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

[Andreas]

I have read somewhere (no idea where) that German soldiers were encouraged to bring their cameras, at least early in the war. There does not appear to have been a prohibition of that in the Wehrmacht. Certainly my grandfather never mentioned anything like that.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

I have read somewhere (no idea where) that German soldiers were encouraged to bring their cameras, at least early in the war. There does not appear to have been a prohibition of that in the Wehrmacht. Certainly my grandfather never mentioned anything like that.

All the best

Andreas

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Don't know, but if you got credited with sinking a battleship, wouldn't you be interested in finding out what really happened later?

He kows what happened - he sank a battleship - what else would he be lookign for? :confused:

And if you write about it, should you not be interested in finding out about it before doing so?

AFAIK there's no particular requirement to do so. He was writing his memoirs wasn't he - so it's his experiences of the time - why would he need to research something outside that at a later time?

So insert 'must have been able to know what really happened', if it makes you happy.

not in the least.

You are making gross assumptions about his stituation - IMO there was probably little or no chance of him finding out "what really happened" from Soviet sources - do yuo really think they were going to open their archives to an unrepentant nazi post war?? :confused:

Doesn't change one bit of my point.

Your offered alteration doesn't change it - but IMO your whole premise is unsupportable and your point invalid anyway.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Don't know, but if you got credited with sinking a battleship, wouldn't you be interested in finding out what really happened later?

He kows what happened - he sank a battleship - what else would he be lookign for? :confused:

And if you write about it, should you not be interested in finding out about it before doing so?

AFAIK there's no particular requirement to do so. He was writing his memoirs wasn't he - so it's his experiences of the time - why would he need to research something outside that at a later time?

So insert 'must have been able to know what really happened', if it makes you happy.

not in the least.

You are making gross assumptions about his stituation - IMO there was probably little or no chance of him finding out "what really happened" from Soviet sources - do yuo really think they were going to open their archives to an unrepentant nazi post war?? :confused:

Doesn't change one bit of my point.

Your offered alteration doesn't change it - but IMO your whole premise is unsupportable and your point invalid anyway.

[Hetzer38]

This image from AllAces.ru gives a good overview of the amount of damage on the Marat, and which parts were under water...

...if I understand the author of the accompanying text correctly (via Babelfish-translation), he credits Lt Ernst-Siegfried Steen, Rudel's squadron leader at that time, with the critical hit.

...'Steen' died in the attack on the "Kirov" later that day...which automatically leads to conspiracy theory A:

"Hmm...'Steen' is dead, his wingman alive - let's credit 'Rudel' with the kill."

...

Cheers, Hetzer.

[ March 14, 2007, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]

[Hetzer38]

This image from AllAces.ru gives a good overview of the amount of damage on the Marat, and which parts were under water...

...if I understand the author of the accompanying text correctly (via Babelfish-translation), he credits Lt Ernst-Siegfried Steen, Rudel's squadron leader at that time, with the critical hit.

...'Steen' died in the attack on the "Kirov" later that day...which automatically leads to conspiracy theory A:

"Hmm...'Steen' is dead, his wingman alive - let's credit 'Rudel' with the kill."

...

Cheers, Hetzer.

[ March 14, 2007, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]

[Wicky]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

I suspect ships are attacked from the side with guns because it is much easier for an aircraft to correct elevation of shot than line.

Elevation tends to be much quicker for aircraft to adjust than heading.

For dropping sticks of bombs on a long narrow target a 30 degree angle is desirable

The photo on the left is from the same site and shows where the full ‘stick’ of 21 x 1000lb bombs have been released from 10,000ft on Port Stanley airfield. When attacking a target like this it is taken at an angle of about 30º to increase the number of likely impacts. To release along the runway would only require a small heading or drift error to cause all bombs to miss. To attack at right angles would risk the runway falling between two bombs in the stick, so getting no impacts. In this case one has hit the runway centre line, one the edge and the rest have gone across the dispersals.

[Wicky]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

I suspect ships are attacked from the side with guns because it is much easier for an aircraft to correct elevation of shot than line.

Elevation tends to be much quicker for aircraft to adjust than heading.

For dropping sticks of bombs on a long narrow target a 30 degree angle is desirable

The photo on the left is from the same site and shows where the full ‘stick’ of 21 x 1000lb bombs have been released from 10,000ft on Port Stanley airfield. When attacking a target like this it is taken at an angle of about 30º to increase the number of likely impacts. To release along the runway would only require a small heading or drift error to cause all bombs to miss. To attack at right angles would risk the runway falling between two bombs in the stick, so getting no impacts. In this case one has hit the runway centre line, one the edge and the rest have gone across the dispersals.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I have read somewhere (no idea where) that German soldiers were encouraged to bring their cameras, at least early in the war. There does not appear to have been a prohibition of that in the Wehrmacht. Certainly my grandfather never mentioned anything like that.

All the best

Andreas

There are some very perverse photos of German soldiers posing with hanged "saboteurs" and "spies" aren't there. Documenting their lives was a pretty big thing for them. I'm the same way myself - I have volumes of photos taken on exercises that all look the same - green truck in trees, row of men 800 metres away, etc. Many of the German photo albums that floated around ebay were the same - with significance of the photos usually known only to the original owner, since otherwise, the collections all looked the same.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I have read somewhere (no idea where) that German soldiers were encouraged to bring their cameras, at least early in the war. There does not appear to have been a prohibition of that in the Wehrmacht. Certainly my grandfather never mentioned anything like that.

All the best

Andreas

There are some very perverse photos of German soldiers posing with hanged "saboteurs" and "spies" aren't there. Documenting their lives was a pretty big thing for them. I'm the same way myself - I have volumes of photos taken on exercises that all look the same - green truck in trees, row of men 800 metres away, etc. Many of the German photo albums that floated around ebay were the same - with significance of the photos usually known only to the original owner, since otherwise, the collections all looked the same.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

You are making gross assumptions about his stituation - IMO there was probably little or no chance of him finding out "what really happened" from Soviet sources - do yuo really think they were going to open their archives to an unrepentant nazi post war?? :confused:

Sorry SO, but you are the one making an assumption here. Where did I say he needed Soviet archives to find out what really happened.

But hey, you go on believing what you will, I don't really care.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

You are making gross assumptions about his stituation - IMO there was probably little or no chance of him finding out "what really happened" from Soviet sources - do yuo really think they were going to open their archives to an unrepentant nazi post war?? :confused:

Sorry SO, but you are the one making an assumption here. Where did I say he needed Soviet archives to find out what really happened.

But hey, you go on believing what you will, I don't really care.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Hetzer38:

Surely not for making his superiors believe that he wrecked a lot of russian equipment when in fact he diddn't ?

Non sequitur. There is no doubt for me that Rudel was a successful pilot. That does not mean that I buy the 500+ tank claim or agree that he sank the Marat. All nations manufactured their heroes during the war. Good examples (other than Rudel) for this are e.g. Wittmann, or in the Canadian case Major Curry V.C. Again, both of them obviously very brave and capable soldiers, who deserved their decorations, but it is clear that once they got them, they became an object of what today would be called media-hype. In the case of Curry, this did not lead to score inflation, and was restricted to having him tour Canada to raise money and support Canada's commitment to the fight. In the case of Wittmann, it is arguable (as Michael Kenny does and I find that convincing) that it led to kill inflation, and I see no reason not to suppose that the same was the case with Rudel.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Hetzer38:

Surely not for making his superiors believe that he wrecked a lot of russian equipment when in fact he diddn't ?

Non sequitur. There is no doubt for me that Rudel was a successful pilot. That does not mean that I buy the 500+ tank claim or agree that he sank the Marat. All nations manufactured their heroes during the war. Good examples (other than Rudel) for this are e.g. Wittmann, or in the Canadian case Major Curry V.C. Again, both of them obviously very brave and capable soldiers, who deserved their decorations, but it is clear that once they got them, they became an object of what today would be called media-hype. In the case of Curry, this did not lead to score inflation, and was restricted to having him tour Canada to raise money and support Canada's commitment to the fight. In the case of Wittmann, it is arguable (as Michael Kenny does and I find that convincing) that it led to kill inflation, and I see no reason not to suppose that the same was the case with Rudel.

All the best

Andreas

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

You are making gross assumptions about his stituation - IMO there was probably little or no chance of him finding out "what really happened" from Soviet sources - do yuo really think they were going to open their archives to an unrepentant nazi post war?? :confused:

Sorry SO, but you are the one making an assumption here. Where did I say he needed Soviet archives to find out what really happened. </font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

You are making gross assumptions about his stituation - IMO there was probably little or no chance of him finding out "what really happened" from Soviet sources - do yuo really think they were going to open their archives to an unrepentant nazi post war?? :confused:

Sorry SO, but you are the one making an assumption here. Where did I say he needed Soviet archives to find out what really happened. </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

AFAIK the only place he could have foiund that info was in the Soviet archives, 'cos no-one else had it.

So yes I'm making that assumption - that he would have had to have access to the Soviet archives in order to do what you said he should have done.

You are wrong, in your AFAIK and your assumption. If you go back a few pages in this thread, you'll find out why.

But my guess is that you would rather continue flogging the dead horse, so you won't do it.

That makes the rest of your post pointless blather which I won't respond to.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

AFAIK the only place he could have foiund that info was in the Soviet archives, 'cos no-one else had it.

So yes I'm making that assumption - that he would have had to have access to the Soviet archives in order to do what you said he should have done.

You are wrong, in your AFAIK and your assumption. If you go back a few pages in this thread, you'll find out why.

But my guess is that you would rather continue flogging the dead horse, so you won't do it.

That makes the rest of your post pointless blather which I won't respond to.

All the best

Andreas

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Hetzer38:

These thirty Stuka pilots (...well, some didn't fly the Ju87 exclusivly...) claim to have knocked-out 2,049 tanks in 26,656 FF...

that's quite a number! at first sight 2049 does not sound like a believable number at all, but when you look at that stunning number of flown missions it gets a bit more believable.

now i am sure most of the readers will think i am totally insane and completely delusional for saying that it is in any way believable that 30 Stuka pilots could have killed 2000 tanks. indeed even my own instictive reaction is that the number is comically high.

the reason why i find it somewhat believable is that in the given data you have a tank kill / mission ratio of 8%. i recall reading from a Russian web page that Soviets captured some early German test documents on how Hs-129 performed against Soviet tanks. based on these tests Soviets made estimations on what kind of kill/attack % Germans would get for Hs-129. the Soviet estimate was, if i recall correctly, 2% for certainly destroying (enough of penetrating hits) a T-34 and 4% for light tanks. considering that the estimation was based on early (first?) test after which Germans modified engagement distanced, got the type of experience in actually flying the plane these 30 aces had, the higher accuracy of Ju-87G and the likelyhood of multiple passes on the same target, i find that 8% kill claim doesn't indicate conscious overclaiming or major weakness in the system of awarding kills. of course not all flown missions would include actually engaging enemy tanks and there are a good number of other variables, but having the 8% figure is something concrete upon which to base further speculation and analysis. actual kill % would naturally anyway be somewhat lower, as that is unavoidable.

i will try to google that Russian page to get the actual numbers of the Soviet estimation. my googling skills in Russian absolutely suck and i don't even have a cyrillic keyboard so it may take some days until i find the page.

thanks again Hetzer for providing these numbers! this is interesting stuff. without these numbers there would be no way to objectively evaluate the accuracy of German tank kill awards.

[ March 14, 2007, 05:42 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Hetzer38:

These thirty Stuka pilots (...well, some didn't fly the Ju87 exclusivly...) claim to have knocked-out 2,049 tanks in 26,656 FF...

that's quite a number! at first sight 2049 does not sound like a believable number at all, but when you look at that stunning number of flown missions it gets a bit more believable.

now i am sure most of the readers will think i am totally insane and completely delusional for saying that it is in any way believable that 30 Stuka pilots could have killed 2000 tanks. indeed even my own instictive reaction is that the number is comically high.

the reason why i find it somewhat believable is that in the given data you have a tank kill / mission ratio of 8%. i recall reading from a Russian web page that Soviets captured some early German test documents on how Hs-129 performed against Soviet tanks. based on these tests Soviets made estimations on what kind of kill/attack % Germans would get for Hs-129. the Soviet estimate was, if i recall correctly, 2% for certainly destroying (enough of penetrating hits) a T-34 and 4% for light tanks. considering that the estimation was based on early (first?) test after which Germans modified engagement distanced, got the type of experience in actually flying the plane these 30 aces had, the higher accuracy of Ju-87G and the likelyhood of multiple passes on the same target, i find that 8% kill claim doesn't indicate conscious overclaiming or major weakness in the system of awarding kills. of course not all flown missions would include actually engaging enemy tanks and there are a good number of other variables, but having the 8% figure is something concrete upon which to base further speculation and analysis. actual kill % would naturally anyway be somewhat lower, as that is unavoidable.

i will try to google that Russian page to get the actual numbers of the Soviet estimation. my googling skills in Russian absolutely suck and i don't even have a cyrillic keyboard so it may take some days until i find the page.

thanks again Hetzer for providing these numbers! this is interesting stuff. without these numbers there would be no way to objectively evaluate the accuracy of German tank kill awards.

[ March 14, 2007, 05:42 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[Andreas]

I suggest reading this:

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000016.html

This should make some sobering reading for anyone who actually believes German air/ground kill claims. Good effort by Chris to start the discussion.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

I suggest reading this:

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000016.html

This should make some sobering reading for anyone who actually believes German air/ground kill claims. Good effort by Chris to start the discussion.

All the best

Andreas

[Parker]

Has some other thread touched on the doctrinal debate between close air support and interdiction in WWII?

[Parker]

Has some other thread touched on the doctrinal debate between close air support and interdiction in WWII?

[Andreas]

Yes.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000098

Later in the thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004176

Also recommend this one, started by fellow forum member JonS at my instigation:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=87408