Need a short translation from Russian please.

[Michael Dorosh]

Эффективность "Кольца смерти" была продемонстрирована под Курском; массированое применение Ил-2 по германской 9-й танковой дивизии 07.07.43 привело к потере 70 ее танков за 20 минут. Два часа непрерывных ударов стоили 3-й танковой дивизии 270 танков и около 2000 убитых; через четыре часа 17 танковая дивизия фактически перестала существовать как боеспособная часть, потеряв уничтоженными 240 машин из примерно 300.

[76mm]

Эффективность "Кольца смерти" была продемонстрирована под Курском; массированое применение Ил-2 по германской 9-й танковой дивизии 07.07.43 привело к потере 70 ее танков за 20 минут. Два часа непрерывных ударов стоили 3-й танковой дивизии 270 танков и около 2000 убитых; через четыре часа 17 танковая дивизия фактически перестала существовать как боеспособная часть, потеряв уничтоженными 240 машин из примерно 300.

I'll give it a shot...

"The effectiveness of the "Ring of death" was demonstrated at Kursk; the massive application of Il-2 against the German 9th Panzer Division on July 7 1943 led to its loss of 70 tanks in 20 minutes. Two hours of continual strikes cost the 3rd Panzer Division 270 tanks and about 2000 casualties; in about 4 hours the 17th Panzer Division practically ceased to exist as a fighting unit, losing 240 destroyed vehicles out of a total of approximately 300."

[Inola]

The effectiveness of “ring of death” was shown under Kursk. Massive stroke of IL-2 on German positions of 9th Pz div on 7th July 43 caused loss of 70 its tanks for 20 minutes. Two hours of non-stop strokes destroyed 270 tanks and 2000 causalities in 3rd Pz div. After four hours, 17th Pz div had lost 240 AFVs from 300 and in fact was no more able to fight.

From translator-different numbers of divisions is not a mistake.

Interesting-one Pz div consist of 60 tanks, as I remember. Is it mistake of author?

Sorry for doubl.

[ June 18, 2006, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Inola ]

[Michael Dorosh]

This is being discussed at the wikipedia talk page for "Ilyushin Il-2". The exact translation of "tank", "AFV" and "vehicle" seems to be a point of contention. Would love for some of the fellows from this board to jump in there and lend their knowledge to the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ilyushin_Il-2

Yes, 300 tanks seems a bit high for a panzer division, hence why I thought this snippet complete nonsense. It comes from a secondary source, unfootnoted, published behind the Iron Curtain in 1966.

[76mm]

In your quote, the references to the first two panzer divisions explicitly mention "tank" losses. The last one lost "machiny" which I think is best translated as "vehicles". I'll try to look at the wiki page later tonight.

I don't really think it's a translation issue, just sloppy reporting. or more likely, sloppy historians. Somewhere along the line, someone who didn't know or care any better decided that the only vehicles that panzer divisions must have are tanks...

[76mm]

Just took a look at the wiki page--pretty heated and involved discussion, but it seems like the main issue is source material, not translation.

I'm no Soviet military expert, but I would basically treat the claims in your quote as complete baloney, regardless of whether it can be cited to a particular source. From what I have seen, Soviet publications of all types from that era--military, economic, historical, diplomatic, etc. etc.--are all primarily propaganda and should only secondarily be regarded as factual. Your problem is going to be proving a negative--finding a source which states that 300 tanks weren't destroyed by the "ring of death". Hopefully JasonC to the rescue!

[Santosdiablo]

I looked into the page, and I can see that you are makeing lots of friends...

Maybe you could NOT delete that dudes stuff and maybe he wouldnt be so angry. And maybe just maybe you could try to reply to him without as he says it "moveing everything around"

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Santosdiablo:

I looked into the page, and I can see that you are makeing lots of friends...

Maybe you could NOT delete that dudes stuff and maybe he wouldnt be so angry. And maybe just maybe you could try to reply to him without as he says it "moveing everything around"

You obviously didn't look into the page hard enough, then. Pity. I guess you must have missed this stuff, or figure there is a good reason for not deleting it.

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

And now for the part that you ignored which will be posted twice, next time it will be 4 times and the time after that 8 times untill you reply to it.

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

76mm - thanks for looking at that. Yeah, good sources in English are hard to find; I would think German sources would be necessary for corroborating claims, but the only source used so far is a Russian one from the height of the Cold War so I have my doubts on how useful it is.

[Santosdiablo]

Yupp, I am an editor on wiki and I know that it is forbidden to remove stuff from the talk page except obvoius vandalism like pneis boobies and penis

Look just reply to him without makeing him so angry and everyone will be happy

Also you will see that he hasent touched the article page which I might unless you reply to him

Fight the power!

I can see that he is also new, maybe that is the main factor in his anger because it is very hard for him to follow your edits.

Cut him a **** load of slack and go the extra mile for him

[ June 18, 2006, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Santosdiablo ]

[zmoney]

через четыре часа 17 танковая дивизия фактически перестала существовать как боеспособная часть, потеряв уничтоженными 240 машин из примерно 300

I think it's funny because this statement here says that the 17th division ceased to be an effective fighting unit solely due to air attacks.

If that was so, then why did the Soviets use their ground forces at all? They should have just used airpower until there were no more Germans. Tell the guy your discussing this with to use his head, common sense will tell you that this is wrong.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by zmoney:

I think it's funny because this statement here says that the 17th division ceased to be an effective fighting unit solely due to air attacks.

If that was so, then why did the Soviets use their ground forces at all?

Huh. Airforces can't take ground.

[Bigduke6]

The only quibble I have with 76mm's original translation is that I would say the claim was 2000 killed, while 76mm writes "casualties". Not a big deal.

I think one needs to be careful when looking at a report like this. There are several reasons why:

1. It could be Cold War propaganda invented out of whole cloth.

2. It is based on pilot claims, which are notoriously unreliable. A tank left burning by an aircraft can, sometimes, be rolling along just fine only minutes after the plane flies away.

3. It is clearly one-sided, i.e., whatever really happened on 7.07.43 we are only getting half the story, as this history had no input from German records.

But does that mean a swarm of Il-2s did not put the hurt on a bunch of German panzers on that day, and that in fact Sturmoviks didn't do jack?

That's harder to determine. Try this scenario on for size.

1. German panzer division engages in extensive ground action and over time is ground down to say 20 - 30 tanks and maybe 40 - 50 lighter armored vehicles.

2. German panzer division is now moving from "a" to "b", across the steppe, and the weather is great.

3. Ground combat has stripped away a lot of the German flak: after all if you use your 20mm and 88mm in ground support it's not so easy to have it ready if planes come. The Luftwaffe is somewhere else adding to its reputation of fighting valiently against overwhelming odds - meaning this bit of sky is pure unadulterated Red.

4. The Soviets dope out the Germans are moving, which probably would be fairly easy as communications security gets worse when units move under pressure, and they decide to send every friggen' Sturmovik that can fly and has range to the area. Say they get really organized

and manage an air army's worth, which would probably be minumum 150 aircraft, and if all the planets aligned right could be as many as 500 I guess.

(Although the air traffic control problem of 500 Soviet pilots in a small air space is scary just to think about. :eek: Not that the Soviets would have crashed into each other in dozens, just a couple of planes lost and sure the Red Air Force could handle that. But the westerner in me assumes all those planes needed to be controlled, which was pretty much impossible. I am positive the Soviet solution was just to send the planes and let the pilots sort things out themselves. Another example of how the Red Army "did business" differently from the western militaries, I suppose. Moving right along...)

5. Sturmoviks zoom around and do their thing, maybe KOing 10-15 tanks tops, but banging up almost all a bit, and of course pretty much waxing the light stuff.

6. Sturmoviks fly away but Soviets retain air superiority, as the Luftwaffe is adding to its glorious reputation elsewhere and in any case the damage is already done and the region is swarmong with Red fighters, so why waste German air frames against that. Result: Recovering immobile tanks becomes a big problem - how do the Germans get a recovery vehicle in?

7. Meanwhile the battle is fluid and the Germans, being Germans, are sucking all rear area

people they can find into ad hoc kamfgruppen, and that definately would include tank recovery personnel unable to do their job because the sky is full of Yaks, MiGs, and LaGs.

8. Also since this is a fluid battle some of the panzers are running out of fuel, and the fuel vehicles aren't coming to help because of all the Red aircraft in the sky.

8. Battle moves on and the Soviets eventually recover the battlefield. The Soviet recovery teams count 70 or so panzers stopped in the general area of what was known to have been a big Sturmovik strike.

The pilots of course probably claimed 150 - 200 kills, so 70 panzers seems like a reasonable "real" number to the Soviet historians who, like most battle historians, tean to focus on major battlefield events and so low-ball the importance of minor battlefield events, a/k/a attrition.

So where are the lies?

Well, obviously the Il-2s didn't kill 70 panzers in 20 minutes.

But, the strike and its aftermath for practical purposes made a panzer division combat ineffective. The crews got away of course, and the rear area vehicles not going near the area also probably survived. But once the tanks and associated vehicles came under the Il-2s, for practical purposes most remained in that spot until captured by the Soviets.

It quite possibly could have happened that way, or of course in some other way. What I'm trying to illustrate here is it is quite possible to pick apart the history of a battlefield event and find tons of inconsistencies, and still the history contains facts, and is certainly not invented.

In my experience if you take the Soviet Cold War account, and then match it against German Cold War accounts, there is agreement on the battlefield event, but disagreement on the cause. In terms of reliability I rate them equal; I have read von Mellenthin and Leliushenko in the original both, and IMO they both had about as much respect for disciplined military history as the Brazilian national football team has for conservative hair styles.

Figuring out why combat goes one way or another is more complicated than deciding whether you believe von Mellenthin or Leliushenko.

And another thing....Hobbyists like to make a lot of noise about Il-2s armor and weaponry and so forth, TigerII of the sky and all that, but the really important thing about the aircraft was that the Soviets produced it in ungodly numbers, and it was not really complicated to fly. The approach was exactly the same as the T-34: make a war machine that is not perfect, but still pretty good at most things and great at doing its particular bit in Red Army massed warfare. I'm too lazy to Wiki it but I'm pretty sure it was one of the most-produced aircraft of the whole durn war.

Who needs Rudel when you can throw 20-30 Sturmoviks at a single panzer platoon?

Man, the Red Army was really cool. The ueber-weapons fans just don't know it.

[ June 19, 2006, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Inola]

The other question, what projectiles were used in this attack. I wached on TV (it is our time, so it is unlikely to be propaganda), that main role in destuction of German panzers was playing light heat bomb. Its weight was lesser then 10 kg (as i remember), so it was not nessesary to aim perfectly, because they used that bombs in large numbers. And panzer top was very vunerable for that.

P.S. Relly, AFV was beter to translate as vehicle, but i thought that mention of Pz div was enough.

There were 36 163 IL-2 produced during the war.

As some sources tell, armor of IL-2 could stop even 20 mm projectiles, and Ju-87 was armed only with anti-bullet protection.

[ June 19, 2006, 05:21 AM: Message edited by: Inola ]

[76mm]

As some sources tell, armor of IL-2 could stop even 20 mm projectiles

Is this true? If so it is amazing...

Maybe it could be true of a couple of key areas--engine cowling, etc.?

[Inola]

Of course, it wasnt flying piece of steel. It had mass 5873 kg, and 400-600 kg for bobm charge.

Engine 1500-1600 (at start) hp.

Ju-87: 5720 kg, bobm charge 1800 kg. Engine 1400 hp. Produced nearly 5000.

As stories tell, IL-2 was able to return from battle with holes in carrier flatness, where people can get throu. From the "biography" of one plane-150 flights and 600 shell-holes.

http://www.battlefront.ru/luft3.htm

[Santosdiablo]

Still no reply michael, you deleted and moved his posts around like you own the place and then you dare do it a second time and still no reply. Either reply to him or I will step in and **** you real hard

He is the man, he has such diciplin he hasent touched the article and waits for your reply, and the only thing you can do is act all arrogant and remove his posts and move them around.

In other words you are a bully or alteast a wannabe.

Why did he say dont delete move or hide my posts so many times

Maybe because you deleted and hid his posts. Which is not allowed.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Speaking of getting it real hard, I expect Madmatt to be visiting this thread soon.

[Da Beginna]

To my limited knowledge it is true that the armor of the Il2 could stop the HE rounds of a 2 cm Flak. Which led to the final decision (after some bureaucratic bull****) to allow Flak gunners to use AP rounds against this plane called Betonflugzeug (concrete plane) by the Germans.

Of course the AP rounds required a direct hit on the airframe while HE rounds relied on shrapel hits.

The Il2 surely was an interesting plane made for strafing runs, while the Stuka was meant to be a dive bomber. The Germans lacked a true ground attack plane (Schlachtflugzeug) so they had to use the Henschel Hs 129 which arrived late and in relatively small numbers. Wiki says only 25 of the Hs 129 armed with a 7,5 gun were delivered as late as 1944.

The German air doctrine initialy lacked or widely ignored the concept of ground attack planes in favor of dive bombers. They learnt how useful this concept could be from the Soviets. The conversion of the FW 190 F showed that the Germans learnt this lesson pretty late. While the Hs 123 showed that the concept was known to them before but considered as secondary.

IMO, the Il2 must be a fearsome enemy - also because the enemy (Germans) tried to copy the concept.

Fas est et ab hoste doceri.

[Inola]

And about controll of the planes. Attakck of Perl Harbor by Chinis was not a job of hundreds planes, doing what they want, but a planned, well-controlled attack. And there were some waves, not one. And each contained more than 100 planes (perhaps, much more, i telling 100 not to lie). So why same operation couldnt be made by Soviet Airforces?

And reasonable questions: What friquencies were used for communications of planes, and what type of resievers-trancievers.

[Joachim]

Because the Japanese...

...sunk ships - much bigger targets.

...ships lying still in the harbor

...ships without camo

...attacked a force that was ill-prepared for an air attack

...established air supremacy first

Gruß

Joachim

[Inola]

I mean not the results of attack. I dont want to say something wrong about defenders. I just want to show, that controll of air armies was possible without falling of planes and etc.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Da Beginna:

To my limited knowledge it is true that the armor of the Il2 could stop the HE rounds of a 2 cm Flak. Which led to the final decision (after some bureaucratic bull****) to allow Flak gunners to use AP rounds against this plane called Betonflugzeug (concrete plane) by the Germans.

Of course the AP rounds required a direct hit on the airframe while HE rounds relied on shrapel hits.

I rather think that HE rounds need a direct hit on the airframe, too.

Unless you imagine that 2cm rounds had proximity fuzes?

All the best,

John.

[Inola]

There is difference between firing planes at big heights and defence against shturmoviks. Firing at large height means that the haight, where the HE projectile will explode is defined, and there is not nessesatry to have a dierect hit. 88 mm flak was primaly used for this target, as i think.

[Joachim]

Michael,

Jason gave you that link in a recent post:

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/data.htm

"The largest portion of this data comes from the KOSAVE II study, run by the US Army's Concept Analysis Agency, and carried out by the Dupuy Institute and Russian subcontractors Rantek. The data reproduced comes from that report, with permission. The full report - hardcopy, plus a full CD of data - can be purchased from NTIS in the US, for US Nationals." So it should be a reliable source.

The data claims for the 3rd PD that it had 77 tanks (plus 2 PzIII spotter), 2 StuGIIIs and 12 Marder II on 4 July. There are no siginificant losses on any day. Lowest number for tanks is 38 on 11th, rising to 51 on 18 July.

Total number of vehicles is 197 on 4 July hitting a low on 15th with 140 vehicles.

No room for 270 destroyed vehicles or tanks in two hours

Concentrate on the amount of tanks, AGs and TDs in the OOB of a standard German division. Then just tell that IL-2 fan to do the math. He is already on the defence stating that somebody else added the "9th PD" - though it is in your source, which makes the whole Russian quote unreliable. Next line of defence for him will be that only the 3rd Pd got hit at Kursk, not the others. Deny him that line of defense early by referencing to some sites with OOBs.

Gruß

Joachim

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[snips]

Yeah, good sources in English are hard to find; I would think German sources would be necessary for corroborating claims, but the only source used so far is a Russian one from the height of the Cold War so I have my doubts on how useful it is.

And with good reason, I think.

Page 260 of "The Battle for Kursk 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study" (tr. Glantz & Orenstein, Frank Cass, London, 1999) has this to say:

"Ground forces highly valued the work of aviation on the battlefield. In a number of instances enemy attacks were thwarted thanks to our air operations. Thus on 7 July enemy tank attacks were disrupted in the Kashara region (13th Army). Here our assault aircraft delivered three powerful attacks in groups of 20-30, which resulted in the destruction and disabling of 34 tanks. The enemy was forced to halt further attacks and to withdraw the remnants of his force north of Kashara."

Kashara is on the northern flank of the salient; I cannot make out what German units were deployed around there using the dreadful maps in the book, but the date I think is too much of a coincidence to be other than the attack your source refers to. 34 tanks claimed is a bit of a come-down, and I think very much more believable.

All the best,

John.