Andreas

BTW - I thought Lewis was gone already? Did Steve hit the wrong button when banning him (again)?

Why don't you just answer the question? Was the confirmation procedure for Rudel's tank claims as strict as that for aerial combat kill claims? If it differed, how so?

Well, yes.

As strict as they were about claiming kills from fighters in aerial combat?

Just to make that clear DT - I do not think that doubting Rudel's kill claims is equivalent to doubting his honesty. I am pretty sure he attacked those 500+ tanks and that he and his wingman genuinely believed he got the kill. What if the smoke coming from the 'burning tank' was a smoke grenade thrown out of the hatch by the commander (I don't know when the Soviets started installing smoke generators in their tanks?)? What if the observed hit only damaged minor parts of the engine (cooling circuit) and the tank was back in action two hours later?

I do not find that surprising at all, given the difficulties at the time, and indeed today (cf the Kosovo air campaign). Yes, but that involves not making too many assumptions, such as tanks being without AA in breakthrough areas, and breakthrough areas being in open terrain. I can assume lots of things too, such as fighter cover being prominent over breakthrough areas, mobile AA assets being concentrated there, and much reduced visibility, and all of these negate your assumptions. Yes, possible, but that skill still does not mean he did get the kills. That is beside the point. He may have believed lots of things that were not true, such that Nazi ideology was a good thing. An inflated belief in his own abilities fits right in. Unlikely - I think you are on to a hiding to nothing there. According to Luftwaffe fighter claims, 82% of Soviet aircraft losses in 1944 were inflicted by them. Does that sound likely to you? Not to me anyway, since it leaves 18% of Soviet aircraft losses to all other means of combating them. But I somehow have never seen German fighter pilots admitting that their claims were just inflated. Discussion on AHF - scroll halfway down to my post Rudel may well have been exceptional - but that does not mean that he got 500 kills. He would be exceptional if he got 100, in my view. No - I have never looked into this, but I am sure there are overclaims there too. 90% sounds high, but maybe?

I am not sure what these two things have to do with each other. German armour played a major role in getting the Wehrmacht to the gates of Leningrad as well. It was the armoured thrust by Panzergruppe 4 that broke through the Soviet lines and deep into the rear of their positions, while the infantry was either strung out behind, or peeled off north to clear the Baltic states.

On what do you base this assumption? I could equally well assume it was a breakthrough area, because of the presence of the IS-2 - a tank generally assigned to support infantry breakthroughs in Soviet doctrine.

Not finished, and most likely won't be. You can find all the mods produced for it here: Sealion Project Battles are in the process of being tested, and some are ready for publication, but the main ones have hit unfortunate CMAK-related snags and may not be published at all.

I watched the movie, the text says nothing about kills by the plane. It does not link the disabled IS-2 to the plane attack directly, at best it is an indirect link due to the juxtaposition of the tank and the air attack in the movie, but without watching the whole movie of which this clip is a part, I would not make that link, and if I were to make it I would call it propaganda. As I posted in the other thread, I do not believe for a second that Rudel got 500+ tank kills. Unless each of those involved someone walking to the 500+ tank wrecks in question and verify it.

DT - unless the procedure for a confirmed kill for Rudel was that it would be confirmed after someone went out to look at the wreck, you will have a hard time convincing the doubters like me that he got 500 kills, if that is what you intend to do. I would not credit him with 500 hits unless that had been the case. Rudel was a posterchild for German propaganda. German Luftwaffe claims verification for aerial victories is quite suspect, as I understand it. Put all these together and it goes a lot further than the many assumptions you have made so far to show that Rudel may really have gotten his 500+ kills. Now this question is completely irrelevant to the question of whether tactical air attack was an effective weapon in WW2. I think from what I have read that the terror effect on the enemy and the positive morale effect on the PBI on the allied side when they got to witness attacks on the Germans, together with the effect on supplies, as well as the restriction on operational mobility imposed by it were quite effective. Much more so than the effect of going after specified targets.

Hehe - I am so proud.

Probably yes, although it would have been very costly. Killed the lot of them? I doubt this is a likely scenario. Why not? Different question - the German could have made a real effort and maybe succeed in taking Leningrad in September 1941. No fundamental change to Barbarossa required. The major effect of this is that the Soviets lose a lot of forces at Leningrad, but also a drain on their resources that did not contribute a lot to the fighting elsewhere. While the German assault on Moscow is likely to have a much more secure northern flank, because 16. Armee would have been able to advance further east into the Waldai hills region. With a secure northern flank, Heeresgruppe Mitte may have done better in advancing towards Moscow, and in weathering the Soviet counter-attacks at Moscow. Taking Leningrad would also have affected Finnish policy, if Ziemke is to be believed, and made for a stronger effort by the Finns east of Lake Ladoga. I doubt the Germans would have razed the city completely or immediately. As long as the war went on it would have been a major supply centre for operations on the northern and central axis.

No need to - they are Luftwaffe claims, which means that in terms of correctness they stand above the ten commandments in the version that Moses received. I mean, you are not seriously doubting that they are incorrect, just because they have never been verified by comparing to the losses of the other side. Whatever next - are you going to tell us that German tanker kill claims are incorrect?! Ps. Does it smell like Lewis in this thread?

They were not just useful to attack tanks, so the success or otherwise in attacking tanks may have zero to do with the decision to continue the production of the IL-2.

There were 248 total write offs for the Germans to mid-July on the Kursk front. They really started losing their tanks after this, when they had to abandon vehicles in repair shops because of the Soviet advance.

That statement and my sig are not mutually exclusive. But you don't want to get my view on UK government tendering, I hope/guess/believe/pray. All the best Andreas

It'll reverberate through the earth.

Actually, the disparity in armour will be far worse for the Germans if the battle is not fought as it occured historically, since they lost next to no tanks during their attack, while the Soviets lost hundreds. All the best Andreas

Indeed, if you were a logical positivist, you should have been able to make a verifiable prediction of it. All the best, John. </font>

De Gaulle was promoted acting Brigadier-General with effect from 1st June. He held a high-level command before that as commander of tank forces of 5th Army. Apart from Gamelin, which French generals qualify for worst, and why? Names, appointments, reasons please. It is very easy for you to show you are not talking out of your arse. Just answer the question.

I don't think that is correct. AFAICT the gun stayed in service with the Heer throughout the war, either in mechanised formations or in Heerestruppen specialised artillery Abteilungen.

Stop being so reasonable. But you are right. All the best Andreas Ps. Come back next week when I do my John D. Salt impression.

In recognition of this, Dowding was sacked following the BoB. Institutional in-fighting at its finest.

Are you refering to our PBEM game??? Mind your OWN business, Sir! :mad: </font>