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

[Guest Mike]

Knocked out - certainly - I would never argue otherwise. But there are ways og KO'ing ships other than sinking them.

And certainly Marat was effectively "just" a shore battery in an unlikely position.

the operative term you used is "arguably"

Oh to heck with it - here's a couple of definitions from dictionary.com!!

Sunk:to displace part of the volume of a supporting substance or object and become totally or partially submerged or enveloped; fall or descend into or below the surface or to the bottom (often fol. by in or into): The battleship sank within two hours. His foot sank in the mud. Her head sinks into the pillows. (one of many - the one dealing with water)

Submerge:

1. to put or sink below the surface of water or any other enveloping medium.

2. to cover or overflow with water; immerse.

3. to cover; bury; subordinate; suppress: His aspirations were submerged by the necessity of making a living.

–verb (used without object) 4. to sink or plunge under water or beneath the surface of any enveloping medium.

5. to be covered or lost from sight.

Right - so to be sunk requires at least partial submergance, and to be at least partially submerged requires covering or overflowing with water, or going below the surface of water.

So the ships are sunk, by definition, if part of them is entirely under water - and I dont' count internal decks 'cos by that standard mr picky says that all ships are sunk even when they'er floating!!

Certainly the ship is not floating tho - but floating and sunk are not binary situations for a ship - a ship that is grounded is neither!

[ February 26, 2007, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

Rather than treating me as though I'm some sort of Rudel fan club member, which I'm assuredly not, why not take the view that I'm simply trying to get to the truth, whatever it may be? Thus, to impute that I deliberately overlooked evidence indicating the Marat's guns were made operational much earlier than I said is unfair, when all I did was to quote one of the standard warship reference books on the matter.

Whether for reasons of space, perceived unimportance, or both, there was no discussion of other than the initial shelling of the Marat by large caliber German guns in said book. Just so we're clear, I congratulate you on some fine research and appreciate these significant contributions to understanding what happened to the Marat, when, and what the effects were. Prior to this, the sum total of my Marat knowledge was

Rudel's account, the Breyer book, Korotkin a long time ago, and encountering it/using it playing AH's War at Sea wargame even longer ago than that. Not exactly up to speed!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

Rather than treating me as though I'm some sort of Rudel fan club member, which I'm assuredly not, why not take the view that I'm simply trying to get to the truth, whatever it may be? Thus, to impute that I deliberately overlooked evidence indicating the Marat's guns were made operational much earlier than I said is unfair, when all I did was to quote one of the standard warship reference books on the matter.

Whether for reasons of space, perceived unimportance, or both, there was no discussion of other than the initial shelling of the Marat by large caliber German guns in said book. Just so we're clear, I congratulate you on some fine research and appreciate these significant contributions to understanding what happened to the Marat, when, and what the effects were. Prior to this, the sum total of my Marat knowledge was

Rudel's account, the Breyer book, Korotkin a long time ago, and encountering it/using it playing AH's War at Sea wargame even longer ago than that. Not exactly up to speed!

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

why not take the view that I'm simply trying to get to the truth

Not to answer for Andreas, but this is the one thing you have shown over the last five years that you little to no interest in.

[JonS]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

why not take the view that I'm simply trying to get to the truth

Not to answer for Andreas, but this is the one thing you have shown over the last five years that you little to no interest in.

[John Kettler]

JonS,

That, no doubt, is why I dug out a recognized standard work and painstakingly exactly quoted what was said, even going so far as to note that a dagger was present and where. That's also why I spent the time to track down another study I saw long ago, and why I spent still more time locating a book devoted specifically to Russian aces, including ground attack specialists, wading through a bunch of turgid prose in VIZh, asking for Bigduke6 to produce any Russian combat reports he could for units hit by German tank buster aircraft, asking Jeff Duquette what he might have,

finding and presenting the von Salza post on TDI regarding such an attack at Kursk, cross checking that against Glantz and House's KURSK, and pointing out that bios of tank busters from at least Russia and Germany were available in the WW II Forum. It was also my supposed uncaring attitude toward the truth that led me to tell anyone interested how to obtain perhaps the single most comprehensive technical writeup ever done on the BK series guns, Chinn's formerly classified five volume magnum opus, THE MACHINE GUN.

Why not just accept that you don't like me, find me and my ideas upsetting, even "safe" ones regarding WW II, and apparently can't be bothered to exhibit even basic human decency toward me? I know you're capable of a much higher standard of discourse and social interaction, but you seem to delight in assailing me just because you can. What does that say about you?

All I'm doing is pursuing a legitimate discussion

which is perfectly within the letter and the spirit of Forum Rules, while you make one nasty, catty remark after another in an unceasing effort to stifle me and anyone else whom you happen to disagree with. Too bad for you that you don't get to run the Forums to suit you!

In closing, if you're going to attack me when I wasn't addressing you in the first place, be sure you have enough verbs in what you post. Your sentence is missing a second "have" between "you" and "little."

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

JonS,

That, no doubt, is why I dug out a recognized standard work and painstakingly exactly quoted what was said, even going so far as to note that a dagger was present and where. That's also why I spent the time to track down another study I saw long ago, and why I spent still more time locating a book devoted specifically to Russian aces, including ground attack specialists, wading through a bunch of turgid prose in VIZh, asking for Bigduke6 to produce any Russian combat reports he could for units hit by German tank buster aircraft, asking Jeff Duquette what he might have,

finding and presenting the von Salza post on TDI regarding such an attack at Kursk, cross checking that against Glantz and House's KURSK, and pointing out that bios of tank busters from at least Russia and Germany were available in the WW II Forum. It was also my supposed uncaring attitude toward the truth that led me to tell anyone interested how to obtain perhaps the single most comprehensive technical writeup ever done on the BK series guns, Chinn's formerly classified five volume magnum opus, THE MACHINE GUN.

Why not just accept that you don't like me, find me and my ideas upsetting, even "safe" ones regarding WW II, and apparently can't be bothered to exhibit even basic human decency toward me? I know you're capable of a much higher standard of discourse and social interaction, but you seem to delight in assailing me just because you can. What does that say about you?

All I'm doing is pursuing a legitimate discussion

which is perfectly within the letter and the spirit of Forum Rules, while you make one nasty, catty remark after another in an unceasing effort to stifle me and anyone else whom you happen to disagree with. Too bad for you that you don't get to run the Forums to suit you!

In closing, if you're going to attack me when I wasn't addressing you in the first place, be sure you have enough verbs in what you post. Your sentence is missing a second "have" between "you" and "little."

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tero]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Yes John, if the water is shallow enough yuo cannot sink a ship - again, that is precisely WHY badly damaged ships are grounded if possible - to STOP them sinking.

So, the heroic Red Banner fleet sailors beached the Marat on its mooring to prevent the dastardly Nazi flyers from sinking it ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Yes John, if the water is shallow enough yuo cannot sink a ship - again, that is precisely WHY badly damaged ships are grounded if possible - to STOP them sinking.

So, the heroic Red Banner fleet sailors beached the Marat on its mooring to prevent the dastardly Nazi flyers from sinking it ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

A battleship that is still capable of using its weapons is not a "write off".

That's just it. Is a kill made during combat always a write off ?

All of you are getting wrapped around the axle on matters of nomenclature, but its not an unimportant distinction to make. Technically you're both correct. The ship was sunk, in the truest, broadest sense of the term, but since it was still able to use its weapons (and considered dangerous enough to be subjected to renewed attacks), it was not "sunk" in the sense of the word that uses that term to mean destroyed.

By the same token, using the same logic a tank is not a kill if it is repaired and returned to service even if was rendered combat ineffective. The man reporting the kill can not possibly know the tank he killed will be returned to service later. Yet the kill is verified by multiple witnesses. Should he be credited with the kill or not ? In the Finnish army a tank was not considered and credited as a kill unless it caught fire. How was it in the other armies ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

A battleship that is still capable of using its weapons is not a "write off".

That's just it. Is a kill made during combat always a write off ?

All of you are getting wrapped around the axle on matters of nomenclature, but its not an unimportant distinction to make. Technically you're both correct. The ship was sunk, in the truest, broadest sense of the term, but since it was still able to use its weapons (and considered dangerous enough to be subjected to renewed attacks), it was not "sunk" in the sense of the word that uses that term to mean destroyed.

By the same token, using the same logic a tank is not a kill if it is repaired and returned to service even if was rendered combat ineffective. The man reporting the kill can not possibly know the tank he killed will be returned to service later. Yet the kill is verified by multiple witnesses. Should he be credited with the kill or not ? In the Finnish army a tank was not considered and credited as a kill unless it caught fire. How was it in the other armies ?

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Yes John, if the water is shallow enough yuo cannot sink a ship - again, that is precisely WHY badly damaged ships are grounded if possible - to STOP them sinking.

So, the heroic Red Banner fleet sailors beached the Marat on its mooring to prevent the dastardly Nazi flyers from sinking it ?

No - they got lucky - achieved the same thing tho!

And of course the tank is killed - it just isn't sunk....even if it is KO'ed in a river!

Marat was "killed" too - but it wasn't sunk.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Yes John, if the water is shallow enough yuo cannot sink a ship - again, that is precisely WHY badly damaged ships are grounded if possible - to STOP them sinking.

So, the heroic Red Banner fleet sailors beached the Marat on its mooring to prevent the dastardly Nazi flyers from sinking it ?

No - they got lucky - achieved the same thing tho!

And of course the tank is killed - it just isn't sunk....even if it is KO'ed in a river!

Marat was "killed" too - but it wasn't sunk.

[Andreas]

Right description of the matter in German:

21.– 24.9.1941

Ostsee

Angriffe der I. und III./StG.2 (OberstLt. Dinort) auf Schiffe der sowj. »Baltflot«. Am 21.9. trifft eine Ju 87 (Oblt. Rudel) der III./StG.2 das Schlachtschiff Marat mit einer 1000-kg-Bombe, mit zerstörtem Vorschiff sackt Marat vor der Hafenmole von Kronstadt auf Grund. Die 30,5-cm-Türme C und D, später auch B werden jedoch wieder einsatzbereit gemacht.

Wrong description of what happened in German:

Bereits im September 1941 erzielt er einen spektakulären Erfolg: In Kronstadt, dem russischen Marinehafen an der Ostsee, versenkt Rudel das 23.600- Brutto-Register-Tonnen- Schlachtschiff „Marat“. Die Luftwaffenflieger nennen Kronstadt wegen der starken bolschewistischen Luftverteidigung nur die Flakhölle. Während des Angriffs mit einer 1000 kg- Bombe stürzt sich Rudel in seinem Stuka bis zum allerletzten Augenblick auf die „Marat“ und fängt seine Maschine erst im allerletzten Moment ab. Die Bombe trifft, und das Schiff explodiert in zwei Teile.

The right description is using the term 'settles', the wrong 'sunk'. The right description points out that two turrets were made useable again, the wrong description excitedly states that the ship exploded in two parts, and then goes on hero-worshipping. The right description is from a reputable historical website hosted by the University of Stuttgart library. The wrong description is from a German neo-nazi party website, and that is why this distinction matters to me.

Rudel achieved a partial kill, part of which was temporary, while part of it was permanent. The fact that Marat could no longer leave the harbour is not really that relevant - how many sorties of surface units were made from Kronstadt until the end of the war? Whether the ship was mobile or not, it would most likely never have been more than a shore battery. The aim of the aerial attacks was to prevent the ship artillery from interfering in German ground operations against Leningrad, not preventing a sortie by the ships and their engagement in a sea battle. Mine warfare had already taken care of that. In the case of Marat, the attacks were temporarily successful. The German pilots including Rudel should be given full credit for that, they were attacking a heavily defended target, and they had good success, and suffered heavy losses. But let's not get carried away - the Landsers who were treated to 30.5 rounds from Marat a few weeks after the ship was disabled no doubt had some choice views on Rudel's 'sinking' of Marat.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Right description of the matter in German:

21.– 24.9.1941

Ostsee

Angriffe der I. und III./StG.2 (OberstLt. Dinort) auf Schiffe der sowj. »Baltflot«. Am 21.9. trifft eine Ju 87 (Oblt. Rudel) der III./StG.2 das Schlachtschiff Marat mit einer 1000-kg-Bombe, mit zerstörtem Vorschiff sackt Marat vor der Hafenmole von Kronstadt auf Grund. Die 30,5-cm-Türme C und D, später auch B werden jedoch wieder einsatzbereit gemacht.

Wrong description of what happened in German:

Bereits im September 1941 erzielt er einen spektakulären Erfolg: In Kronstadt, dem russischen Marinehafen an der Ostsee, versenkt Rudel das 23.600- Brutto-Register-Tonnen- Schlachtschiff „Marat“. Die Luftwaffenflieger nennen Kronstadt wegen der starken bolschewistischen Luftverteidigung nur die Flakhölle. Während des Angriffs mit einer 1000 kg- Bombe stürzt sich Rudel in seinem Stuka bis zum allerletzten Augenblick auf die „Marat“ und fängt seine Maschine erst im allerletzten Moment ab. Die Bombe trifft, und das Schiff explodiert in zwei Teile.

The right description is using the term 'settles', the wrong 'sunk'. The right description points out that two turrets were made useable again, the wrong description excitedly states that the ship exploded in two parts, and then goes on hero-worshipping. The right description is from a reputable historical website hosted by the University of Stuttgart library. The wrong description is from a German neo-nazi party website, and that is why this distinction matters to me.

Rudel achieved a partial kill, part of which was temporary, while part of it was permanent. The fact that Marat could no longer leave the harbour is not really that relevant - how many sorties of surface units were made from Kronstadt until the end of the war? Whether the ship was mobile or not, it would most likely never have been more than a shore battery. The aim of the aerial attacks was to prevent the ship artillery from interfering in German ground operations against Leningrad, not preventing a sortie by the ships and their engagement in a sea battle. Mine warfare had already taken care of that. In the case of Marat, the attacks were temporarily successful. The German pilots including Rudel should be given full credit for that, they were attacking a heavily defended target, and they had good success, and suffered heavy losses. But let's not get carried away - the Landsers who were treated to 30.5 rounds from Marat a few weeks after the ship was disabled no doubt had some choice views on Rudel's 'sinking' of Marat.

All the best

Andreas

[Hetzer38]

Well, yea, however - why don't we discuss some other german WWII tank-busting pilot's claims...

Edit

I've posted an updated list at page 7 of this thread.

Cheers, Hetzer38.

[ March 03, 2007, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]

[Hetzer38]

Well, yea, however - why don't we discuss some other german WWII tank-busting pilot's claims...

Edit

I've posted an updated list at page 7 of this thread.

Cheers, Hetzer38.

[ March 03, 2007, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]

[bitchen frizzy]

[/lurk]

Reading through this thread, I'd say that the other pilots' claims are no more or less credible than Rudel's, and equally as well cross-checked and verified.

[lurk]

[bitchen frizzy]

[/lurk]

Reading through this thread, I'd say that the other pilots' claims are no more or less credible than Rudel's, and equally as well cross-checked and verified.

[lurk]

[McIvan]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Oh to heck with it - here's a couple of definitions from dictionary.com!!

Sunk:to displace part of the volume of a supporting substance or object and become totally or partially submerged or enveloped; fall or descend into or below the surface or to the bottom (often fol. by in or into): The battleship sank within two hours. His foot sank in the mud. Her head sinks into the pillows. (one of many - the one dealing with water)

Submerge:

1. to put or sink below the surface of water or any other enveloping medium.

2. to cover or overflow with water; immerse.

3. to cover; bury; subordinate; suppress: His aspirations were submerged by the necessity of making a living.

–verb (used without object) 4. to sink or plunge under water or beneath the surface of any enveloping medium.

5. to be covered or lost from sight.

Right - so to be sunk requires at least partial submergance, and to be at least partially submerged requires covering or overflowing with water, or going below the surface of water.

So the ships are sunk, by definition, if part of them is entirely under water - and I dont' count internal decks 'cos by that standard mr picky says that all ships are sunk even when they'er floating!!

Certainly the ship is not floating tho - but floating and sunk are not binary situations for a ship - a ship that is grounded is neither! [/QB]

No, I don't think you've got that quite right....although first up I'll concede that the position is arguable and that my first post overstated itself in certainty.

Although I think that Rudel's tank claims are far fetched and certainly overstated as were all air to ground tank kills in WWII, I just thought that the drive to deny credit for the Marat was just a bit....miserly, really....and motivated even if just a little bit from dislike of Rudel as a person. Which is why I plunged into it.

Going briefly back to the defintions. Firstly, the sunk definition also includes "fall or descend into or below the surface or to the bottom", which the Marat did; it "descended....to the bottom".

Secondly I think you're going too narrow on partial submergence when leaving out internal decks. They were certainly submerged, making the Marat partially submerged I reckon, and thus puling it into "sunk". Mr picky can have it pointed out to him that all ships are not sunk because under normal circumstances the "surface" is displaced outside the hull.

Anyways, all this dictionary definition stuff is semantics and I'm now wondering whether I should even post it (but obviously I just did). I guess we're agreed that Rudel gets credit for a "kill" of a battleship then, even if we're at odds as to whether it was sunk or not. I had to grin at the suggestion that it was of little moment that it was non-floating and immobile as the Soviet baltic fleet hadn't gotten out much anyways.

[McIvan]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Oh to heck with it - here's a couple of definitions from dictionary.com!!

Sunk:to displace part of the volume of a supporting substance or object and become totally or partially submerged or enveloped; fall or descend into or below the surface or to the bottom (often fol. by in or into): The battleship sank within two hours. His foot sank in the mud. Her head sinks into the pillows. (one of many - the one dealing with water)

Submerge:

1. to put or sink below the surface of water or any other enveloping medium.

2. to cover or overflow with water; immerse.

3. to cover; bury; subordinate; suppress: His aspirations were submerged by the necessity of making a living.

–verb (used without object) 4. to sink or plunge under water or beneath the surface of any enveloping medium.

5. to be covered or lost from sight.

Right - so to be sunk requires at least partial submergance, and to be at least partially submerged requires covering or overflowing with water, or going below the surface of water.

So the ships are sunk, by definition, if part of them is entirely under water - and I dont' count internal decks 'cos by that standard mr picky says that all ships are sunk even when they'er floating!!

Certainly the ship is not floating tho - but floating and sunk are not binary situations for a ship - a ship that is grounded is neither! [/QB]

No, I don't think you've got that quite right....although first up I'll concede that the position is arguable and that my first post overstated itself in certainty.

Although I think that Rudel's tank claims are far fetched and certainly overstated as were all air to ground tank kills in WWII, I just thought that the drive to deny credit for the Marat was just a bit....miserly, really....and motivated even if just a little bit from dislike of Rudel as a person. Which is why I plunged into it.

Going briefly back to the defintions. Firstly, the sunk definition also includes "fall or descend into or below the surface or to the bottom", which the Marat did; it "descended....to the bottom".

Secondly I think you're going too narrow on partial submergence when leaving out internal decks. They were certainly submerged, making the Marat partially submerged I reckon, and thus puling it into "sunk". Mr picky can have it pointed out to him that all ships are not sunk because under normal circumstances the "surface" is displaced outside the hull.

Anyways, all this dictionary definition stuff is semantics and I'm now wondering whether I should even post it (but obviously I just did). I guess we're agreed that Rudel gets credit for a "kill" of a battleship then, even if we're at odds as to whether it was sunk or not. I had to grin at the suggestion that it was of little moment that it was non-floating and immobile as the Soviet baltic fleet hadn't gotten out much anyways.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by McIvan:

I had to grin at the suggestion that it was of little moment that it was non-floating and immobile as the Soviet baltic fleet hadn't gotten out much anyways.

For clarification - that suggestion has little to do with the discussion on definitions. It was primarily meant to put things in context, and partially to dismiss the 'could no longer under its own propulsion' point as being of little relevance in the real world of 1941-5.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by McIvan:

I had to grin at the suggestion that it was of little moment that it was non-floating and immobile as the Soviet baltic fleet hadn't gotten out much anyways.

For clarification - that suggestion has little to do with the discussion on definitions. It was primarily meant to put things in context, and partially to dismiss the 'could no longer under its own propulsion' point as being of little relevance in the real world of 1941-5.

All the best

Andreas

[Guest Mike]

Barges do not move under their own propulsion either. Propulsion is completely irrelevant.

[Guest Mike]

Barges do not move under their own propulsion either. Propulsion is completely irrelevant.