sturmelon
-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by sturmelon
-
-
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.Originally posted by dieseltaylor:Thanks sturmelon. It is good to see some extra opinions relating back to data. It does seem to make a large hole in the claims figures. It would be nice to see some more info on the effectiveness of the 37mm, compared to the 30mm, and the bomblets. Strange in a sense that this is not covered in the thread.
The more the info comes out the better overall information can be collated.
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.htmHere is a piece of an interview of one of the earliest Stuka pilots to serve in a specialized tank-destroying Staffel....His name is Hermann Neumann.... In an interview with Ed McCaul, Neumann described some of his 368 combat missions, during which he was credited with destroying 68 Russian tanks and was recommended for the Ritterkreuz (Knight's Cross).....
I N T E R V I E W
TANK-BUSTING STUKA PILOT
By Ed McCaul
MH: How much danger was there at 100 meters if the tank would blow up? Would you not have to fly through the debris?
Neumann: After we fired out cannons, we would go to the right or left, but we did not directly fly over the tank. One time a Sergeant Ott was shooting at a Russian Klimenti Voroshilov KV-2 heavy tank that was in between a farm house and a barn. The KV-2 had a big square turret and heavy armor. Ott went down and shot but nothing happened. So he said, "OK, if it does not explode I will make so many holes in it that it will not be any good anymore!" So he went down again and when he was very close to the tank it exploded. The turret flew over his canopy. When we got back to the base he was shaking and kept saying, "I saw the turret over the top of my canopy!"
MH: How low would you have to fly to destroy a tank?
Neumann: For the Stalin we had to fly at 20 or 30 feet...(at) about 300 kilometers per hour. We would be flying that low for maybe five to 10 seconds. If you got them in your sights you only really needed a second or two. Remember, for the Stalin, our guns were adjusted for 100 meters. So, we had to get close to them.
MH: How many tanks did you destroy?
Neumann: I got 68 tanks. I got about 30 with bombs and the rest with the cannons.
MH: How was the morale in the unit when you arrived in December 1943?
Neumann: It was fine. We knew for what we were fighting. Ever tank I destroyed was one less tank that could possibly get to Germany. It was a fight to the end.
[ 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).
quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darrin:
You said in your kursk book that the ger reduced air craft tank kills by 50% from proven claims for planning puposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OKH used such a rule of thumb. It also used (usually) a 30 % reduction of ground forces claims. This procedure enable the German high command to arrive at overall Soviet losses that were quite close to Soviet losses (complete write-offs) as they are presented by post-1990 Russian publications. However, as less than 10 % of all claims were made by air units, it is difficult to tell whether the 50 % "rule of thumb for air claims" was good or not. Since the air units claims were so small they have little influence on the overall accuracy of OKH figures, regardless of whether they were realistic or wildly exaggerated.
In any case, Rudel's 500+ "victims" have not been subjected to the OKH reduction.
[ 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.
-
I have seen better drawings of the T-34.
And correct me if I am wrong but are there not a left and right fuel cell in the transmission area? Perhaps you need to read the thread link you provided? When I say compartmented, I mean that sub-system is compartmented by itself. It clearly is not.
At least you see there is a clear path for projectiles. Thats good. But you seem to think its OK they enter there. Not too good.
[ August 11, 2005, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: sturmelon ]
-
I think you may be forgetting something, Steve. The thing that makes aiming and shooting difficult is relative motion of the shooter to the target. The larger the closing or opening speed to the target, the harder it is to hold a bead. This is why most air to air training in most airforces never went beyond emphasizing getting into the target plane's six. In addition to that likely being in the target's blind spot, it is also the formation where the relative motion of the two is least. Of all the major air forces, I believe that US Navy Air Force was the only one that rigorously trained its pilots in deflection shooting. John Lundstrom in First Team goes into this at some length.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Air to air combat is MUCH harder than air to ground. It is also much harder to hit a moving target in 3D space that is flying as fast, if not faster, than you. Not to mention the physics of aiming shots when not flying dead on at a target.
On the other hand, next to a head on attack with another airplane, the highest closing speed to a target will be to one on the ground. Not surprisingly, the scores of air to ground gunnery during training I recall reading about some years ago were pretty wretched, and this was by pilots who had already qualified in air to air and were firing at ground targets much bigger than a tank.
Motion in three dimensions, while not at all a negligible addition to the problem, has been somewhat overrated in this thread.
Michael </font>
-
You seem to be basing your case on an awful lot of unproven assumptions. Let's take the above. Do you have any evidence that the MG would have the same ballistic properties as the cannon? If not, how much use would it be to range onto the target?Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dieseltaylor:
His guns may have been set up for a cone at 200 metres and use a centrally mounted MG to lead him onto target.
Michael </font>
-
I think myself and others were under the impression that the the 37mm Stuka fired semi-auto. That is, each of the 37mm fired electrically one round at the same time. Simple physics would preclude firing full-auto (the planes nose would dip down).Originally posted by JasonC:People discussing auto cannons and their ability to hit things may be operating under the impression that things like 37mm Stukas are in that category. They are not. The 23mm on Sturms is an autocannon. None of the bigger calibers had a ROF remotely high enough to qualify as one.
German 30mm Mk103 certainly fired full auto and at a somewhat quick rate. 360 rpm is 6 a second.
-
No the bottom drawing is showing the lack of armor across the space under the screen. Notice it DOES show horizontal armor to the left and right of this area.
Having ANY area where a projectile can find its way into the interior of an enclosed AFV is a recipe for disaster. The transmission is not compartmented and fuel tanks, wiring, engine, etc can all be threatened.
-
Not only is air-to-air combat difficult; it is also difficult to teach/learn.
Air to Ground attacks are very easily learned in training (minus the flak factor) and competant pilots can trained on simulated targets. Just learning to roll in and shoot up an old tank on a training ground ensures the pilots do not crash into the ground or miss most of the time.
There's a very good documentary regarding a US P47 pilot around the airwaves. He clearly makes it known that not only can he hit a moving vehicle (a brit armored car), but also individual germans running for thier lives. The ac attack was against a brit ac that was moving on a road. The US pilot only veered off at the last second (all ac look the same) and he said that it would have been toast. To see that documentary and then to hear some of the assumptions that wargamers have makes me wonder.
MG/autocannon fire was accurate. It was also terrifying in that, unlike artillery or tanks, the recipient knew he was being targeted and his cover/concealment was compromised. Even to a hardened vet, it was truly awful minutes.
-
The bottom view clearly shows the area that is 'open' (or covered by screening). It is not possible to box an engine inside without some way for air to ventilate. The best compromise is baffling of armor plates.
-
I believe dieseltaylor has it right.
Rudel and his Stukas were more like Apache gunship support than air support. They were very much defensive and would not have created 'tons' of reports deep behind enemy lines.
The Soviets knew they were attacking over flak defended areas. They could not come in low and slow. hence the design approach they took.
In any case, I do not accept the idea that hitting vehicles with MG/autocannon is such an impossible task. Gun camera footage alone discredits this.
Ground attack is very easily trained into pilots. Much more so than fighter training. Shooting at another plane that is moving in all directions is much harder than diving in and targeting relatively slow targets constrained to two dimensions. Not crashing into the grond is also something that will come from training.
-
This picture clearly shows that the rear of the T34 would be vulnerable to any MG or Cannon directed at its rear deck area from above. The access hatch to the engine compartment is clearly non-armored and the turret access hatch would probably be thinly armored also. The rear deck seems to have air inlets also.
Perhaps an interesting discussion focusing on Rudel.
Does anyone know what number of Stukas with 37mm were ever operational at one time? Some sources say each squadron only had 10 each. In other words, they were somewhat rare.
I think this quote sums up the technical issues...
Most trained ground attack pilots could hit a tank sized target with its MGs/Cannon. Other weapons were not as precise." The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and 20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance. The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."The Germans and the Soviets clearly made designs that focused around a flying HV gun system. This website explains it best.
[ August 11, 2005, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: sturmelon ]
-
The P39 may have been intended as a fighter but was actually used as a ground attack plane. Its Russian nick-name reflected this.
At least eight additional variants were later built. Most changes to the original design involved new engines and propellers, but otherwise the airframe remained very much the same over its production life. The P-39N and P-39Q were built for the Russian air force under the Lend-Lease military assistance program, and 4,773 Airacobras were delivered to Russia by American and Russian ferry pilots. Seven P-39s were designated as the F2L and used as US Navy target drones. The Airacobra served successfully in the ground-attack role in North Africa, and in the Pacific theater, until more powerful fighters began replacing it in 1944. Other nations which acquired P-39s included Portugal, France, and Italy. The Airacobra, though hampered by its lack of a turbocharger, was a very satisfactory low-altitude attack airplane, and served as faithfully as any other combat aircraft.Nicknames: Caribou (RAF), Britchik (i.e. "Little Shaver") (Russian nickname). "Shaving" was slang for "low-level strafing."
Thorn in the Tiger's side?
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
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.