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

[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

[pamak1970]

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

thank you for the reply.

I see next to it the russian text and from what i understand the lines are for different thickness of armament (20,25 ,30 mm)

Am i right?.

I do not know the first two ones wich mention something like Dmin and Dmax.

Any idea ?

[pamak1970]

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

thank you for the reply.

I see next to it the russian text and from what i understand the lines are for different thickness of armament (20,25 ,30 mm)

Am i right?.

I do not know the first two ones wich mention something like Dmin and Dmax.

Any idea ?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

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.

Before I start any discussion based on the number 7,000, I have to ask, you are extrapolating on which basis, exactly?

And please remind me where I said the Germans overclaimed by 10x.

In your own time.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

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.

Before I start any discussion based on the number 7,000, I have to ask, you are extrapolating on which basis, exactly?

And please remind me where I said the Germans overclaimed by 10x.

In your own time.

All the best

Andreas

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

It's a shame really - one would think the answer would be a faitrly short statement of where Rudel would get this info from - if such a source actually existed.

Sorry, I thought it would not be necessary to point out the obvious, but I was obviously wrong.

</font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

It's a shame really - one would think the answer would be a faitrly short statement of where Rudel would get this info from - if such a source actually existed.

Sorry, I thought it would not be necessary to point out the obvious, but I was obviously wrong.

</font>

[Andreas]

SO - believe what you want. If you want to believe I am wrong, be my guest. Why you get so hung up about, well I think I can come up with some reasons why, none of which would be fit to write here.

If you want to believe that the Germans did not notice that they were being fired at by Marat, hey presto.

If you want to believe in Santa, you are welcome to that too.

It's a free world, I can't stop you from believing in stupid things or being an idiot, and neither do I want to.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

SO - believe what you want. If you want to believe I am wrong, be my guest. Why you get so hung up about, well I think I can come up with some reasons why, none of which would be fit to write here.

If you want to believe that the Germans did not notice that they were being fired at by Marat, hey presto.

If you want to believe in Santa, you are welcome to that too.

It's a free world, I can't stop you from believing in stupid things or being an idiot, and neither do I want to.

All the best

Andreas

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by pamak1970:

I see next to it the russian text and from what i understand the lines are for different thickness of armament (20,25 ,30 mm)

Am i right?.

yes, it tells the distance from which you could penetrate the given mm of armor.

I do not know the first two ones wich mention something like Dmin and Dmax.

Any idea ?

the top one is maximum shooting distance and the one below tells when you need to stop shooting (e.g. pull up from the dive).

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by pamak1970:

I see next to it the russian text and from what i understand the lines are for different thickness of armament (20,25 ,30 mm)

Am i right?.

yes, it tells the distance from which you could penetrate the given mm of armor.

I do not know the first two ones wich mention something like Dmin and Dmax.

Any idea ?

the top one is maximum shooting distance and the one below tells when you need to stop shooting (e.g. pull up from the dive).

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Before I start any discussion based on the number 7,000, I have to ask, you are extrapolating on which basis, exactly?

as i wrote, i base it on the information presented in this thread.

Central Front in 1943 credits 6.3% of its tank losses to aircraft. 1st Ukrainian Front in 1945 credits 8.2% of its destroyed T-34/85s to aircraft. thus the rough 7% figure.

7% of the total irrevocable Soviet tank losses would be roughly 7000 tanks.

And please remind me where I said the Germans overclaimed by 10x.

if you oppose claims that German kill awards might have been surprisingly accurate and you do not oppose claims that kill awards were 50 (fifty) times too high, what do you think is the logical conclusion one can make based on your posts?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Before I start any discussion based on the number 7,000, I have to ask, you are extrapolating on which basis, exactly?

as i wrote, i base it on the information presented in this thread.

Central Front in 1943 credits 6.3% of its tank losses to aircraft. 1st Ukrainian Front in 1945 credits 8.2% of its destroyed T-34/85s to aircraft. thus the rough 7% figure.

7% of the total irrevocable Soviet tank losses would be roughly 7000 tanks.

And please remind me where I said the Germans overclaimed by 10x.

if you oppose claims that German kill awards might have been surprisingly accurate and you do not oppose claims that kill awards were 50 (fifty) times too high, what do you think is the logical conclusion one can make based on your posts?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

Before I start any discussion based on the number 7,000, I have to ask, you are extrapolating on which basis, exactly?

as i wrote, i base it on the information presented in this thread.

Central Front in 1943 credits 6.3% of its tank losses to aircraft. 1st Ukrainian Front in 1945 credits 8.2% of its destroyed T-34/85s to aircraft. thus the rough 7% figure.

7% of the total irrevocable Soviet tank losses would be roughly 7000 tanks.</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

Before I start any discussion based on the number 7,000, I have to ask, you are extrapolating on which basis, exactly?

as i wrote, i base it on the information presented in this thread.

Central Front in 1943 credits 6.3% of its tank losses to aircraft. 1st Ukrainian Front in 1945 credits 8.2% of its destroyed T-34/85s to aircraft. thus the rough 7% figure.

7% of the total irrevocable Soviet tank losses would be roughly 7000 tanks.</font>

[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:

So far I had the impression that in reality the BK37mm and 30mm used the hard core ammo only on tank hunting missions. So low altitude level attacks should´ve been the way to hunt and kill tanks from 1943 onwards, to avoid increased soviet flak strength.

Do Rudels books or other sources tell something about used tactics (low altitude level vs. dive attack from med to high altitude)?

From my experience flying the Ju-87G in Il-2:FB I can also tell that "finding" enemy tanks on the battlefield can be a great problem! :eek: If they are deployed in open ground (in particular with light background terrain color), not much of a problem, but any other case (except road columns) it seems to be quite difficult to identify enemy stuff. Do the available sources tell anything about these battlefield conditions?

[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:

So far I had the impression that in reality the BK37mm and 30mm used the hard core ammo only on tank hunting missions. So low altitude level attacks should´ve been the way to hunt and kill tanks from 1943 onwards, to avoid increased soviet flak strength.

Do Rudels books or other sources tell something about used tactics (low altitude level vs. dive attack from med to high altitude)?

From my experience flying the Ju-87G in Il-2:FB I can also tell that "finding" enemy tanks on the battlefield can be a great problem! :eek: If they are deployed in open ground (in particular with light background terrain color), not much of a problem, but any other case (except road columns) it seems to be quite difficult to identify enemy stuff. Do the available sources tell anything about these battlefield conditions?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I don't agree with this extrapolation, so don't expect me to discuss anything based on it.

so let's tune the extrapolation so we can discuss the numbers.

You could be off by a wide margin in either direction by using the CF numbers as your single data point for overall losses (when you are getting into different models it becomes even more tricky).

there's naturally a good margin of error, but front level numbers are lot more useful than one day reports for individual brigades.

BTW total losses for the 1st Ukrainian Front are 1311 tanks. T-34/85 covers 935 of them (71%). other losses are 89 IS-2 (7%), 56 ISU-122/152 (4%) and 231 Su-76 (18%). or in other words only 11% of the other losses are heavier tanks than T-34/85 while 18% are lighter tanks. thus the overall loss percentage to aircraft should be higher than it is just for T-34/85, if we consider the difference to be meaningful.

Just as e.g. you are currently lumping all pre-1943 losses, 20,000 of which were for obsolete tanks, and all of which were in the absence of dedicated tank killers into this.

there were dedicated ground attack planes right from the start in 1941 and Hs 129 variants armed with 30mm gun entered service in 1942. if you consider that in the first phase of the war large parts of Soviet tank fleet consisted of obsolete models and Germans enjoyed air superiority it more than equals the lack of 30mm ground attack armament. if anything the German capacity to destroy Soviet tanks from the air peaked before 1943, not after it.

You are using a period in which tank-busters were concentrated in the sector the front was operating in to extrapolate.

pleace correct me if i am mistaken, but as Central Front figures are for July-August, it indicates Operation Kutuzov and thus those numbers are from a period before the Germans concentrated their ground attack units.

Just two massive problems with your extrapolation.

thanks for pointing out these potential problems.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I don't agree with this extrapolation, so don't expect me to discuss anything based on it.

so let's tune the extrapolation so we can discuss the numbers.

You could be off by a wide margin in either direction by using the CF numbers as your single data point for overall losses (when you are getting into different models it becomes even more tricky).

there's naturally a good margin of error, but front level numbers are lot more useful than one day reports for individual brigades.

BTW total losses for the 1st Ukrainian Front are 1311 tanks. T-34/85 covers 935 of them (71%). other losses are 89 IS-2 (7%), 56 ISU-122/152 (4%) and 231 Su-76 (18%). or in other words only 11% of the other losses are heavier tanks than T-34/85 while 18% are lighter tanks. thus the overall loss percentage to aircraft should be higher than it is just for T-34/85, if we consider the difference to be meaningful.

Just as e.g. you are currently lumping all pre-1943 losses, 20,000 of which were for obsolete tanks, and all of which were in the absence of dedicated tank killers into this.

there were dedicated ground attack planes right from the start in 1941 and Hs 129 variants armed with 30mm gun entered service in 1942. if you consider that in the first phase of the war large parts of Soviet tank fleet consisted of obsolete models and Germans enjoyed air superiority it more than equals the lack of 30mm ground attack armament. if anything the German capacity to destroy Soviet tanks from the air peaked before 1943, not after it.

You are using a period in which tank-busters were concentrated in the sector the front was operating in to extrapolate.

pleace correct me if i am mistaken, but as Central Front figures are for July-August, it indicates Operation Kutuzov and thus those numbers are from a period before the Germans concentrated their ground attack units.

Just two massive problems with your extrapolation.

thanks for pointing out these potential problems.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

there's naturally a good margin of error, but front level numbers are lot more useful than one day reports for individual brigades.

I fully agree.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

BTW total losses for the 1st Ukrainian Front are 1311 tanks. T-34/85 covers 935 of them (71%). other losses are 89 IS-2 (7%), 56 ISU-122/152 (4%) and 231 Su-76 (18%). or in other words only 11% of the other losses are heavier tanks than T-34/85 while 18% are lighter tanks. thus the overall loss percentage to aircraft should be higher than it is just for T-34/85, if we consider the difference to be meaningful.

You lost me there.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:there were dedicated ground attack planes right from the start in 1941 and Hs 129 variants armed with 30mm gun entered service in 1942.

Yes, but I doubt they were responsible for that many kills.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry: if you consider that in the first phase of the war large parts of Soviet tank fleet consisted of obsolete models and Germans enjoyed air superiority it more than equals the lack of 30mm ground attack armament.

They did not enjoy air superiority across the whole front.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:if anything the German capacity to destroy Soviet tanks from the air peaked before 1943, not after it.

Again, you lost me.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:pleace correct me if i am mistaken, but as Central Front figures are for July-August, it indicates Operation Kutuzov and thus those numbers are from a period before the Germans concentrated their ground attack units.

Operation Kutuzov would have been well within range of any German plane stationed on the northern shoulder of the Kursk salient.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

there's naturally a good margin of error, but front level numbers are lot more useful than one day reports for individual brigades.

I fully agree.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

BTW total losses for the 1st Ukrainian Front are 1311 tanks. T-34/85 covers 935 of them (71%). other losses are 89 IS-2 (7%), 56 ISU-122/152 (4%) and 231 Su-76 (18%). or in other words only 11% of the other losses are heavier tanks than T-34/85 while 18% are lighter tanks. thus the overall loss percentage to aircraft should be higher than it is just for T-34/85, if we consider the difference to be meaningful.

You lost me there.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:there were dedicated ground attack planes right from the start in 1941 and Hs 129 variants armed with 30mm gun entered service in 1942.

Yes, but I doubt they were responsible for that many kills.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry: if you consider that in the first phase of the war large parts of Soviet tank fleet consisted of obsolete models and Germans enjoyed air superiority it more than equals the lack of 30mm ground attack armament.

They did not enjoy air superiority across the whole front.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:if anything the German capacity to destroy Soviet tanks from the air peaked before 1943, not after it.

Again, you lost me.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:pleace correct me if i am mistaken, but as Central Front figures are for July-August, it indicates Operation Kutuzov and thus those numbers are from a period before the Germans concentrated their ground attack units.

Operation Kutuzov would have been well within range of any German plane stationed on the northern shoulder of the Kursk salient.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Meanwhile, back in Kronstadt Marat, after having been sunk and killed by Rudel on 23 September, was back in action on 8 October, according to the history of my grandfather's unit.

I am going to give him a call and see if he remembers something on this.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Meanwhile, back in Kronstadt Marat, after having been sunk and killed by Rudel on 23 September, was back in action on 8 October, according to the history of my grandfather's unit.

I am going to give him a call and see if he remembers something on this.

All the best

Andreas

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

Shall be most interested in what he has to say. Hope his memory's sharp! Speaking of memory, in this case mine, which is fuzzy and very tired, isn't he the former German WW II FO?

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

Shall be most interested in what he has to say. Hope his memory's sharp! Speaking of memory, in this case mine, which is fuzzy and very tired, isn't he the former German WW II FO?

Regards,

John Kettler