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

[Joachim]

Did they install new forum software regarding the 300 post bug? If not - close that thread and open another one.

Gruß

Joachim

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

One problem I see with this line of reasoning is that it makes me into a potato. I hate arguments that turn me into a potato.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

One problem I see with this line of reasoning is that it makes me into a potato. I hate arguments that turn me into a potato.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Feet back on the ground time.

Rudel claims 500+ tank kills.

Did he claim 1000 and someone halved it? I think not.

So Is Rudel the sole exception to the routine overclaiming?

Did he alone never get it wrong?

In 'Black Cross Red Star, Air War Over The Eastern Front' (various Volumes) there are detailed charts for German and Soviet kill

claims for aircraft alongside the actual losses.

Take 1942 for example:

German claims = 17313.

Russian loss (combat only)= 9100.

Russian claim = 8600

German loss (combat only)= 2500

Overclaiming was rife, to deny it is futile.

who is denying overclaiming?

in this thread it was argued that kill claims were not two or ten times too high, but fifty (50) times too high.

the numbers you give show that German kill claims were actually less than two times higher than actual Soviet losses.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Feet back on the ground time.

Rudel claims 500+ tank kills.

Did he claim 1000 and someone halved it? I think not.

So Is Rudel the sole exception to the routine overclaiming?

Did he alone never get it wrong?

In 'Black Cross Red Star, Air War Over The Eastern Front' (various Volumes) there are detailed charts for German and Soviet kill

claims for aircraft alongside the actual losses.

Take 1942 for example:

German claims = 17313.

Russian loss (combat only)= 9100.

Russian claim = 8600

German loss (combat only)= 2500

Overclaiming was rife, to deny it is futile.

who is denying overclaiming?

in this thread it was argued that kill claims were not two or ten times too high, but fifty (50) times too high.

the numbers you give show that German kill claims were actually less than two times higher than actual Soviet losses.

[michael kenny]

2:1 for German air to air claims. Seeing an aircraft go down is much easier than making a high speed pass at a ground target and getting a kill. Obviously the confirmation process is much more difficult for a ground target.

Still it is a start, so can we now all say Rudel got 250 tanks?

[michael kenny]

2:1 for German air to air claims. Seeing an aircraft go down is much easier than making a high speed pass at a ground target and getting a kill. Obviously the confirmation process is much more difficult for a ground target.

Still it is a start, so can we now all say Rudel got 250 tanks?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

2:1 for German air to air claims.

indeed, and embarrassingly it's actually just below 2:1 at around 1.9:1, which means German 50% cut results in underestimation of actual German kills.

Seeing an aircraft go down is much easier than making a high speed pass at a ground target and getting a kill. Obviously the confirmation process is much more difficult for a ground target.

it's not just more difficult, it's impossible. there is no way anyone could determine if the damaged tank would be a irrecoverable loss at that point of time. it could be determined only after

A) Germans captured the tank (and Soviets never recaptured it)

Soviets recovered it and either repaired it or decided it was beyond repair

C) neither Germans nor Soviets recovered it

of course we could use some other criteria, like for example the level of damage caused on the tank or the number of hits scored. like the more than 6 hits rule apparently used by both Germans and Soviets. but this leads to the kind of unbearable distortion of reality we are discussing on this thread. that kind of criteria would be used only by unrepentant nazis.

Still it is a start, so can we now all say Rudel got 250 tanks?

gee, haven't you read this thread? you simply can not extrapolate things like that. we need at least two years of data on Rudel's actual kills and matching Soviet side loss reports (preferably identifying Rudel's plane, as otherwise it could have been just any plane) and recovery & repair reports (correctly identifying tanks damaged by Rudel so that we can be sure we aren't counting tanks that were recovered & repaired at workshops). as is, it's just rubbish in, rubbish out.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

2:1 for German air to air claims.

indeed, and embarrassingly it's actually just below 2:1 at around 1.9:1, which means German 50% cut results in underestimation of actual German kills.

Seeing an aircraft go down is much easier than making a high speed pass at a ground target and getting a kill. Obviously the confirmation process is much more difficult for a ground target.

it's not just more difficult, it's impossible. there is no way anyone could determine if the damaged tank would be a irrecoverable loss at that point of time. it could be determined only after

A) Germans captured the tank (and Soviets never recaptured it)

Soviets recovered it and either repaired it or decided it was beyond repair

C) neither Germans nor Soviets recovered it

of course we could use some other criteria, like for example the level of damage caused on the tank or the number of hits scored. like the more than 6 hits rule apparently used by both Germans and Soviets. but this leads to the kind of unbearable distortion of reality we are discussing on this thread. that kind of criteria would be used only by unrepentant nazis.

Still it is a start, so can we now all say Rudel got 250 tanks?

gee, haven't you read this thread? you simply can not extrapolate things like that. we need at least two years of data on Rudel's actual kills and matching Soviet side loss reports (preferably identifying Rudel's plane, as otherwise it could have been just any plane) and recovery & repair reports (correctly identifying tanks damaged by Rudel so that we can be sure we aren't counting tanks that were recovered & repaired at workshops). as is, it's just rubbish in, rubbish out.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i can't remember if it was already stated somewhere in this thread, but i was reading Zaloga's "Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two" and in it Zaloga states that Soviets credited 6% of all their tank losses to Luftwaffe. unfortunately he doesn't give source.

Zaloga's 6% figure would fit very well to the individual Soviet army and front reports i quoted in this thread.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i can't remember if it was already stated somewhere in this thread, but i was reading Zaloga's "Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two" and in it Zaloga states that Soviets credited 6% of all their tank losses to Luftwaffe. unfortunately he doesn't give source.

Zaloga's 6% figure would fit very well to the individual Soviet army and front reports i quoted in this thread.

[Andreas]

I think it was already stated. 6% is equivalent to about 6,000. I would bet money that when you add up credited German claims you end up with a higher number.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

I think it was already stated. 6% is equivalent to about 6,000. I would bet money that when you add up credited German claims you end up with a higher number.

All the best

Andreas

[undead reindeer cavalry]

yes, no question about it, German figures should be higher. it would be great to have German totals so we could compare.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

yes, no question about it, German figures should be higher. it would be great to have German totals so we could compare.

[John Kettler]

I don't read Russian, but I think this is German aerial strike footage. Can anyone help identify what we're seeing? Whatever it is, it's very interesting to watch the action unfold in slo mo.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AOn-Jt7J6Tk&feature=related

While we're at it, the GDF has a self-publishing thread here in which there are color BDA photos of K-Killed NKA T-34/85s destroyed by napalm in some cases and .50 caliber F-80 fire into the air intakes in most of the others. Also there is footage of a P-47 clobbering what might be a King Tiger with .50 caliber MG fire.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=023622

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

I don't read Russian, but I think this is German aerial strike footage. Can anyone help identify what we're seeing? Whatever it is, it's very interesting to watch the action unfold in slo mo.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AOn-Jt7J6Tk&feature=related

While we're at it, the GDF has a self-publishing thread here in which there are color BDA photos of K-Killed NKA T-34/85s destroyed by napalm in some cases and .50 caliber F-80 fire into the air intakes in most of the others. Also there is footage of a P-47 clobbering what might be a King Tiger with .50 caliber MG fire.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=023622

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

URC, Andreas,

For what it is worth, I think a realistic estimate of Russian AFV losses to air attack is in the mid single digit percent, whether it is 3k or 7k. Call it 5k and leave an error bar.

But then count the ground attack aircraft doing it. Most of it is going to be straight bombs.

5752 Stukas (208 G and 3500 D models, rest early)

4150 F series FW-190s

(plus 1300 G series FW-190s, 20000 FW-190s all models)

865 Hs-129.

Then there were 24000 medium bombers only counting the main types, 33000 ME-109s, etc. Not dedicated ground attack, but the share of them operating in the east undoubtedly accounted for some of the losses, through sheer scale. A medium bomber raid on a rail yard, armed recce with a bomb by a 109, etc.

You can give those numbers haircuts for the portions used in the east and the years, and you will still get several times as many aircraft chasing each air-killed Russian tank. That means the kills per AC are going to be well under unity. Like, 1/4 maybe.

Think the pilots are going to report as their kill claim total, that they flew the whole war and never touched a Russian tank?

[JasonC]

URC, Andreas,

For what it is worth, I think a realistic estimate of Russian AFV losses to air attack is in the mid single digit percent, whether it is 3k or 7k. Call it 5k and leave an error bar.

But then count the ground attack aircraft doing it. Most of it is going to be straight bombs.

5752 Stukas (208 G and 3500 D models, rest early)

4150 F series FW-190s

(plus 1300 G series FW-190s, 20000 FW-190s all models)

865 Hs-129.

Then there were 24000 medium bombers only counting the main types, 33000 ME-109s, etc. Not dedicated ground attack, but the share of them operating in the east undoubtedly accounted for some of the losses, through sheer scale. A medium bomber raid on a rail yard, armed recce with a bomb by a 109, etc.

You can give those numbers haircuts for the portions used in the east and the years, and you will still get several times as many aircraft chasing each air-killed Russian tank. That means the kills per AC are going to be well under unity. Like, 1/4 maybe.

Think the pilots are going to report as their kill claim total, that they flew the whole war and never touched a Russian tank?

[Bigduke6]

John,

The writing is not Russian. It is Czech. The words read "Anti-tank attack from the air."

[Bigduke6]

John,

The writing is not Russian. It is Czech. The words read "Anti-tank attack from the air."

[DavidFields]

Any back-of-the-envelope calculations on the average number of sorties a ground assault/AT pilot flew before being shot down or killed?

I would think that as much luck as skill would be involved in keeping oneself alive from random ground fire--particularly if one was aggressive about engaging targets.

It would give me further pespective on Rudel's claim.

[DavidFields]

Any back-of-the-envelope calculations on the average number of sorties a ground assault/AT pilot flew before being shot down or killed?

I would think that as much luck as skill would be involved in keeping oneself alive from random ground fire--particularly if one was aggressive about engaging targets.

It would give me further pespective on Rudel's claim.

[pamak1970]

It would give me further pespective on Rudel's claim

If i recall right, Rudell was shot down over 30 times.

[pamak1970]

It would give me further pespective on Rudel's claim

If i recall right, Rudell was shot down over 30 times.