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

[Guest Mike]

For which reason the navalised Stuka that was planned to be flown from Graf Zeppelin had provisions for jettisoning its wheels.

IIRC someone did this accidentally and there's a picture of a wheel-less Stuka somewhere that causes some confusion!

[Guest Mike]

For which reason the navalised Stuka that was planned to be flown from Graf Zeppelin had provisions for jettisoning its wheels.

IIRC someone did this accidentally and there's a picture of a wheel-less Stuka somewhere that causes some confusion!

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by JasonC:

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.

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

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by JasonC:

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.

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

[Guest Mike]

And we know this from where?

[Guest Mike]

And we know this from where?

[Sergei]

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.

[Sergei]

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.

[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, but set up a series of secret hospitals in which many thoroughly blown up survivors of that battle were parked for life, so as not to frighten the public or take the shine off the victory. The special on this I saw a few years back on this included on camera testimony of doctors and nurses who'd worked in them, as well as harrowing drawings of some of the victims, many of whom were little more than torsos with heads. ISTR the casualty number was around 400,000, but that per the program, there were more than this as combat fatalities and still low by several hundred thousand (~600,000), with WIAs even larger. May or may not have the numbers right, but I remember gasping in horror when the new figures were revealed.

From what I've seen of it, both inside and out of my former threat analyst career, the entire system

was built, unless specific measures were instituted to prevent it, on not making waves, not reporting bad news, form over substance, not making commanders look bad, etc.

A society in which people knock themselves out working Saturdays for free to produce fertilizer, then the fertilizer winds up being dumped into the river because the kolkhoz has neither transport to move it nor space to store it, but all must meet their quotas; in which someone else shoots your weapon qualification; in which, if certain intel reports are to be believed, KAL 007 was able to overfly part of the Rodina because the surveillance radar antennae in the Sakhalin area had been blown down by a terrible Pacific storm, but no one bothered to inform Moscow for fear of the consequences, doesn't inspire confidence in the record keeping accuracy of commanders under terrible military and secret police pressure to deliver combat success at virtually all costs. After all, the line between honest readiness reporting and "shirking one's combat duties," "sabotage" and "cowardice" would seem to be awfully slim.

Even if the numbers are somehow right, based on the sum total of what I've seen, the causes might well not be right. What, for example, do the documents from the tank unit worked over by Bruno Meyer's Henschel 129s at Kursk show? If a Red Army commander got pasted by the Luftwaffe, did he dare say what really happened and how badly? Would getting clobbered be deemed proof of one or more actionable offenses resulting in a quick trip to a penal battalion? What are the stats on generals shot or sent to the penal units during the GPW?

I believe it was hundreds.

This isn't to say that the Red Army wasn't capable of keeping excruciatingly detailed records when it had to, but in mechanized warfare on the scale of

the War in the East, unless some special weapon effectiveness analysis was required (see Poligon firing trials vs Tiger II tank at Battlefield.ru), the commander was concerned with total, total combat ready, number in repair and when due out. Loza's second book, FIGHTING FOR THE SOVIET MOTHERLAND, goes into this in his section on technical support for tank ops in August Storm. Very pragmatic! Does it run? Can we fix it? Do we have the parts, or can we get them? Much of his part stock was cannibalized, and he even talks about how his unit had extra ARVs made from F-Killed tanks for which they couldn't get new gun barrels.

What you don't see is any concern with what caused the losses, merely returning as many as possible to functional status, as soon as possible. That is another reason why I fear we'll never get the kind of quality data JasonC routinely asserts should be easy to come up with as proof or disproof of Rudel's combat lethality. If you, Andreas, or someone else has the material that shows otherwise, by all means let's see it!

Regards,

John Kettler

[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, but set up a series of secret hospitals in which many thoroughly blown up survivors of that battle were parked for life, so as not to frighten the public or take the shine off the victory. The special on this I saw a few years back on this included on camera testimony of doctors and nurses who'd worked in them, as well as harrowing drawings of some of the victims, many of whom were little more than torsos with heads. ISTR the casualty number was around 400,000, but that per the program, there were more than this as combat fatalities and still low by several hundred thousand (~600,000), with WIAs even larger. May or may not have the numbers right, but I remember gasping in horror when the new figures were revealed.

From what I've seen of it, both inside and out of my former threat analyst career, the entire system

was built, unless specific measures were instituted to prevent it, on not making waves, not reporting bad news, form over substance, not making commanders look bad, etc.

A society in which people knock themselves out working Saturdays for free to produce fertilizer, then the fertilizer winds up being dumped into the river because the kolkhoz has neither transport to move it nor space to store it, but all must meet their quotas; in which someone else shoots your weapon qualification; in which, if certain intel reports are to be believed, KAL 007 was able to overfly part of the Rodina because the surveillance radar antennae in the Sakhalin area had been blown down by a terrible Pacific storm, but no one bothered to inform Moscow for fear of the consequences, doesn't inspire confidence in the record keeping accuracy of commanders under terrible military and secret police pressure to deliver combat success at virtually all costs. After all, the line between honest readiness reporting and "shirking one's combat duties," "sabotage" and "cowardice" would seem to be awfully slim.

Even if the numbers are somehow right, based on the sum total of what I've seen, the causes might well not be right. What, for example, do the documents from the tank unit worked over by Bruno Meyer's Henschel 129s at Kursk show? If a Red Army commander got pasted by the Luftwaffe, did he dare say what really happened and how badly? Would getting clobbered be deemed proof of one or more actionable offenses resulting in a quick trip to a penal battalion? What are the stats on generals shot or sent to the penal units during the GPW?

I believe it was hundreds.

This isn't to say that the Red Army wasn't capable of keeping excruciatingly detailed records when it had to, but in mechanized warfare on the scale of

the War in the East, unless some special weapon effectiveness analysis was required (see Poligon firing trials vs Tiger II tank at Battlefield.ru), the commander was concerned with total, total combat ready, number in repair and when due out. Loza's second book, FIGHTING FOR THE SOVIET MOTHERLAND, goes into this in his section on technical support for tank ops in August Storm. Very pragmatic! Does it run? Can we fix it? Do we have the parts, or can we get them? Much of his part stock was cannibalized, and he even talks about how his unit had extra ARVs made from F-Killed tanks for which they couldn't get new gun barrels.

What you don't see is any concern with what caused the losses, merely returning as many as possible to functional status, as soon as possible. That is another reason why I fear we'll never get the kind of quality data JasonC routinely asserts should be easy to come up with as proof or disproof of Rudel's combat lethality. If you, Andreas, or someone else has the material that shows otherwise, by all means let's see it!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by 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.

Aw. Where's my batch of horsefeathers? I always wanted one.

My point is that you constantly refer to loss reports as an infallible resource readily available for review, even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 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.

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by 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.

Aw. Where's my batch of horsefeathers? I always wanted one.

My point is that you constantly refer to loss reports as an infallible resource readily available for review, even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 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.

[Bigduke6]

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.

I would take issue with that, I would say the Soviets over-reported their losses for propaganda purposes as well. After all, from a propaganda POV the goal is not to demonstrate how efficient the Red Army was, but rather the sacrifice of the Soviet nation.

Which is to quibble. After all, over-reported or under-reported, Soviet histories written for over propaganda purposes are not even close to the same thing as their internal reporting.

A well-known example is here

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=180&Itemid=88

which any looking will see is a report written by LTC Shapar', commander of 71st Guards Heavy Tank regiment, after combat in the Sandomirz sector.

This was prepared by a field officer for his chain of command, almost certainly because they wanted to hear how his unit fared against the first field employment of Tiger II. (Not too badly, as it turned out.)

At the end of the report the rgt commander, one LTC Shapar', lists enemy tanks destroyed by his regiment in two weeks of fighting as 4 x Tiger, 4 x Tiger II, 3 x Panther, 4 x assault gun, among other stuff. The Soviets lost 3 x Stalin II write-offs, and another 7 x Stalin II were damaged, of which 4 were damaged badly enough to be sent to repair depot.

Now, I am quite prepared to give Comrade Shapar's kill claims a haircut, but:

1. In the case of the Tiger II at least three vehicles were captured and sent back to Moscow, and other archival documents support this, which leade me to believe four Tiger II put out of action is not a complete invention, nor was the figure massaged to impress Westerners.

2. The big scorer in 71st Guards Heavy Tank, or at least the Stalin commander singled out by Shapar' as having achieved noteworthy success, is one Lt Udaloy, who is commended for having destroyed two Tiger II in a single action.

3. I think every one will agree that destruction of a pair of Tigers over a couple of hours by an apparently well-commanded Stalin; is a bit more credible than Rudel's alleged destruction of dozens of T-34s in a dozen or so passes over the T-34s in an aircraft flying in excess of 200 kph, with the aircraft often under fire.

4. A recurring thread of David M. Glantz's writing is that Soviet staff studies were as accurate and open-eyed as they could make them. I would add that the cases where there is a big disconnect between the staff study/internal view of a campaign or battle, and the public/overt view, are few and far between, from what I can tell. Usually the numbers tally closely.

So whom to believe? We weren't there and neither author, Rudel or Shapar', merits our uncritical confidence. But there is such a thing as a reality check, and frankly, IMO the Soviets within the Red Army were fairly meticulous in cataloguing losses of friendly and enemy armor, at times more and at times less accurate than the same thing in Western armies.

Of course, war literature produced for mass consumption is another matter, but fortunately the Soviet Union is dead. There is no need to rely on Soviet propaganda, to learn about Soviet military history.

For this reason, I would tread very carefully before accepting something written by Rudel and his ilk. After all, there were two sides to the Cold War, and many of the best known German WW2 histories consciously or no put facts second place, to the Cold War image of the Soviet enemy.

I'll add this: In all my reading of Soviet war literature, I have yet to come on a recollection of a Soviet armored force annihilated, or even badly damaged, by anti-tank attack from the air. Delayed, yes, on rare occasions.

Shot to bits by Tigers or Panthers in defilade on a rise, yes you can definately find that from time to time. First echelon cut to ribbons by an entrenched AT system - almost par for the course.

But a couple of Stukas sweeping in and wiping out a company or so of T-34s, and then returning an hour later to do it again, and then after that flying off to sink a battleship?

Not a word. Maybe I missed something.

EDITED: Because Sergei is a middle-initial grog.

[ February 23, 2007, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Bigduke6]

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.

I would take issue with that, I would say the Soviets over-reported their losses for propaganda purposes as well. After all, from a propaganda POV the goal is not to demonstrate how efficient the Red Army was, but rather the sacrifice of the Soviet nation.

Which is to quibble. After all, over-reported or under-reported, Soviet histories written for over propaganda purposes are not even close to the same thing as their internal reporting.

A well-known example is here

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=180&Itemid=88

which any looking will see is a report written by LTC Shapar', commander of 71st Guards Heavy Tank regiment, after combat in the Sandomirz sector.

This was prepared by a field officer for his chain of command, almost certainly because they wanted to hear how his unit fared against the first field employment of Tiger II. (Not too badly, as it turned out.)

At the end of the report the rgt commander, one LTC Shapar', lists enemy tanks destroyed by his regiment in two weeks of fighting as 4 x Tiger, 4 x Tiger II, 3 x Panther, 4 x assault gun, among other stuff. The Soviets lost 3 x Stalin II write-offs, and another 7 x Stalin II were damaged, of which 4 were damaged badly enough to be sent to repair depot.

Now, I am quite prepared to give Comrade Shapar's kill claims a haircut, but:

1. In the case of the Tiger II at least three vehicles were captured and sent back to Moscow, and other archival documents support this, which leade me to believe four Tiger II put out of action is not a complete invention, nor was the figure massaged to impress Westerners.

2. The big scorer in 71st Guards Heavy Tank, or at least the Stalin commander singled out by Shapar' as having achieved noteworthy success, is one Lt Udaloy, who is commended for having destroyed two Tiger II in a single action.

3. I think every one will agree that destruction of a pair of Tigers over a couple of hours by an apparently well-commanded Stalin; is a bit more credible than Rudel's alleged destruction of dozens of T-34s in a dozen or so passes over the T-34s in an aircraft flying in excess of 200 kph, with the aircraft often under fire.

4. A recurring thread of David M. Glantz's writing is that Soviet staff studies were as accurate and open-eyed as they could make them. I would add that the cases where there is a big disconnect between the staff study/internal view of a campaign or battle, and the public/overt view, are few and far between, from what I can tell. Usually the numbers tally closely.

So whom to believe? We weren't there and neither author, Rudel or Shapar', merits our uncritical confidence. But there is such a thing as a reality check, and frankly, IMO the Soviets within the Red Army were fairly meticulous in cataloguing losses of friendly and enemy armor, at times more and at times less accurate than the same thing in Western armies.

Of course, war literature produced for mass consumption is another matter, but fortunately the Soviet Union is dead. There is no need to rely on Soviet propaganda, to learn about Soviet military history.

For this reason, I would tread very carefully before accepting something written by Rudel and his ilk. After all, there were two sides to the Cold War, and many of the best known German WW2 histories consciously or no put facts second place, to the Cold War image of the Soviet enemy.

I'll add this: In all my reading of Soviet war literature, I have yet to come on a recollection of a Soviet armored force annihilated, or even badly damaged, by anti-tank attack from the air. Delayed, yes, on rare occasions.

Shot to bits by Tigers or Panthers in defilade on a rise, yes you can definately find that from time to time. First echelon cut to ribbons by an entrenched AT system - almost par for the course.

But a couple of Stukas sweeping in and wiping out a company or so of T-34s, and then returning an hour later to do it again, and then after that flying off to sink a battleship?

Not a word. Maybe I missed something.

EDITED: Because Sergei is a middle-initial grog.

[ February 23, 2007, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[PFMM]

Sigh. When people quote the internet or some precoceived view there is not much ground for a discussion in any form.

If any of the daydreamers actually do any research of primary sources they will find that almost any large organisation cross references it's own reports. It matters little to the higher ups that Captain Blog reports a loss of two tanks. What matters is that the army report tallies up with all the other reports being logged. Double bookkeeping is as old as the hills and unless everyone is lying it never fails to detect discrepencies. And even if they are all lying it will still show something odd as people rarely tell the same lie the same way.

[PFMM]

Sigh. When people quote the internet or some precoceived view there is not much ground for a discussion in any form.

If any of the daydreamers actually do any research of primary sources they will find that almost any large organisation cross references it's own reports. It matters little to the higher ups that Captain Blog reports a loss of two tanks. What matters is that the army report tallies up with all the other reports being logged. Double bookkeeping is as old as the hills and unless everyone is lying it never fails to detect discrepencies. And even if they are all lying it will still show something odd as people rarely tell the same lie the same way.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

David S. Glantz

Related to David M. Glantz? :confused:

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

David S. Glantz

Related to David M. Glantz? :confused:

[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.

Regards,

Amedeo

[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.

Regards,

Amedeo

[Bigduke6]

Noted and edited.

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

David S. Glantz

Related to David M. Glantz? :confused: </font>

[Bigduke6]

Noted and edited.

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

David S. Glantz

Related to David M. Glantz? :confused: </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

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.

[Michael Dorosh]

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.

[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