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

[McIvan]

Actually the Hurribomber carried its 3 metre long 40mm guns in two pods under the wings, much like the Stuka.

The info below is taken from the Wipipedia entry on the Vickers S gun, which was the 40mm gun concerned. I make no claims as to its accuracy, however the article seems to have a reasonable idea of air-to-ground overclaims and the factors causing them.

The Vickers Class "S" 40 mm gun was developed in the late 1930s as an aircraft weapon. The ammunition was based on the 40x158R cartridge case of the naval 2 pdr AA gun. The weapon was a long-recoil design derived from the 37 mm 1½pdr C.O.W. gun.The gun was originally intended as a bomber defensive weapon and was tested as such in a turret fitted to a modified Vickers Wellington II. This was not adopted for service, but when the need to attack tanks from the air was identified the "S" gun was chosen and special armour-piercing ammunition developed.

[edit] Combat History

Two underwing guns were fitted to Hawker Hurricane IID fighters which were issued to No. 6 Squadron RAF. They served in North Africa from mid-1942 where they achieved considerable success; claims included 144 tanks hit, of which 47 were destroyed, plus nearly 200 other vehicles. However, they suffered heavy losses, mainly to ground fire (the Hurricanes were poorly protected) and also lacked effectiveness against the Tiger tank. In 1944, the aircraft served in the Far East, mainly firing HE ammunition against road and river transport.

Tests in the Far East showed a high level of accuracy, with an average of 25% of shots fired at tanks striking the target. Attacks with HE were twice as accurate as with AP, possibly because the ballistics were a closer match with the .303" Brownings used for sighting (the HE shell was lighter and was fired at a higher velocity). By comparison, the practice strike rate of the 60 pdr RPs (rocket projectiles) fired by fighter-bombers was only 5% against tank-sized targets. Operational Research following the Normandy battles of 1944 revealed that in action this fell to only 0.5%, presumably because of problems in making the complex mental calculations about the trajectory of the slow-accelerating rockets, although the effect of a salvo of RPs on the morale of tank crews was admittedly considerable.

[McIvan]

Actually the Hurribomber carried its 3 metre long 40mm guns in two pods under the wings, much like the Stuka.

The info below is taken from the Wipipedia entry on the Vickers S gun, which was the 40mm gun concerned. I make no claims as to its accuracy, however the article seems to have a reasonable idea of air-to-ground overclaims and the factors causing them.

The Vickers Class "S" 40 mm gun was developed in the late 1930s as an aircraft weapon. The ammunition was based on the 40x158R cartridge case of the naval 2 pdr AA gun. The weapon was a long-recoil design derived from the 37 mm 1½pdr C.O.W. gun.The gun was originally intended as a bomber defensive weapon and was tested as such in a turret fitted to a modified Vickers Wellington II. This was not adopted for service, but when the need to attack tanks from the air was identified the "S" gun was chosen and special armour-piercing ammunition developed.

[edit] Combat History

Two underwing guns were fitted to Hawker Hurricane IID fighters which were issued to No. 6 Squadron RAF. They served in North Africa from mid-1942 where they achieved considerable success; claims included 144 tanks hit, of which 47 were destroyed, plus nearly 200 other vehicles. However, they suffered heavy losses, mainly to ground fire (the Hurricanes were poorly protected) and also lacked effectiveness against the Tiger tank. In 1944, the aircraft served in the Far East, mainly firing HE ammunition against road and river transport.

Tests in the Far East showed a high level of accuracy, with an average of 25% of shots fired at tanks striking the target. Attacks with HE were twice as accurate as with AP, possibly because the ballistics were a closer match with the .303" Brownings used for sighting (the HE shell was lighter and was fired at a higher velocity). By comparison, the practice strike rate of the 60 pdr RPs (rocket projectiles) fired by fighter-bombers was only 5% against tank-sized targets. Operational Research following the Normandy battles of 1944 revealed that in action this fell to only 0.5%, presumably because of problems in making the complex mental calculations about the trajectory of the slow-accelerating rockets, although the effect of a salvo of RPs on the morale of tank crews was admittedly considerable.

[Hetzer38]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

..., ought to look at the "Stettin clip" to figure out what the effective armor thickness would be with the dive angle factored in.

...maybe one should also take a look at the "Kicking it like Rudel!"-clip.

The "Steckrübenwurf"-movie shows some great scenes of JU87D5s(?) swooping down at very low level and aiming their bombs with great precision directly onto the hulls of (most likely) T34s.

...and just for the interest, the "Rudel's interview in Luftwaffe-Lazarett 1945"-movie...god, what a fanatic...maybe someone with better german-english translation capabilities could translate Rudel's speech?

Cheers, Hetzer.

P.S.

And just for the fun of it, have you ever seen a Stuka rigged like this?

This picture was taken on 25.8.1943 and shows the welcome for Lt. Fritz Neumüller, Gruppenadutant of II./St.G. 77, after his 500 Feindflug. The Gruppe was based at Poltawa. Noteworthy in this picture is the modification of the armament done by the ground crew. The Ju 87D-3 or D-5 has beside the standard MG 81Z (=Zwilling, calibre 7.92 mm, from D-1 onwards) also a movable MG 81 on both sides. This gave Uffz. Wolfinger (right), Lt. Neumüller's Bordfunker, the possibility to fire in three directions. This may have been an unwelcome surprise for every russian fighter attacking this aircraft! The MG 81 Z has been removed, only the frame GSL-k81Z can be seen. The barrels seem to be carried by the 1. Wart on the left. Lt. Fritz Neumüller (RK 4.5.1944) was killed on 17.8.1944 when his Fw 190 was hit by AAA over the Baranow-bridgehead.

[from "Luftwaffe im Fokus" No 2 - 2003, p 17]

[ March 01, 2007, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]

[Hetzer38]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

..., ought to look at the "Stettin clip" to figure out what the effective armor thickness would be with the dive angle factored in.

...maybe one should also take a look at the "Kicking it like Rudel!"-clip.

The "Steckrübenwurf"-movie shows some great scenes of JU87D5s(?) swooping down at very low level and aiming their bombs with great precision directly onto the hulls of (most likely) T34s.

...and just for the interest, the "Rudel's interview in Luftwaffe-Lazarett 1945"-movie...god, what a fanatic...maybe someone with better german-english translation capabilities could translate Rudel's speech?

Cheers, Hetzer.

P.S.

And just for the fun of it, have you ever seen a Stuka rigged like this?

This picture was taken on 25.8.1943 and shows the welcome for Lt. Fritz Neumüller, Gruppenadutant of II./St.G. 77, after his 500 Feindflug. The Gruppe was based at Poltawa. Noteworthy in this picture is the modification of the armament done by the ground crew. The Ju 87D-3 or D-5 has beside the standard MG 81Z (=Zwilling, calibre 7.92 mm, from D-1 onwards) also a movable MG 81 on both sides. This gave Uffz. Wolfinger (right), Lt. Neumüller's Bordfunker, the possibility to fire in three directions. This may have been an unwelcome surprise for every russian fighter attacking this aircraft! The MG 81 Z has been removed, only the frame GSL-k81Z can be seen. The barrels seem to be carried by the 1. Wart on the left. Lt. Fritz Neumüller (RK 4.5.1944) was killed on 17.8.1944 when his Fw 190 was hit by AAA over the Baranow-bridgehead.

[from "Luftwaffe im Fokus" No 2 - 2003, p 17]

[ March 01, 2007, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]

[Broompatrol]

I couldn't tell from the video if the tanks were actually k.o.d or not but if you listen it sure sounds like Stuka pilots are firing the AC's on full auto.

In an earlier post didn't someone suggest that Rudel didn't fire on full auto?

[Broompatrol]

I couldn't tell from the video if the tanks were actually k.o.d or not but if you listen it sure sounds like Stuka pilots are firing the AC's on full auto.

In an earlier post didn't someone suggest that Rudel didn't fire on full auto?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Broompatrol:

I couldn't tell from the video if the tanks were actually k.o.d or not but if you listen it sure sounds like Stuka pilots are firing the AC's on full auto.

In an earlier post didn't someone suggest that Rudel didn't fire on full auto?

At least in one clip the full auto was 20mm wing guns. The bomber version carried MG's in the wing and are shown firing the guns once the bombs have been dropped. AFAIK the BK37 armed birds did not carry wing MG's on a regular basis. Clips show distinctive puffs of smoke indicating single shots when the BK37 fires.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Broompatrol:

I couldn't tell from the video if the tanks were actually k.o.d or not but if you listen it sure sounds like Stuka pilots are firing the AC's on full auto.

In an earlier post didn't someone suggest that Rudel didn't fire on full auto?

At least in one clip the full auto was 20mm wing guns. The bomber version carried MG's in the wing and are shown firing the guns once the bombs have been dropped. AFAIK the BK37 armed birds did not carry wing MG's on a regular basis. Clips show distinctive puffs of smoke indicating single shots when the BK37 fires.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

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

The Titanic settled at the bottom of the ocean. Did the Bismarck settle at the bottom of the ocean ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

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

The Titanic settled at the bottom of the ocean. Did the Bismarck settle at the bottom of the ocean ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by 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.

Tell that to the crews of the Prince of Wales and Repulse.

[ March 01, 2007, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by 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.

Tell that to the crews of the Prince of Wales and Repulse.

[ March 01, 2007, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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.

Agreed up to a point. The Marat was killed as a capital ship but it was turned into a shore battery.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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.

Agreed up to a point. The Marat was killed as a capital ship but it was turned into a shore battery.

[Cuirassier]

"The Titanic settled at the bottom of the ocean. Did the Bismarck settle at the bottom of the ocean ?"

I wouldn't call the sinking of the Titanic peaceful, whether in comparison to the Bismarck or not.

[Cuirassier]

"The Titanic settled at the bottom of the ocean. Did the Bismarck settle at the bottom of the ocean ?"

I wouldn't call the sinking of the Titanic peaceful, whether in comparison to the Bismarck or not.

[John Kettler]

McIvan,

You are correct, sir! Turns out that all the footage I've seen of Hurricanes coming in at rooftop height in the Western Desert on strafing attacks never had a Hurribomber in it. The real deal looks like this.

http://www.uploadit.org/bsamania/Hurrie_S.jpg

or like this in color in flight (toward bottom of page)

http://tinyurl.com/3aqg4d

The claims made should put JasonC into Low Earth Orbit, being way better than the A-10 in Desert Shield/Desert Storm using Mavericks. I though it was odd that the weapon system was more accurate firing HE than AP, and the comments about rocket accuracy in combat were withering.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

McIvan,

You are correct, sir! Turns out that all the footage I've seen of Hurricanes coming in at rooftop height in the Western Desert on strafing attacks never had a Hurribomber in it. The real deal looks like this.

http://www.uploadit.org/bsamania/Hurrie_S.jpg

or like this in color in flight (toward bottom of page)

http://tinyurl.com/3aqg4d

The claims made should put JasonC into Low Earth Orbit, being way better than the A-10 in Desert Shield/Desert Storm using Mavericks. I though it was odd that the weapon system was more accurate firing HE than AP, and the comments about rocket accuracy in combat were withering.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tero]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

I wouldn't call the sinking of the Titanic peaceful, whether in comparison to the Bismarck or not.

The event was tragic but there was no violence involved in the sinking. The loss of life is irrelevant in this context.

I chose Bismarck instead of Lusitania as a comparison because of the BB angle.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

I wouldn't call the sinking of the Titanic peaceful, whether in comparison to the Bismarck or not.

The event was tragic but there was no violence involved in the sinking. The loss of life is irrelevant in this context.

I chose Bismarck instead of Lusitania as a comparison because of the BB angle.

[Tero]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

I though it was odd that the weapon system was more accurate firing HE than AP,

possibly because the ballistics were a closer match with the .303" Brownings used for sighting (the HE shell was lighter and was fired at a higher velocity).

The weapon system (40mm cannon) was not more accurate when firing HE. The pilot could walk the MG up to the target and then fire the HE round at the target more accurately than he could with the AP round.

I find it odd the HE round had a higher MV than the AP.

[Tero]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

I though it was odd that the weapon system was more accurate firing HE than AP,

possibly because the ballistics were a closer match with the .303" Brownings used for sighting (the HE shell was lighter and was fired at a higher velocity).

The weapon system (40mm cannon) was not more accurate when firing HE. The pilot could walk the MG up to the target and then fire the HE round at the target more accurately than he could with the AP round.

I find it odd the HE round had a higher MV than the AP.

[John Kettler]

Tero,

I don't, since standard British AP was full caliber solid shot. The reason the MV is so high for the BK 3.7 is that APCR is much lighter than standard APHE, hence, accelerates to much higher velocities than does the massier APHE for the 3.7cm FlaK 18. Since nothing's free in engineering, though, it sheds that velocity delta pretty rapidly, but not enough to matter at the combat ranges we're discussing here. I think Hogg's analogy is spot on. If APCR's a ping pong ball and APHE's a billiard ball, it's much easier to get that ping pong ball going fast, but drag won't let it carry very far, whereas the much heavier billiard ball will be slower to accelerate

initially but will go much farther than the ping pong ball, being far more resistant to drag effects.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Tero,

I don't, since standard British AP was full caliber solid shot. The reason the MV is so high for the BK 3.7 is that APCR is much lighter than standard APHE, hence, accelerates to much higher velocities than does the massier APHE for the 3.7cm FlaK 18. Since nothing's free in engineering, though, it sheds that velocity delta pretty rapidly, but not enough to matter at the combat ranges we're discussing here. I think Hogg's analogy is spot on. If APCR's a ping pong ball and APHE's a billiard ball, it's much easier to get that ping pong ball going fast, but drag won't let it carry very far, whereas the much heavier billiard ball will be slower to accelerate

initially but will go much farther than the ping pong ball, being far more resistant to drag effects.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by 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.

Tell that to the crews of the Prince of Wales and Repulse.

Another different story. Unless Rudel had a torpedo-armed Stuka.

All the best

Andreas