sturmelon

From the interview, and other sources, its pretty clear that these pilots were well aware of the tank types they were hunting. The unbelievably short range at which they are attacking, combined with the slow approach made this unavoidable. They also seem to differentiate between blowing up AFV and merely just hitting them (example: KV story in interview). I would lend credence to the fact that they are decribing destroyed vehicles in many cases. Either that or severally damaged ones. Much more so than fighter-bombers pickling off bombs at higher speeds. From Rudel's ammunition usage numbers, it can be determined that about 25% of his missions were 37mm specific. I would think it safe to assume that this pilot probably flew a likewise number. Perhaps 38 AFV killed/damaged for roughly 90 missions specifically flown in a 37mm Stuka.

Does it appear that the Stuka is firing just one 37mm at a time? Its hard to tell but I believe thats what the video shows. I would think that it would jerk the airframe left or right. Perhaps that is not the case or a pilot could correct after each shot.

You are assuming that all his missions are antitank? He says that he had regular bombing missions in the interview. I think he also flew other planes besides Stuka also.

I think real info might balance out all the arm waiving and self important opinion declarations. Certainly factors of 20 reduction are silly and baseless. It would be nice if the doubters could add some meaningfull data at some time.

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/hermann_neumann.htm [ August 13, 2005, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: sturmelon ]

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000016.html Worth a read. Seems to have actual data (as opposed to this forums fascination with opinions). [ August 13, 2005, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: sturmelon ]

Just to prove the operation of the louvres. Note that an attacking plane shooting up the rear of the tank has a direct LOS into the rear of the engine itself. http://www.gjames.com.au/chris/t34/service.html A good website to bookmark.

Rudel may have flown many of the available aircraft in his unit. In other words, he had rank and he glommed up the planes as soon as they were available. He certainly was fanatical enough. But even if a Stuke could get a tank per sortie (well maybe Rudel might have--see earlier math), the fuel and other resources may not justify the expense. They were basically a rare weapon type.

The Soviets had total write off of 40-50K AFV? That surely means they also had knock-outs that were repaired? Maybe 80K AFV that were completely destroyed and also knocked out but repaired? What is the total German tank claims from aircraft? A few thousand? For every German pilot for the whole war? As I said before, Rudel may have actually had as many successes as he claims, but many were just knock outs that were repaired. Changing the radiators alone in a T34 looks like a real nightmare.

Those are not baffles but louvres on the back of the T34. Any aircraft attacking the rear of the tank would have a clear shot into those louvres. They could be drawn down by a lever but are basically plates on hinges. Hardly as robust as true multi-baffled armor. The fan seems to blow air out of the louvred area and it is therefore drawn in through the single baffled area behind the turret. Under that area is the engine and radiators. Spall and fragments could possibly also go through the baffled area. The louvred area is directly vulnerable to gunfire from an attacking plane. Especially given its way of opening. The exhaust pipes have some covering, but again, the way the rear armor is angled, ricochets from hits directly below the pipe exhaust would enter directly into the armored envelope. The whole rear armor piece is bolted on and those bolts could fly off when strock and become projectiles within that compartment.

I can see inside! See my feet?

Its my studied opinion that any fighter bomber, that concentrated its MG/autocannon firepower into the rear of a T34, could effect a mobility kill or even a knock-out from engine fire/explosion (partially filled tanks). That rear armor plate is a big bolt on. Subject to the same frailitys as any bolted on armor. A 37mm armed stuka could do much worse.

I ask the gentle reader to look at the top right of this picture and see, certainly, that there is a path to the 'fan'... "The Scaup's hood is open for repairs. In the middle is the gearbox surrounded by track brakes and clutches. Yellow color marks the fuel tank and the blue thing is the engine air intake. The starter motor is the surprisingly small black box on top of the gearbox. The large, round black piece of machinery is the flywheel. " {Reader should notice rear armor is removed!} http://guns.connect.fi/gow/T34tank2.html This pic below is looking back from the turret to the rear of the tank. that fan is attached to the flywheel of the engine fer chis' sake! Sorry Mikey. Myth busted. Look at the pic s. Just for reference. The black you see in the rear of this tanks deck is actually a path for projectiles. Know it. [ August 11, 2005, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: sturmelon ]

Here's a T34 engine. That 'fanny' part sticks into the 'compartment' of the transmission. Anyone, with any experience working on real vehciles might snort a chuckle.

Fans are very robust. Always. Yes. Probably make the projectiles fly right back out the way they come. Indeed. Heres what a T34 powerpack and drivetrain look like.