Ju-87/G Stuka tankbuster info (cross post fm CMAK)

[JonS]

Originally posted by McIvan:

With regard to Jon's post, I would agree if you could describe a ship solely in terms of its gun battery, but the ability of a ship to project the power of that battery comes from mobility. I think its a unworkable criteria to judge whether a pilot got a kill on whether or not the owner of a ship intended to move it in the forseeable future.

Even if the soviets would never have moved the Marat again, the potential threat of moving is an attribute...eg Tirpitz holed up in the fjords. A bunch of immobile ships sitting on the harbour bottom represents an entirely different threat to a squadron which could, if it received orders, sally forth.

No, I think in the specific case of the Marat, it's theoretical mobility was completely irrelevant. There was simply no way it was going to go anywhere without German permission.

Pilots often seem to destroy things because they can, not because it's a useful or productive thing to be doing with their time. That's something that occurred to me after reading about the way airpower was applied in WWII, Vietnam, and Gulf War I.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

So IMO it was not sunk,

If it does not float, it not run aground, it was not beached, it did not exactly settle at the bottom of the harbour (peacefully) then what do you call it ?

and it was not destroyed.

Agreed.

The fate of the Marat was not unlike the Pearl Harbour battleship row BB's.

IMO the same criteria should be uset to Marat as was used for the US battleships at Pearl Harbour. If you think they sunk (apart from the one that was beached and the one(s) which capsised) then Marat also sunk.

[ February 27, 2007, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

So IMO it was not sunk,

If it does not float, it not run aground, it was not beached, it did not exactly settle at the bottom of the harbour (peacefully) then what do you call it ?

and it was not destroyed.

Agreed.

The fate of the Marat was not unlike the Pearl Harbour battleship row BB's.

IMO the same criteria should be uset to Marat as was used for the US battleships at Pearl Harbour. If you think they sunk (apart from the one that was beached and the one(s) which capsised) then Marat also sunk.

[ February 27, 2007, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

No, I think in the specific case of the Marat, it's theoretical mobility was completely irrelevant. There was simply no way it was going to go anywhere without German permission.

The bottling up of the Red Banner Fleet at the base of the Gulf of Finland .

The Red Banner Fleet subs sortied from Leningrad so there was a way to get the surface ships out if they had wanted to risk it.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

No, I think in the specific case of the Marat, it's theoretical mobility was completely irrelevant. There was simply no way it was going to go anywhere without German permission.

The bottling up of the Red Banner Fleet at the base of the Gulf of Finland .

The Red Banner Fleet subs sortied from Leningrad so there was a way to get the surface ships out if they had wanted to risk it.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tero:

IMO the same criteria should be uset to Marat as was used for the US battleships at Pearl Harbour. If you think they sunk (apart from the one that was beached and the one(s) which capsised) then Marat also sunk.

Which of the US battleships was able to interfere in enemy action within weeks after the attack, even theoretically?

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tero:

IMO the same criteria should be uset to Marat as was used for the US battleships at Pearl Harbour. If you think they sunk (apart from the one that was beached and the one(s) which capsised) then Marat also sunk.

Which of the US battleships was able to interfere in enemy action within weeks after the attack, even theoretically?

All the best

Andreas

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Which of the US battleships was able to interfere in enemy action within weeks after the attack, even theoretically?

At least West Virginia, possibly also California, would have been able to get some guns firing within days if the Japanese had invaded.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Which of the US battleships was able to interfere in enemy action within weeks after the attack, even theoretically?

At least West Virginia, possibly also California, would have been able to get some guns firing within days if the Japanese had invaded.

[Andreas]

So I wouldn't consider them completely disabled or sunk.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

So I wouldn't consider them completely disabled or sunk.

All the best

Andreas

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

So I wouldn't consider them completely disabled or sunk.

So, since they did not make the effort to get the guns operational immediately they can be kept in the "sunk" status ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

So I wouldn't consider them completely disabled or sunk.

So, since they did not make the effort to get the guns operational immediately they can be kept in the "sunk" status ?

[Mies]

In reading all of the above, I can't help thinking that it would have been a lot shorter conversation if the spot where the Marat was attacked and subsequently sunk, damaged, beached, killed, immobilized and so on, would have been dredged out a little deeper.

Mies

[Mies]

In reading all of the above, I can't help thinking that it would have been a lot shorter conversation if the spot where the Marat was attacked and subsequently sunk, damaged, beached, killed, immobilized and so on, would have been dredged out a little deeper.

Mies

[Andreas]

Of course, if Marat had been in deeper water, she would most likely have sunk. But then again, she would have been able to maneuver, and to avoid being hit so devastatingly in the first place, and so she would not have sunk.

It works both ways.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Of course, if Marat had been in deeper water, she would most likely have sunk. But then again, she would have been able to maneuver, and to avoid being hit so devastatingly in the first place, and so she would not have sunk.

It works both ways.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Andreas:

So I wouldn't consider them completely disabled or sunk.

So, since they did not make the effort to get the guns operational immediately they can be kept in the "sunk" status ?

It is the point where the comparison becomes irrelevant. The Japanese were aiming to remove the American ships from the order of battle for the forthcoming battles. They succeeded. The Stuka attacks on Marat aimed to remove its ability to contribute to the defense of Leningrad. They were only partially successful.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Andreas:

So I wouldn't consider them completely disabled or sunk.

So, since they did not make the effort to get the guns operational immediately they can be kept in the "sunk" status ?

It is the point where the comparison becomes irrelevant. The Japanese were aiming to remove the American ships from the order of battle for the forthcoming battles. They succeeded. The Stuka attacks on Marat aimed to remove its ability to contribute to the defense of Leningrad. They were only partially successful.

All the best

Andreas

[Corvidae]

GROUNDED,

The Marat was Grounded in harbour.

Her decks and superstructure were dry, Therefor she was not sunk.

She was a grounded hulk awaiting salvage.

Then...

She was salvaged and redeployed.

(My father was in the navy in the early 60s. He made me learn this damned terminology.)

[Corvidae]

GROUNDED,

The Marat was Grounded in harbour.

Her decks and superstructure were dry, Therefor she was not sunk.

She was a grounded hulk awaiting salvage.

Then...

She was salvaged and redeployed.

(My father was in the navy in the early 60s. He made me learn this damned terminology.)

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Tero:

If it does not float, it not run aground, it was not beached, it did not exactly settle at the bottom of the harbour (peacefully) then what do you call it ?

Why attach the descriptor "peacefully"? Why does that make a difference?

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Tero:

If it does not float, it not run aground, it was not beached, it did not exactly settle at the bottom of the harbour (peacefully) then what do you call it ?

Why attach the descriptor "peacefully"? Why does that make a difference?

[John Kettler]

I found this pic while looking for something else, and am posting the link to remind people just how impressive those guns were on a Ju-87G. We're not talking stubby 40mm guns inside the wings of a Hurribomber, but long barreled high velocity guns

firing T/APCR/HVAP.

http://www.ww2color.com/search/webapps/slides/slides.php?action=update&primary_key=25003

Notice the very high MV at the link for the BK 3.7, 1170 m/sec for PzGr 40 vs 770 m/sec for standard AP from the same gun as the 3.7cm FlaK 18. (Gander & Chamberlain WEAPONS OF THE THIRD REICH, p. 136). That's even higher than for the PaK 36 firing PzGr 40, 1030 m/sec. (Gander & Chamberlain, p. 113). Page 113 of the same source lists PaK 36 firing PzGr 40 penetration vs. armor at normal as 79mm at 100m, 72mm at 200m, 65mm at 300m and 58mm at 400m, so we should expect more than that from the BK 3.7, and anyone with the physics background to compute the should penetrate numbers ought to look at the Stettin clip to figure out what the effective armor thickness would be with the dive angle factored in.

http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-bi.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 01, 2007, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[John Kettler]

I found this pic while looking for something else, and am posting the link to remind people just how impressive those guns were on a Ju-87G. We're not talking stubby 40mm guns inside the wings of a Hurribomber, but long barreled high velocity guns

firing T/APCR/HVAP.

http://www.ww2color.com/search/webapps/slides/slides.php?action=update&primary_key=25003

Notice the very high MV at the link for the BK 3.7, 1170 m/sec for PzGr 40 vs 770 m/sec for standard AP from the same gun as the 3.7cm FlaK 18. (Gander & Chamberlain WEAPONS OF THE THIRD REICH, p. 136). That's even higher than for the PaK 36 firing PzGr 40, 1030 m/sec. (Gander & Chamberlain, p. 113). Page 113 of the same source lists PaK 36 firing PzGr 40 penetration vs. armor at normal as 79mm at 100m, 72mm at 200m, 65mm at 300m and 58mm at 400m, so we should expect more than that from the BK 3.7, and anyone with the physics background to compute the should penetrate numbers ought to look at the Stettin clip to figure out what the effective armor thickness would be with the dive angle factored in.

http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-bi.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 01, 2007, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]