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

[Mies]

I've been reading this thread and couldn't remember for the life of me what a Hs-129 looked like so I looked it up. If anyone's interested, maybe some good pics in this collection.

Edit : Ignore the obvious non related stuff in there. And question, what is the thing on the b&w photo to the right, 2nd row from the bottom?

Mies

[Mies]

I've been reading this thread and couldn't remember for the life of me what a Hs-129 looked like so I looked it up. If anyone's interested, maybe some good pics in this collection.

Edit : Ignore the obvious non related stuff in there. And question, what is the thing on the b&w photo to the right, 2nd row from the bottom?

Mies

[undead reindeer cavalry]

ok, here's the repost about calculations offered in the Russian article i talked about in previous post. the article contains all kinds of information, including all kinds of critical reports of Hs 129, but i will deal with only two parts that offer some numbers to use in calculations.

Hs 129 B-0 test version:

probability to destroy a tank with bomb armament not higher than 0.4%.

20mm guns should not be able to penetrate armor of Soviet tanks.

probability to get a guaranteed kill of an armored car in a single pass using 20mm guns not higher than 23-25%.

Hs 129-B1 intial test with early MK 101 30mm guns:

on average you would appear to fire 7 rounds in a single pass (1.5 seconds). 13% of all fired rounds (engagement range 300-500 meters) hit a tank after two days of training (1 out of 4 pilots is unable to hit the target).

60% of 30mm rounds that hit a light tank would penetrate the armor. 40% for a medium tank.

to reliably disable a tank you would need at least three penetratios, and to reliably kill a tank you would need 5 penetrations for a light tank and 7 for a medium tank.

the author then continues and says that the chance to kill a T-70 in combat conditions would be 3-5% and a T-34 1-2%.

my use of the numbers given in the article follow.

if 13% of all fired rounds hit and 40% of them penetrate a medium tank, you have 5.2% chance per round to penetrate the armor of a medium Soviet tank. likewise you get a 7.8% chance per round to penetrate the armor of a light Soviet tank.

thus if we fire 7 rounds per pass and 5.2% of used rounds penetrate medium tank's armor, we get 0.364 penetrations per pass and need three passes to get a single penetration. to get the required 7 penetrations we need 21 passes. thus, we get a 4.75% chance to kill a medium tank per single pass in test conditions after two days of training.

if we use the same method for a light tank (60% of rounds that hit penetrate and we need 5 penetratios), we get 0.546 penetrations per pass and to get the required 5 penetrations we need 10 passes. thus, we get a 10% chance to kill a light tank per single pass in test conditions after two days of training.

i don't know how the author of the article calculated the combat figures. it is possible that i have misunderstood the language regarding shots per pass. with 4 shot passes you get 2.86% for mediums and 6.25% for lights, with 12 shot passes you get 10% for mediums and 19% for lights. either he has just divided the percetage by some number or i have some flaw in my algorithm. anyway, even with his figures the average chance to kill a tank with that setting is 3%.

the records for those 30 German Stuka pilots indicate 8% kill chance per mission. some say those numbers are 10 times too high, just like with American kills.

if these German pilots had used the early 1942 variant of Hs 129 for all their missions and made just 3 passes per mission, had the experience of two days and no above average skills, and if the article's figure for combat accuracy is correct, they would get 9% kill chance per mission. to kill 2049 tanks, like they were awarded, they would thus need to fly 22766 missions. since they flew 26656 missions it's required that 85% of their missions included attacks against enemy tanks. in order for their kill awards to be 10 times too high, like some say, it's required that 91.5% of their missions did NOT include attacks against tanks.

of course in reality those 30 pilots did fly planes better than the early Hs 129 variant, had the experience of hundreds of missions and clearly had above average skills. it's clear that in order for their kill awards to be ten times too high it's required that close to 99% of their missions did NOT include attacking enemy tanks. on the other hand, if their better planes, experience and skills would make them just twice as good, it's required that 43% of their missions included attacking tanks in order for their kill awards to be 100% accurate.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

ok, here's the repost about calculations offered in the Russian article i talked about in previous post. the article contains all kinds of information, including all kinds of critical reports of Hs 129, but i will deal with only two parts that offer some numbers to use in calculations.

Hs 129 B-0 test version:

probability to destroy a tank with bomb armament not higher than 0.4%.

20mm guns should not be able to penetrate armor of Soviet tanks.

probability to get a guaranteed kill of an armored car in a single pass using 20mm guns not higher than 23-25%.

Hs 129-B1 intial test with early MK 101 30mm guns:

on average you would appear to fire 7 rounds in a single pass (1.5 seconds). 13% of all fired rounds (engagement range 300-500 meters) hit a tank after two days of training (1 out of 4 pilots is unable to hit the target).

60% of 30mm rounds that hit a light tank would penetrate the armor. 40% for a medium tank.

to reliably disable a tank you would need at least three penetratios, and to reliably kill a tank you would need 5 penetrations for a light tank and 7 for a medium tank.

the author then continues and says that the chance to kill a T-70 in combat conditions would be 3-5% and a T-34 1-2%.

my use of the numbers given in the article follow.

if 13% of all fired rounds hit and 40% of them penetrate a medium tank, you have 5.2% chance per round to penetrate the armor of a medium Soviet tank. likewise you get a 7.8% chance per round to penetrate the armor of a light Soviet tank.

thus if we fire 7 rounds per pass and 5.2% of used rounds penetrate medium tank's armor, we get 0.364 penetrations per pass and need three passes to get a single penetration. to get the required 7 penetrations we need 21 passes. thus, we get a 4.75% chance to kill a medium tank per single pass in test conditions after two days of training.

if we use the same method for a light tank (60% of rounds that hit penetrate and we need 5 penetratios), we get 0.546 penetrations per pass and to get the required 5 penetrations we need 10 passes. thus, we get a 10% chance to kill a light tank per single pass in test conditions after two days of training.

i don't know how the author of the article calculated the combat figures. it is possible that i have misunderstood the language regarding shots per pass. with 4 shot passes you get 2.86% for mediums and 6.25% for lights, with 12 shot passes you get 10% for mediums and 19% for lights. either he has just divided the percetage by some number or i have some flaw in my algorithm. anyway, even with his figures the average chance to kill a tank with that setting is 3%.

the records for those 30 German Stuka pilots indicate 8% kill chance per mission. some say those numbers are 10 times too high, just like with American kills.

if these German pilots had used the early 1942 variant of Hs 129 for all their missions and made just 3 passes per mission, had the experience of two days and no above average skills, and if the article's figure for combat accuracy is correct, they would get 9% kill chance per mission. to kill 2049 tanks, like they were awarded, they would thus need to fly 22766 missions. since they flew 26656 missions it's required that 85% of their missions included attacks against enemy tanks. in order for their kill awards to be 10 times too high, like some say, it's required that 91.5% of their missions did NOT include attacks against tanks.

of course in reality those 30 pilots did fly planes better than the early Hs 129 variant, had the experience of hundreds of missions and clearly had above average skills. it's clear that in order for their kill awards to be ten times too high it's required that close to 99% of their missions did NOT include attacking enemy tanks. on the other hand, if their better planes, experience and skills would make them just twice as good, it's required that 43% of their missions included attacking tanks in order for their kill awards to be 100% accurate.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Hetzer38:

~20-30 tank kills for ~50 Hs 129B flying 'rolling' attacks doesn't sound that unimaginable to me

if they used all their ammunition on each mission, they would get around 6 attacks per mission. if they did, say, 4 missions, they would get 1200 attacks. if they used half of those attacks to kill 25 tanks, then each of their attacks had a 4% chance of killing the tank. totally believable percentage.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Hetzer38:

~20-30 tank kills for ~50 Hs 129B flying 'rolling' attacks doesn't sound that unimaginable to me

if they used all their ammunition on each mission, they would get around 6 attacks per mission. if they did, say, 4 missions, they would get 1200 attacks. if they used half of those attacks to kill 25 tanks, then each of their attacks had a 4% chance of killing the tank. totally believable percentage.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by 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.

it's a matter of belief only if one has no rational basis for one's opinion. there's no need to binary either/or faith.

of course all kill claims are off, the question is how much they are off.

to have any kind of rational opinion we need to know what the Germans claimed and what the Soviets reported.

so far we have a handful of Soviet reports that credit the German air arm with around 7% of Soviet tank losses. that would equal 7000 tanks.

it would really help if we knew what the Germans claimed. it's pretty certain that they overclaimed, but we need some kind of data to know if they overclaimed by 1.5, 2 or 10.

if you can show me that Germans claimed their air arm destroyed 70 000 Soviet tanks then i will agree that they overclaimed by 10. if you can't show it to me i don't understand why you believe in it yourself.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by 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.

it's a matter of belief only if one has no rational basis for one's opinion. there's no need to binary either/or faith.

of course all kill claims are off, the question is how much they are off.

to have any kind of rational opinion we need to know what the Germans claimed and what the Soviets reported.

so far we have a handful of Soviet reports that credit the German air arm with around 7% of Soviet tank losses. that would equal 7000 tanks.

it would really help if we knew what the Germans claimed. it's pretty certain that they overclaimed, but we need some kind of data to know if they overclaimed by 1.5, 2 or 10.

if you can show me that Germans claimed their air arm destroyed 70 000 Soviet tanks then i will agree that they overclaimed by 10. if you can't show it to me i don't understand why you believe in it yourself.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i understand that the overclaiming by ten is not just a figure pulled from a hat, but comes from US Typhoon pilots doing it. what should be obvious is that there's a world of difference between a Typhoon firing rockets against mainly defensive enemy in a rather diccult terrain and Ju 87G firing a high velocity 37mm guns against mainly offensive enemy.

i don't expect that German StuGs killed 10 Soviet tanks for each StuG they lost just because Finnish StuGs achieved it. there are too many variables at play and there are even more variables at play with the Typhoon/Ju 87 comparison.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i understand that the overclaiming by ten is not just a figure pulled from a hat, but comes from US Typhoon pilots doing it. what should be obvious is that there's a world of difference between a Typhoon firing rockets against mainly defensive enemy in a rather diccult terrain and Ju 87G firing a high velocity 37mm guns against mainly offensive enemy.

i don't expect that German StuGs killed 10 Soviet tanks for each StuG they lost just because Finnish StuGs achieved it. there are too many variables at play and there are even more variables at play with the Typhoon/Ju 87 comparison.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i understand that the overclaiming by ten is not just a figure pulled from a hat, but comes from US Typhoon pilots doing it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that US Typhoon pilots probably made fewer false claims than practically any other class of ground attack pilot.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i understand that the overclaiming by ten is not just a figure pulled from a hat, but comes from US Typhoon pilots doing it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that US Typhoon pilots probably made fewer false claims than practically any other class of ground attack pilot.

All the best,

John.

[pamak1970]

ok, here's the repost about calculations offered in the Russian article i talked about in previous post.

this whole thread is really very informative.

May i ask some questions about the article?

Do you speak Russian or did you use a translation site?

I tried to use a traslation site but of course the text is not accurate.

So i have a few questions.

First one is ,what is the sourse of this article?

Who wrote it and what is his proffession?

The second question has to do with a diagram i see ,which i can not traslate.

What is this diagram about?

Thank you .

[pamak1970]

ok, here's the repost about calculations offered in the Russian article i talked about in previous post.

this whole thread is really very informative.

May i ask some questions about the article?

Do you speak Russian or did you use a translation site?

I tried to use a traslation site but of course the text is not accurate.

So i have a few questions.

First one is ,what is the sourse of this article?

Who wrote it and what is his proffession?

The second question has to do with a diagram i see ,which i can not traslate.

What is this diagram about?

Thank you .

[Tero]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that US Typhoon pilots probably made fewer false claims than practically any other class of ground attack pilot.

How many kills claims per mission would you estimate they made, on average ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that US Typhoon pilots probably made fewer false claims than practically any other class of ground attack pilot.

How many kills claims per mission would you estimate they made, on average ?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that US Typhoon pilots probably made fewer false claims than practically any other class of ground attack pilot.

How many kills claims per mission would you estimate they made, on average ?

I have in mind a nice round number.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that US Typhoon pilots probably made fewer false claims than practically any other class of ground attack pilot.

How many kills claims per mission would you estimate they made, on average ?

I have in mind a nice round number.

All the best,

John.

[michael kenny]

There are no 'US Typhoons' and thus they made no claims.

[michael kenny]

There are no 'US Typhoons' and thus they made no claims.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by pamak1970:

Do you speak Russian or did you use a translation site?

i am trying to learn Russia but my Russian sucks. usually i first try BabelFish and then try to figure out problematic parts.

First one is ,what is the sourse of this article?

Who wrote it and what is his proffession?

i guess Aviation and Cosmonautics number 11 is the source. i guess V.I.Perov and O.V.Rastrenin are the authors of the original article in Aviation and Cosmonautics.

The second question has to do with a diagram i see ,which i can not traslate.

What is this diagram about?

it shows how FW190F could attack tanks with its guns. vertical axis is the shooting distance, horizontal is the angle of dive.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by pamak1970:

Do you speak Russian or did you use a translation site?

i am trying to learn Russia but my Russian sucks. usually i first try BabelFish and then try to figure out problematic parts.

First one is ,what is the sourse of this article?

Who wrote it and what is his proffession?

i guess Aviation and Cosmonautics number 11 is the source. i guess V.I.Perov and O.V.Rastrenin are the authors of the original article in Aviation and Cosmonautics.

The second question has to do with a diagram i see ,which i can not traslate.

What is this diagram about?

it shows how FW190F could attack tanks with its guns. vertical axis is the shooting distance, horizontal is the angle of dive.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

har har har. yes, those Typhoon pilots would naturally be UK not US.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

har har har. yes, those Typhoon pilots would naturally be UK not US.

[John Kettler]

Mies,

That picture confused me, too, at first. Then I realized that I was misinterpreting what I was seeing. What you're looking at is the cannon system

(4 x Mk 101?), magazines and feed mechanism dropped down from the weapon bay for rearming and/or servicing, while still held in place by a pivot on one side of the bay. Thus, all that's necessary to do once the cannon system is ready again is to hoist it back into place and secure it. Pretty clever, really.

Regards,

John Kettler