around 25 million military causalties, and routinely report losses in the half million range for month-long operations. If these are supposedly understated, from what galaxy did the extra 50 or 100 million causalties teleport in? On tank losses, they report losing 100,000 tanks. They started the war with a little over 20k and ended with right around 30k, while building 102k and receiving 8k in lend lease. So, where are the other 2-400,000 dead tanks the Germans claim supposed to have come from? Were they made by pixies?

The point being, Russian staff reports of own side losses are clinically accurate. Their claims are not believable, the propaganda memoires of the generals are not believable, but nobody relies on such things for own side losses.

JK - you still aren't getting it as to order of magnitude. Not even 0.33, but 0.2, is the order of magnitude of full tank kills per sorties actually achieved by A-10s firing guided missiles under optimal conditions. When German pilots with 12 rounds of 37mm report a higher figure than A-10s firing guided missiles actually achieve, it is a sure sign they are wrong. There is no reason to be surprised at this - own side air to ground kill claims are always wrong, always high, and before modern precision weapons, always by large amounts.

As for the big Kursk strike that supposedly wipes out a tank brigade in one go, this case has been examined in detail, and Russian side losses to air attack that day are more like 12 for the whole salient and more like 6 for the specific unit. How does this happen? Every pilot claims every burning tank seen, as he flies over the battlefield subjected to his formation's air strikes.

In the case of Rudel, I suspect several of the following.

1 - claims for his entire units attributed to him personally as the organizer of the force. He refrains from disabusing people of the notion.

2 - deliberately claiming results from his flight, as opposed to his aircraft, as the commander.

3 - never admitting having missed i.e. if he engages a target of type X, he claims kills of target type X. This would account for the parallel (actually, his higher by up to a factor fo 2) between his claims and actual performance of A-10s etc.

4 - he wanted to promote his weapon system, to garner resources for it or leave it in production.

5 - he wanted to increase morale of Stuka pilots by highlighting their usefulness in the war and instilling condifence in their weapons.

6 - he wanted to establish a standard for other pilots to aspire to, and claiming effect whenever he used his weapons was a means to this end.

7 - he also probably deliberately sought glory for his own sake, thinking of himself as following in the footsteps of WW I fighter aces and the like.

There is one possibility that can be dismissed out of hand as patently absurd - that he actually killed 500 tanks by achieving twice the effectiveness of an A-10 with guided missiles, because he ate his wheaties.

[JasonC]

On Russian side losses, their staff studies, not their propaganda, show them taking around 25 million military causalties, and routinely report losses in the half million range for month-long operations. If these are supposedly understated, from what galaxy did the extra 50 or 100 million causalties teleport in? On tank losses, they report losing 100,000 tanks. They started the war with a little over 20k and ended with right around 30k, while building 102k and receiving 8k in lend lease. So, where are the other 2-400,000 dead tanks the Germans claim supposed to have come from? Were they made by pixies?

The point being, Russian staff reports of own side losses are clinically accurate. Their claims are not believable, the propaganda memoires of the generals are not believable, but nobody relies on such things for own side losses.

JK - you still aren't getting it as to order of magnitude. Not even 0.33, but 0.2, is the order of magnitude of full tank kills per sorties actually achieved by A-10s firing guided missiles under optimal conditions. When German pilots with 12 rounds of 37mm report a higher figure than A-10s firing guided missiles actually achieve, it is a sure sign they are wrong. There is no reason to be surprised at this - own side air to ground kill claims are always wrong, always high, and before modern precision weapons, always by large amounts.

As for the big Kursk strike that supposedly wipes out a tank brigade in one go, this case has been examined in detail, and Russian side losses to air attack that day are more like 12 for the whole salient and more like 6 for the specific unit. How does this happen? Every pilot claims every burning tank seen, as he flies over the battlefield subjected to his formation's air strikes.

In the case of Rudel, I suspect several of the following.

1 - claims for his entire units attributed to him personally as the organizer of the force. He refrains from disabusing people of the notion.

2 - deliberately claiming results from his flight, as opposed to his aircraft, as the commander.

3 - never admitting having missed i.e. if he engages a target of type X, he claims kills of target type X. This would account for the parallel (actually, his higher by up to a factor fo 2) between his claims and actual performance of A-10s etc.

4 - he wanted to promote his weapon system, to garner resources for it or leave it in production.

5 - he wanted to increase morale of Stuka pilots by highlighting their usefulness in the war and instilling condifence in their weapons.

6 - he wanted to establish a standard for other pilots to aspire to, and claiming effect whenever he used his weapons was a means to this end.

7 - he also probably deliberately sought glory for his own sake, thinking of himself as following in the footsteps of WW I fighter aces and the like.

There is one possibility that can be dismissed out of hand as patently absurd - that he actually killed 500 tanks by achieving twice the effectiveness of an A-10 with guided missiles, because he ate his wheaties.

[The_Enigma]

They started the war with a little over 20k and ended with right around 30k

Isnt it supose to be in the region of just over 25000 tanks in 1941?

[The_Enigma]

They started the war with a little over 20k and ended with right around 30k

Isnt it supose to be in the region of just over 25000 tanks in 1941?

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:

Which is true in almost every instance except where the Soviets are concerned. We know now, that for decades, they under reported their losses so the west wouldn't know accurate figures for their combat losses.

MR

You mean that a Red Army Major, counting his losses at the end of the day as 20 tanks, marked this down as only 2 tanks lost to confuse the west? That kind of paranoia would explain why the Soviet bureaucracy never worked (and still doesn't), but I don't think it's quite the case. Yes, the loss reports were top secret, but nevertheless they were there. </font>

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:

Which is true in almost every instance except where the Soviets are concerned. We know now, that for decades, they under reported their losses so the west wouldn't know accurate figures for their combat losses.

MR

You mean that a Red Army Major, counting his losses at the end of the day as 20 tanks, marked this down as only 2 tanks lost to confuse the west? That kind of paranoia would explain why the Soviet bureaucracy never worked (and still doesn't), but I don't think it's quite the case. Yes, the loss reports were top secret, but nevertheless they were there. </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Mad Russian:

I find it most interesting that anybody that believes any German combat report at all is a fanboy.

I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Mad Russian:

I find it most interesting that anybody that believes any German combat report at all is a fanboy.

I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

I realize that a plethora of records were revealed, but I don't understand how you can be so sure of their absolute accuracy, much less their continued existence for such a vast conflict over almost 4 years. Surely you're aware that the Stalinist era was often a dangerous time to speak or display the truth. By the way, I'm not nationally biased.

I think your statement here has been effectively demolished by the past few posts, but if you had any substantial reason to continue your view that Soviet internal record keeping was skewed heavily, I'd be interested in reading it. </font>

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

I realize that a plethora of records were revealed, but I don't understand how you can be so sure of their absolute accuracy, much less their continued existence for such a vast conflict over almost 4 years. Surely you're aware that the Stalinist era was often a dangerous time to speak or display the truth. By the way, I'm not nationally biased.

I think your statement here has been effectively demolished by the past few posts, but if you had any substantial reason to continue your view that Soviet internal record keeping was skewed heavily, I'd be interested in reading it. </font>

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:

I find it most interesting that anybody that believes any German combat report at all is a fanboy.

I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said. </font>

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:

I find it most interesting that anybody that believes any German combat report at all is a fanboy.

I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said. </font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

You wouldn't be able to break off both wheels at the same time. leaving one you are guaranteed to tip your wing into the ground.

In a Ju-87 which has the wing tips turned upwards...

As to shearing off both wheels at the same time: the story was he was flying sideways so they would not shear off simultaneously anyway.

I also don't get why you would want a belly landing in first place. Belly landings are very common - with aircraft that can't get their wheels down. The StuKa has them down by default. How could the situation improve from lack of wheels?

Belly landing with a fixed undercarriage is, by definition, not a belly landing unless you shear off the undercarriage first.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

You wouldn't be able to break off both wheels at the same time. leaving one you are guaranteed to tip your wing into the ground.

In a Ju-87 which has the wing tips turned upwards...

As to shearing off both wheels at the same time: the story was he was flying sideways so they would not shear off simultaneously anyway.

I also don't get why you would want a belly landing in first place. Belly landings are very common - with aircraft that can't get their wheels down. The StuKa has them down by default. How could the situation improve from lack of wheels?

Belly landing with a fixed undercarriage is, by definition, not a belly landing unless you shear off the undercarriage first.