John D Salt Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Originally posted by RockinHarry: Could be the info is already buried somewhere in this long thread, but has any of you good sources about actual tank engagement tactics for any of the dedicated tank hunter planes (Ju-87G, HS129, Il-2M)? I´m discussing that topic in one of the Il-2 game boards too, but it seems that the only way to kill a medium to heavy tank in the game is by use of dive attacks, aimung at top armor! :confused: The best I can do is some old snippetry from WO 232/24, "German weapon development", which is mostly about air weapons. A report on the effectiveness of the Hs 129 considers it vulnerable to AA and fighters due to its low speed. From this account it appears that the Stuka with 37mm guns was developed after the Hs 129. Some Hs 129 pilots had the MK 101 3cm cannon replaced by additional bombs. It is stated that pilots in training with the anti-tank Staffel of JG51 obtained 60% hits with the MK 101. The achievements of II SG 1 during 1942 are summarized as: 6508 sorties (average of 17 to 18 every 24 hours) 3138 sorties by Hs 129, 1532 by Hs 123, 1838 by Me 109E. 1386.5 tons of bombs released, 52 Soviet aircraft shot down and 55 destroyed on the ground. Casualties in Gruppe: 20 Hs 129, 5 Hs 123, 16 Me 109E. Claims of destruction for 91 tanks, 1081 light MT and 273 vehicles. German strafing attack tactics for the Me 109F are described as follows: "The target is approached at almost vertical angle at a speed of approximately 375 m.p.h. The attack is delivered and a steep climb made immediately. The method of low parallel ground strafing is not favoured." "Cannon attacks on M.T. have been made from as low as 250/300 feet. The method is to approach at a height of about 2,500 feet from which altitude the bombs are dropped. After release of bombs a final dive is made down to about 300 feet and the M.G. armament brought into action." For the Hs 129 a maximum dive angle of 70º, and speed should not exceed 340 m.p.h. Mention is made of SD2 and SD50 anti-personnel bombs. The dive angle for bomb release is 60º. Ju 87s generally carry one 250 Kg SC or SD, or 500 Kg for dealing with heavy tanks. They approach at 7,000–9,000 feet, and pull out of their dives at 2,500–4,000 feet to stay out of range of MG fire. "It has been noted from several sources that not only German infantry but also German tank formations have often been unwilling to attack unless preceded by Stuka bombing and several indications have been received of the enthusiasm with which the presence of Stukas is received by German troops and of their anxiety that Stukas should assist them in their assaults." All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Originally posted by RockinHarry: Could be the info is already buried somewhere in this long thread, but has any of you good sources about actual tank engagement tactics for any of the dedicated tank hunter planes (Ju-87G, HS129, Il-2M)? I´m discussing that topic in one of the Il-2 game boards too, but it seems that the only way to kill a medium to heavy tank in the game is by use of dive attacks, aimung at top armor! :confused: The best I can do is some old snippetry from WO 232/24, "German weapon development", which is mostly about air weapons. A report on the effectiveness of the Hs 129 considers it vulnerable to AA and fighters due to its low speed. From this account it appears that the Stuka with 37mm guns was developed after the Hs 129. Some Hs 129 pilots had the MK 101 3cm cannon replaced by additional bombs. It is stated that pilots in training with the anti-tank Staffel of JG51 obtained 60% hits with the MK 101. The achievements of II SG 1 during 1942 are summarized as: 6508 sorties (average of 17 to 18 every 24 hours) 3138 sorties by Hs 129, 1532 by Hs 123, 1838 by Me 109E. 1386.5 tons of bombs released, 52 Soviet aircraft shot down and 55 destroyed on the ground. Casualties in Gruppe: 20 Hs 129, 5 Hs 123, 16 Me 109E. Claims of destruction for 91 tanks, 1081 light MT and 273 vehicles. German strafing attack tactics for the Me 109F are described as follows: "The target is approached at almost vertical angle at a speed of approximately 375 m.p.h. The attack is delivered and a steep climb made immediately. The method of low parallel ground strafing is not favoured." "Cannon attacks on M.T. have been made from as low as 250/300 feet. The method is to approach at a height of about 2,500 feet from which altitude the bombs are dropped. After release of bombs a final dive is made down to about 300 feet and the M.G. armament brought into action." For the Hs 129 a maximum dive angle of 70º, and speed should not exceed 340 m.p.h. Mention is made of SD2 and SD50 anti-personnel bombs. The dive angle for bomb release is 60º. Ju 87s generally carry one 250 Kg SC or SD, or 500 Kg for dealing with heavy tanks. They approach at 7,000–9,000 feet, and pull out of their dives at 2,500–4,000 feet to stay out of range of MG fire. "It has been noted from several sources that not only German infantry but also German tank formations have often been unwilling to attack unless preceded by Stuka bombing and several indications have been received of the enthusiasm with which the presence of Stukas is received by German troops and of their anxiety that Stukas should assist them in their assaults." All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Sorry for such a late response, but my PC was nuked by a Troyan worm (or whatever..), I desperately tried to repair the damage (for hours!) but it was fruitless... At least I have saved my most precious files before formating + reinstalling my system! (family photos, WK II potos/films, CM Mods...) Anyway, ... Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hetzer38: And for what it's worth, here's the the point of view of "Das Reich" on the discussion. What's his source for that? All the best Andreas </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Sorry for such a late response, but my PC was nuked by a Troyan worm (or whatever..), I desperately tried to repair the damage (for hours!) but it was fruitless... At least I have saved my most precious files before formating + reinstalling my system! (family photos, WK II potos/films, CM Mods...) Anyway, ... Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hetzer38: And for what it's worth, here's the the point of view of "Das Reich" on the discussion. What's his source for that? All the best Andreas </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Thanks for taking the time to post the bibliography. To be honest, I would not rely too much on Mattson's book if that is indeed it. All secondary sources, who may have their info from lord knows where themselves. In the case of Lucas (which is in my library, unread), it is at least primary sources, but not very hard ones (predominantly personal memories and unit histories as well as articles in veteran's journals). But still, Mattson's bibliography does not sound particularly convincing. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Thanks for taking the time to post the bibliography. To be honest, I would not rely too much on Mattson's book if that is indeed it. All secondary sources, who may have their info from lord knows where themselves. In the case of Lucas (which is in my library, unread), it is at least primary sources, but not very hard ones (predominantly personal memories and unit histories as well as articles in veteran's journals). But still, Mattson's bibliography does not sound particularly convincing. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 17, 2007 Author Share Posted March 17, 2007 Anybody own the oversize book with the rough title of AIRCRAFT VS. TANK? ISTR that in glancing through one it actually had the tactics used by such planes. The one I particularly remember was the serpentine used by the Shturmoviks. John D Salt, Am working from memory here, but I believe that the SD2 was a CBU full of 5 cm mortar shells and that the SD50 was the dread butterfly bomb whose use during the Blitz so paralyzed an English town that the British classified the incident, fearing it would be done again and again if word of its fearsome effectiveness got out. The things were everywhere imaginable and couldn't be touched. The design was so sound the Americans copied it and used it after the war. If you can find the volume GERMAN EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE: Bombs, Rockets, and Fuzes, you can see all the details. The Germans pioneered the modern CBU. Regards, John Kettler [ March 17, 2007, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 17, 2007 Author Share Posted March 17, 2007 Anybody own the oversize book with the rough title of AIRCRAFT VS. TANK? ISTR that in glancing through one it actually had the tactics used by such planes. The one I particularly remember was the serpentine used by the Shturmoviks. John D Salt, Am working from memory here, but I believe that the SD2 was a CBU full of 5 cm mortar shells and that the SD50 was the dread butterfly bomb whose use during the Blitz so paralyzed an English town that the British classified the incident, fearing it would be done again and again if word of its fearsome effectiveness got out. The things were everywhere imaginable and couldn't be touched. The design was so sound the Americans copied it and used it after the war. If you can find the volume GERMAN EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE: Bombs, Rockets, and Fuzes, you can see all the details. The Germans pioneered the modern CBU. Regards, John Kettler [ March 17, 2007, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Originally posted by John Kettler: Anybody own the oversize book with the rough title of AIRCRAFT VS. TANK? Do you mean "Aggressors, Vol. 1: Tank Buster vs. Combat Vehicle", by Alex Vanags-Baginskis and Rikyu Watanabe (Airlife, 1990)? If so, I can't find any specific mention of tactics used by German aircraft, apart from a bit about how to attack using Panzerfausts from a Bücker Bestmann (Approach on the deck, climb to 20-30m at 500m from the target, attack in a shallow dive firing at 150-200m and making an immediate steep evasive turn) and the implication that Schlachtgeschwader aircraft usually made multiple passes (which would not have been fashionable on the Western front). Originally posted by John Kettler: Am working from memory here, but I believe that the SD2 was a CBU full of 5 cm mortar shells and that the SD50 was the dread butterfly bomb Close; according to http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bombs.html the SD2 was the butterfly bomb, SD50 being a conventional bomb of (as the designation suggests) about 50Kg. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Originally posted by John Kettler: Anybody own the oversize book with the rough title of AIRCRAFT VS. TANK? Do you mean "Aggressors, Vol. 1: Tank Buster vs. Combat Vehicle", by Alex Vanags-Baginskis and Rikyu Watanabe (Airlife, 1990)? If so, I can't find any specific mention of tactics used by German aircraft, apart from a bit about how to attack using Panzerfausts from a Bücker Bestmann (Approach on the deck, climb to 20-30m at 500m from the target, attack in a shallow dive firing at 150-200m and making an immediate steep evasive turn) and the implication that Schlachtgeschwader aircraft usually made multiple passes (which would not have been fashionable on the Western front). Originally posted by John Kettler: Am working from memory here, but I believe that the SD2 was a CBU full of 5 cm mortar shells and that the SD50 was the dread butterfly bomb Close; according to http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bombs.html the SD2 was the butterfly bomb, SD50 being a conventional bomb of (as the designation suggests) about 50Kg. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 John D Salt, You're right about the book title (checked Amazon.com, no review), and I recall there was a volume on aircraft vs. subs plus others. Am surprised there's no discussion of German tankbusting tactics, but the aerial Panzerfaust firing from a Bestmann must've been a sight to see. Sorry I flubbed the CBU discussion, but I can say that the cluster munition based on a canister of mortar bombs was in use by the invasion of Russia, for I remember reading about it somewhere and being surprised. The ordnance volume I described was fantastic. I say was because I lent my Paladin press facsimile copy to a bomb disposal peace officer I knew and it vanished in the chaos of his rapidly following divorce and moving out of the area. Grr! Regards, John Kettler [ March 17, 2007, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 John D Salt, You're right about the book title (checked Amazon.com, no review), and I recall there was a volume on aircraft vs. subs plus others. Am surprised there's no discussion of German tankbusting tactics, but the aerial Panzerfaust firing from a Bestmann must've been a sight to see. Sorry I flubbed the CBU discussion, but I can say that the cluster munition based on a canister of mortar bombs was in use by the invasion of Russia, for I remember reading about it somewhere and being surprised. The ordnance volume I described was fantastic. I say was because I lent my Paladin press facsimile copy to a bomb disposal peace officer I knew and it vanished in the chaos of his rapidly following divorce and moving out of the area. Grr! Regards, John Kettler [ March 17, 2007, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Reference to use of fragmentation ammunition in Barbarossa is made here: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/mar-apr/ratley.htm I believe it was introduced in 1941. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Reference to use of fragmentation ammunition in Barbarossa is made here: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/mar-apr/ratley.htm I believe it was introduced in 1941. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Here's some more info from Martin Pegg's "Hs 129 Panzerjäger!": ...In January 1943, Dornemann was appointed Staffelkapitän of 4.(Pz)/Sch.G 1 based at Stalino, but between February and May, 1943, he was unable to obtain a single confirmed tank kill, despite his repeated and determined cannon attacks. He knew he was hitting the target and the tanks often clattered to a standstill, but without any visible sign of damage a confirmed kill could not be awarded...(1) (1) As well as Tank "kills", pilots could claim tanks "Hit with measurable effect"; in other words, damaged to an extent which would temporarily put them out of action. ...Georg Dornemann's technique for destroying tanks was to attack them from the side so that if his shells failed to penetrate the interior, he at least stood a good chance of immobilizing the vehicle by damaging its tracks and wheels. Occassionaly, he would approach his intended victims from behind and endeavour to destroy the fuel tanks. If successful, such attacks frequently started "... brilliant firework display"... ...During the run-up to a tank target, Dornemann frequently used his 20mm guns loaded with tracer and high-explosive shells to aim, but on some occassions he was so certain of a hit he fired only his tungsten-cored ammunition. If struck in the right place, a tank could be destroyed or disabled with two or three of the armour-piercing rounds... ...It was not until 1944 that a training manual for attacking tanks was completed and until this time no standard method existed. Instead, it would seem that each individual Staffelkapitän operated more or less as he saw fit, and two different methods of attack were evolved, each of which had its favourable points. Franz Oswald and Bruno Meyer preferred to approach from behind, where the tank's armor was thinnest...[...I'll summarize the rest...] * Added advantage of attacking from behind: - if own aircraft is hit during approach, you're already flying in the general direction of your own troops... * Disadvantages - target is very small when viewed from behind, pilot has to be an excellent marksman; - in order to ensure hits @ 90° @ rear sloped armor, you have to fire while being in a dive and in order to avoid crashing into target, you have to pull out at greater range than if you were attacking horizontally. (...or you press it home to point-blank range and...KABOOM!) Walter Krause, who flew with 10.(Pz)/SG9, confirmed that because of the dangers of this method of attack his Staffel performed horizontal attacks as a standard. Using the fuselage-mounted weapons to correct aim, pilots would open fire @ close range with MK 101 / MK 103 cannon, usually from ~250-50 m (~820-164 ft), banking immediatly to avoid any explosion if the target detonated immediatly after being hit. Here's a nice photo showing the white diagonal lines painted on the port glass side panel. These lines (calibrated for 10°,20° and 30° dives) aided the pilot in aligning with the horizon during diving attacks. [from: Squadron Signal No 1176 "HS 129 In Action"] And here's a self-explaining scan from Martin Pegg's "Hs 129-bible": Cheers, Hetzer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Here's some more info from Martin Pegg's "Hs 129 Panzerjäger!": ...In January 1943, Dornemann was appointed Staffelkapitän of 4.(Pz)/Sch.G 1 based at Stalino, but between February and May, 1943, he was unable to obtain a single confirmed tank kill, despite his repeated and determined cannon attacks. He knew he was hitting the target and the tanks often clattered to a standstill, but without any visible sign of damage a confirmed kill could not be awarded...(1) (1) As well as Tank "kills", pilots could claim tanks "Hit with measurable effect"; in other words, damaged to an extent which would temporarily put them out of action. ...Georg Dornemann's technique for destroying tanks was to attack them from the side so that if his shells failed to penetrate the interior, he at least stood a good chance of immobilizing the vehicle by damaging its tracks and wheels. Occassionaly, he would approach his intended victims from behind and endeavour to destroy the fuel tanks. If successful, such attacks frequently started "... brilliant firework display"... ...During the run-up to a tank target, Dornemann frequently used his 20mm guns loaded with tracer and high-explosive shells to aim, but on some occassions he was so certain of a hit he fired only his tungsten-cored ammunition. If struck in the right place, a tank could be destroyed or disabled with two or three of the armour-piercing rounds... ...It was not until 1944 that a training manual for attacking tanks was completed and until this time no standard method existed. Instead, it would seem that each individual Staffelkapitän operated more or less as he saw fit, and two different methods of attack were evolved, each of which had its favourable points. Franz Oswald and Bruno Meyer preferred to approach from behind, where the tank's armor was thinnest...[...I'll summarize the rest...] * Added advantage of attacking from behind: - if own aircraft is hit during approach, you're already flying in the general direction of your own troops... * Disadvantages - target is very small when viewed from behind, pilot has to be an excellent marksman; - in order to ensure hits @ 90° @ rear sloped armor, you have to fire while being in a dive and in order to avoid crashing into target, you have to pull out at greater range than if you were attacking horizontally. (...or you press it home to point-blank range and...KABOOM!) Walter Krause, who flew with 10.(Pz)/SG9, confirmed that because of the dangers of this method of attack his Staffel performed horizontal attacks as a standard. Using the fuselage-mounted weapons to correct aim, pilots would open fire @ close range with MK 101 / MK 103 cannon, usually from ~250-50 m (~820-164 ft), banking immediatly to avoid any explosion if the target detonated immediatly after being hit. Here's a nice photo showing the white diagonal lines painted on the port glass side panel. These lines (calibrated for 10°,20° and 30° dives) aided the pilot in aligning with the horizon during diving attacks. [from: Squadron Signal No 1176 "HS 129 In Action"] And here's a self-explaining scan from Martin Pegg's "Hs 129-bible": Cheers, Hetzer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 Andreas and John D Salt, Something's wrong somewhere, for a quick check of GERMAN INFANTRY WEAPONS, Vol. 1, p. 96 indicates that the 5 cm mortar bomb weighs 2 lbs., or ~ 1 kg. Thus, my original statement about the smaller German CBU was right. The Air University article, though, would appear to be off by a factor of two and change on SD-2 submunition weight. Hetzer38, Good stuff: tactics, various claim criteria, even an actual perforated tank turret! Was surprised to read that the methodical Germans took so long to implement a tactical manual for tankbusting. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 Andreas and John D Salt, Something's wrong somewhere, for a quick check of GERMAN INFANTRY WEAPONS, Vol. 1, p. 96 indicates that the 5 cm mortar bomb weighs 2 lbs., or ~ 1 kg. Thus, my original statement about the smaller German CBU was right. The Air University article, though, would appear to be off by a factor of two and change on SD-2 submunition weight. Hetzer38, Good stuff: tactics, various claim criteria, even an actual perforated tank turret! Was surprised to read that the methodical Germans took so long to implement a tactical manual for tankbusting. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 there is an SD1 bomb called a "mortar bomb" at the page linked by John - its description is here - weight 1 kg, diameter 50mm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 there is an SD1 bomb called a "mortar bomb" at the page linked by John - its description is here - weight 1 kg, diameter 50mm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 Stalin's Organist, Was about to announce "Problem solved!" but you beat me to it. Here's what I found. http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/sd1.htm John D Salt and Andreas, Obviously, I had the wrong nomenclator on the brain! The SD-2 is what made life impossible in that English town. http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/sd2.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 Stalin's Organist, Was about to announce "Problem solved!" but you beat me to it. Here's what I found. http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/sd1.htm John D Salt and Andreas, Obviously, I had the wrong nomenclator on the brain! The SD-2 is what made life impossible in that English town. http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/sd2.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 Here, I believe, is the type of bomb Rudel used in his celebrated/hotly debated attack on the Marat. http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/pc1000.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 Here, I believe, is the type of bomb Rudel used in his celebrated/hotly debated attack on the Marat. http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/pc1000.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Originally posted by Andreas: You lost me there [regarding 1st Ukrainian Front numbers].well, i just tried to point out that those 1st UF figures are usable. anyway here's a rough calculation based on Central Front figures. it should meet your criticism. first we assume that Central Front faced in July-August 1943 an unusually high proportion of all German air strikes. besides the Central Front losses of 187 tanks we also have 1st Tank Army of the Voronezh Front report of having lost 37 tanks to German air arm during July 5-20 1943 (same period). together we have reports for 224 tank losses in this two month period. if we assume that these reported losses made up 80% (!) of all Soviet tank losses to German air arm during this period, total Soviet losses for these two months would be 280 tanks or in other words 140 tanks per month. if Germans would have maintained the same rough overall kill level for 1943, 1944 and four months of 1945, we get some 28 months. 28 month x 140 tank/month = 3920 tank. if we assume they were only 30% as effective in 1942 we get for 1942: 12 month x 42 tank/month = 504 tank. if we assume they were only 10% as effective in 1941, we get for 1941: 6 month x 14 tank/month = 84 tank. thus the total would be 84 + 504 + 3920 = 4508 tanks or 4.5% of all Soviet tank losses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.