The Bouncing .50 cal - can it kill a tank?

[Guest Mike]

One tank is different from another too....

[JasonC]

Hetzer - that's easy. They are flying over the Kursk battlefield several days into the fight. Tanks have been knocked out by the hundreds for days. Some are still burning. Some got killed yesterday. Some are 4 fields over in another unit. Now, the flyboys fly in and shoot at things. They look back or circle over the field they were fighting over. Not all 50 or so of them look back at the same field, however. One counts 4 burning tanks. Another counts 2 burning tanks and is sure one is one that he just shot at. Now they all get back to the officer's mess, and passing around a bottle of schnaps, they discuss what they saw. They do a little quick addition, or interpret some "at least"s. No problem.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

An attacking Stuka is going around 100 m/s, maybe 75 if not in a steep dive. So the engagement time at those ranges is a second and a fraction.

How do you calculate that ? Or are you assuming they acquired the target a second before they opened fire ?

Really the shot might start as far away as 400m and the pilot might pull out after getting to half of that, 2-3 seconds later.

Did you actually bother to look at the vid showing the engagement method ?

The firing rate would burn all 12 rounds in 2 1/4 seconds anyway, using both guns.

AFAIK the BK-37 had single shot capability. In fact, how smart would it be to go full auto with a 12rpg ammo load out ?

Oh, I get it. You are still hung up on the A-10 Gatling gun with a ****load of DU ammo comparison.

Stretching that into 2 passes would have been rare.

If they did full auto. Which I am certain they did not.

The point blank claim is again not very credible, and is probably giving the force something to aim for rather than actually routinely done etc.

I doubt that. With a high speed FW-190 that would be plausible. With the slower Ju-87 I'd have to say you would have to go for point blank shots just to minimize the risk of getting shot down by the flak if you had to do more than 2 passes at the same target. Rudel reportedly (supposedly, whichever you like) wrecked 7 machines in his worst day. The FLAK/CAP loss ratio would indicate they were not doing high angle highspeed full auto passes on a regular basis.

As for bomb accuracy and CM, consider SBDs at Midway. It was a war changing outlier on the achievement side. But the number of hits compared to bombs dropped ran about 1 in 8. The target sizes are, in CM terms, 11 to 13 tiles long and 1 to 1.5 times wide. The hits actually achieved against targets that size suggest the 50% circle is more like 8 tiles across, or in other words only about half dropped can be expected to land within 80 meters of the aiming point. And that is for dive bombing, which was inherently far more accurate than the shallower glide bomb approaches typically used by fighter bombers.

More than a few flaws in that comparison:

The accuracy rate should not calculated in this case from the target center point but the aiming center point. This because it was not the same bomber on the same dive vector doing all the bombing but separate machines on parallel dive vectors on the same target.

There is no 50% circle since every single bomb (and impact point) is an individual. Each also had a separate aiming point so your 80 meter radius from aim point propability is out the window.

Most of the dives were doomed to miss before the dive started because the dive start point determined the aim point. If the aim point was off the pilot could do only so much to alter it or to try to use the chosen one by altering the release point.

There is a reason they sent out entire squadrons at a time.

Yep. So that more than (even) one would get even a fair statistical chance of surviving the CAP and the FLAK to the ordnance release point. There were instances where the entire squadron was plucked down or blocked way before they reached the target. Or were entire squardons made it to the attack point and they all missed.

[Hetzer38]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Hetzer - that's easy. They are flying over the Kursk battlefield several days into the fight. Tanks have been knocked out by the hundreds for days. Some are still burning. Some got killed yesterday. Some are 4 fields over in another unit. Now, the flyboys fly in and shoot at things. They look back or circle over the field they were fighting over. Not all 50 or so of them look back at the same field, however. One counts 4 burning tanks. Another counts 2 burning tanks and is sure one is one that he just shot at. Now they all get back to the officer's mess, and passing around a bottle of schnaps, they discuss what they saw. They do a little quick addition, or interpret some "at least"s. No problem.

Jason, I agree with you, under these extreme conditions, there was no way of being sure how many russian tanks were knocked-out by german anti-tank aircraft, and everybody claimed a lot of things...

Führer der Panzerjägerstaffeln (Fü.Pz.) Hptm. Bruno Meyer said about the battle on 7 July:

"It was impossible for us to count exactly how many tanks were knocked out since the whole success we shared with army units. However, the satisfaction of having helped to rectify an extremely awkward situation was sufficient for the anti tank fliers, and it was they who had carried the main burden of the fighting."

(Hs 129 Panzerjäger! - Matin Pegg, p 146)

And here's the story of 8 July:

...In the early hours of the afternoon, the situation in this sector seemed to calm down too, and the anti-tank Schwarm extended the surveillance area by flying in a north-easterly direction where the ground seemed to be occupied only by weak Russian and German forces.

The aircraft then flew on to the SS-LAH, whose men were concentrating on the hills north-east of Belgorod in order to defend advancing troops from enemy armoured colums reported to be pushing from the Morottcka area. From there,they continued their surveillance flights in an easterly direction past Belgorod and returned to the airfield. So, by sending out a Schwarm at set intervals to relieve the one already on patrol, and with each relieved Schwarm returning by the same route, it was possible to ensure that the entire front line was regularly covered.

To the east and north-east of Belgorod, there were several staggered woods stretching from north to south. From here, the country was difficult to observe and any enemy advance would be hard to spot. That afternoon, Meyer had been out on one of the surveillance flights himself without seeing anything unusual, but as he was returning home at tree-top height he saw in the fields to the west of the woods, a mass of Soviet soldiers which had certainly not been there when he made his outward flight to the SS-LAH. Meyer immediatlely gave the alarm over the radio, for he realised at once that an entire infantry brigade supported by a strong tank force was intent on attacking the flanks of the II. SS Panzerkorps and the SS-LAH.

Back at the airfield, Meyer's pilots sprinted to their machines and quickly took off. Besides arousing his own anti-tank Staffeln, his alarm also alerted the entire I. Gruppe of Sch.G 1. No sooner had the Hs 129 Staffeln scrambled, than the Fw 190s, guided by red and green flares, were taxiing from their dispersal areas to take off.

This co-operation between the two units was a relatively rare occurrence. Although neither was subordinate to the other, a strong bond of comradeship existed between the two commanders which had proved its worth since the days of the French campaign.

The absolute trust that the one placed in the report of the other immediately made the Schlacht-geschwader Kommodore realise the seriousness of the situation and Meyer's emergency call for close air support with 500 kg SD2 bomb containers was translated into action without delay. In addition, it was typical of the trus that General Seidemann, the Commander of VIII. Fliegerkorps, had in the ground-support pilots that he did not intervene in such situations but left the units a free hand in every respect. Although this generrosity was due to the General having known his unit commanders since the Polish campaign, his attitude nevertheless always earned praise. The Hs 129 and Fw 190 Staffeln arrived at Meyer's position at almost the same time and flew in formation with him while he personally directed them to their area of operations.

Druschel also flew up close to Meyer's machine to have his targets shown to him. Meyer then took over the command of his anti-tank Staffeln: "I had only ever seen such a mass of enemy soldiers once before, and that was at the beginning of the russian campaign in 1941. Wave after wave emerged from the woods tugging gun mountings, mortars, anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns by hand along behind them. It was a weird sight to see these masses marching straight to the west as obstinately as mules, without taking any fighting action or any defence against our aircraft, as if the Soviet brigadier commanding them was intent on turning the wheel of military history back to pre-First World War times. Man behind man, block beside block, they came over a frontal area some 8 to 10 kilometres (5 to 6 miles) wide."

"Then followed the tanks. Totally obsolete light tanks rolled out of the woods behind the infantry. Medium and heavy tanks followed, using the roads from the villages situated between the woods. After our Schlachtgruppe Kommandeur had personally satisfied himself of the enemy's incredible behaviour, the Fw 190s hurtled down from above to drop their SD2 bomb containers into the masses, each direct hit knocking down a whole block of infantry. After the first attack, we viewed what happened next with amazement. Despite the havoc wrought by the Fw 190s' bombs, those men who were not killed or wounded struggled to their feet and hurried to join those blocks which were still intact, only to become the unhappy victims of the next bomb hit. Again more killed and seriously wounded men, but the remainder recovered and tried to join other blocks which spewed out of the woods as if there was no end to them. Such a sight was enough to give even the most hardened soldiers the creeps.

On they marched, without ever quickening or slowing their pace. It was like watching a sinister steam-roller moving forwards. Even when the first ground-attack aircraft went home and the next Staffel dropped its bombs into the masses, they still did not stop their march but moved on without taking defensive action or seeking any cover. Only when the Fw 190s started mowing their first ranks with cannon and machine-gun fire and bombs began to fall on the outskirts of the woods to the west did this steamroller slowly grind to a halt. Utter confusion now reigned on the battlefield as the ground-attack aircraft continued to strafe the enemy without respite."

"Then, hardly discernibly, the enemy began to retreat. At first it was only a slight hesitation, but gradually there was a marked increase in the speed of withdrawal turned into an avalanche. One block carried another along with it until all the soldiers ran back and the whole mass of frightened men stampeded into the woods."

Now Meyer's anti-tank aircraft systematically started their slaughter, as Oblt. Georg Dornemann recalled: "When we arived in the area we saw marching infantry well concealed in the woods. Behind them we discovered tanks rolling forward, but it was impossible for us to establish the exact number. As they came out of the woods we counted ten, twenty, thirty and then gave up as more and more appeared - certainly in the strength of an armoured brigade. We were fully aware that the tanks presented a deadly menace to the rear flank of our Panzerkorps; we had to go in without delay and stop them."

"My Staffel, together with other Staffeln, attacked in relays and the enemy suffered heavy losses. Our pilots could see the panic-stricken response of the Russian tank crews and the retreating armour presented splendid targets for us. Each pilot made his run-in at low level and fired his armour-piercing shell at just the right instant, just like on a firing range. When we went in for the kill, a steady approach and well aimed shot were vital to knock out a tank - I would say it was real art."

"When the tanks were knocked out, they belched fire and smoke. Others did not get clear of those which had been knocked out and collided with them. Later, interrogated prisoners confirmed just how successful our attacks had been and that they had been forced to withdraw."

Not a single Russian tank succeeded in attacking the German flank. After three hours of dreadful work the Henschels and Focke-Wulfs flew away, leaving behind them a battlefield littered with the dead and strewn with the gutted remains of knocked-out tanks from which plumes of smoke spiralled high into the air. As dusk fell, the darkening sky was lit with an occasional flash as flames reached a petrol tank or ammunition store.

That evening, after the last of the machines had returned to its airfield, the staff of the Panzerkorps asked for a reconnaissance mission to be carried out early next morning. According to Meyer, the Panzerkorps reported that they had heard a geat deal of unexplained battle noise during the afternoon and were most surprised when they were told that a Russian attack had already been stopped and beaten back without a single German soldier having to take part. A patrol by a few aircraft was flown over the battlefield the next morning, but they reported that the area was completely quiet. Just how successful the Henschel Staffeln had been on 8 July is confirmed by Luftflotte 4's war diary which states that on that day:

"The Panzerjäger were especially successful. Eighty tanks were completely destroyed and a further number damaged."

(Hs-129 Panzerjäger! - Martin Pegg, pp 146-150)

There's no doubt that large parts of Meyer's story sound like a Disneyland-fairytale, but shouldn't there be at least some truth to it?

Is there no doubt there wasn't another Russian unit "AUSGEBOMBT" on that day...in these fields... ?

Wouldn't they have noticed the difference between 7 or 30-40 (or so, in no way they knocked out 80 like in Luftflotte 4's war diary ) knocked-out tanks?

God, my fingers are aching...typos in the quotes are most likely by me...

Cheers, Hetzer38.

[ February 28, 2007, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]

[JasonC]

Hetzer - and not a word of it is believable in the slightest. Except you will notice that although every single pilot fires at exactly the right point, it is a high art.

Also, wrecks belch smoke and fire dramatically, but the eyewitness account says nothing at all about the number. The 80 figure is by some muckety muck up at Flotte level well after the event.

Also, you notice the repeated claim that ground forces were not involved or needed - except the ground units reports deny this, mention the help of the Luftwaffe certainly, but do not claim they themselves were unengaged.

I also like the bits that say "I spotted a whole bunch of well concealed infantry". The best part, though, are those "blocks", for all the world like he pasted over a description of the battle of Borodino in 1812.

It is rot, in other words.

[JasonC]

Tero - that was remarkably incoherent. We shouldn't count the planes that missed because they pushed over in the wrong place, huh? Like gee that never happened to a stuka dive bombing a tank, right? There isn't a 50% zone because they are different shots - sure, it is all 100% zones for exactly one out of eight and all 0% zones for 7 out of 8.

But then, the operative bit is 7 out of 8 missing entire aircraft carriers over 200 meters long.

Yeah, they sometimes all missed. Which means it is remarkably unlikely that most bombs fell within 40m of the aim point. A 300mm rocket fire mission is a better simulation of air attack (by a squadron, mind) than CM air attacks are.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

We shouldn't count the planes that missed because they pushed over in the wrong place, huh?

They should be counted. But your assumption that you can calculate stats like squadron hit chances and 50% circles using separate single machines expending a single bomb like you would do for a single gun firing consequtive shots from a fixed location is totally and fundamentally flawed.

Like gee that never happened to a stuka dive bombing a tank, right?

Bombing with a single bomb or engageing with BK37 with multiple shots ? Big difference.

There isn't a 50% zone because they are different shots - sure, it is all 100% zones for exactly one out of eight and all 0% zones for 7 out of 8.

Yep. That is why you can not calculate hit chances for a squadron.

But then, the operative bit is 7 out of 8 missing entire aircraft carriers over 200 meters long.

Moving at, say, 30 knots while the planes are doing, say, 300 knots. Calculate in FLAK, crosswind (cum changes at various altitudes), smoke, sun glare and other visual obstructions etc. There is simply no fixed reference point to pin that 50% circle on. They trained to aim at the elevators. Given most CV's had two of those some 100 meters apart. The aim point selection for each individual pilot alone screws all squadron level calculations.

Yeah, they sometimes all missed. Which means it is remarkably unlikely that most bombs fell within 40m of the aim point.

If the target is 200 by 20 meters then 40 meters from the aim point would not mean squat along the flight deck unless it was within 20 meters from the ends. Sideways 40 meters would give, say, 20 meters worth of deck to hit before going 10 meters wide each way.

A 300mm rocket fire mission is a better simulation of air attack (by a squadron, mind) than CM air attacks are.

Agreed, if we are talking about level bombing mission with multiple bombs per plane with everbody pushing the button on cue.

[ February 28, 2007, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[John Kettler]

I finally found the MV for the BK 3.7 firing PzGr 40, and the figures are attention getting, 1170 m/sec, greater than the 1040 m/sec for the Pak 36 firing the same ammo type and a full 400 m/sec faster than the 3.7 cm FlaK 18 firing standard APHE, 770 m/sec. Details are in the Ju-87G thread on CMBB.

Bottom line? This weapon system appears to have had markedly better armor penetration than anything we've seen so far would indicate.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

Did it fire 'splodey rounds then?

[John Kettler]

JonS,

The FlaK 18 had such rounds, but the BK 3.7 fired PzGr 40 exclusively. The ammo boxes bore the marking Nur fur gegen panzer (Only for use against tanks).

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

Wouldn't that make it less effective?

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

Wouldn't that make it less effective?

Nothing ruins a tankers day like a piece of high velocity tungsten through the engine block.

[John Kettler]

Tero,

And it's ruined even worse when said engine block happens to be made of lightweight alloys. The T-34/KV engine, after all, is a reworked dirigible engine. Per Milsom's RUSSIAN TANKS 1917-1970 Appendices, p. 172, even the T-34/85 had a maximum 22mm thick hull top armor and only 20mm thick turret roof armor. For a Stalin II, those same numbers are 25mm for the hull and 30 mm for the turret roof.

From Battlefield.ru we have what looks like a useful technical discussion of the Il-2 vs. Panzers. I say looks because I don't read Russian. Could Bigduke6, Andreas or someone else please help us out?

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=243&Itemid=116〈=ru

Regards,

John Kettler

[undead reindeer cavalry]

how many tank kills did Luftwaffe claim?

if you count the claims from Hetzer38's top scorers list in the other thread you get 1670 claims. add Rudel's unreal number and you get around 2200 claims.

even if you double the number to include lesser scorers etc it's still only 4400 tanks.

the problem with that number is that it fits too well the number of actual Soviet tank losses. if German tank killer performance was equal to that of Western Allies they should overclaim by at least 10x and thus rather claim 44 000 tank kills.

EDIT:

now, i'm not interested in airforces and i don't know how many tanks Luftwaffe claimed. i guess someone knows and will soon post the figure. i will form my opinion beforehands:

claims up to 5000 are strikingly accurate.

claims up to 15 000 are reasonable (e.g. temporary kills, dummy targets, multiple hits on same target).

anything above 20 000 is distortion.

it will be interesting to see where the actual claim falls.

[ March 02, 2007, 05:18 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[John Kettler]

undead reindeer cavalry,

I don't know the answer to your question, but McIvan in the Ju-87G thread on CMBB came up with some parallel tank kill statistics for the twin Vicker "S" 40mm armed Hurribomber. These are expressed as number of tanks hit and number destroyed of those so hit. Also of interest are the comments about rocket firing accuracy on the range vs. combat. Here's the page link.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=011914;p=6

Regards,

John Kettler

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i think it's to be expected that rockets are inaccurate. i would imagine high velocity 37mm and 30mm rounds of German tank killer planes would be quite accurate at the given ranges (100-400 meters). for example check this video. the 25% accuracy of the British tests sounds fair enough to me.

[Hetzer38]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i think it's to be expected that rockets are inaccurate. i would imagine high velocity 37mm and 30mm rounds of German tank killer planes would be quite accurate at the given ranges (100-400 meters). for example check this video. the 25% accuracy of the British tests sounds fair enough to me.

I just stumbled over the short version of the video you've posted, just showing the attack on the tank (9 sec), it's here.

Two shots, two hits.

Can't identify the tank though...is it a russian medium tank (T34?), rolling backwards ?

Or is it a lend-lease tank, maybe a Valentine VI / VII?

Cheers, Hetzer.

[Guest Mike]

Looks more like a US open-topped tank destroyer. I know it says it's Kursk but that's not necessarily where hte fottage came from.

The Soviets did get 52 M-10's, and they possibly equipped 2 AT regiments in 1944 - see The Russian Battlefield

[John Kettler]

undead reindeer cavalry and Hetzer38,

Nice footage! The MK 101 sure has a high cyclic rate. Also, ISTR Rudel had the only Ju-87G at Kursk, but I could be wrong.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Broompatrol]

you can bet that the footage of the aircraft was spliced to the gun camera footage. Unless there was a camera man on the ground in front of the tank watching the attack? My point being that with the liberties taken with foley and editing it is hard to really know what the context is of any given video.

It is a cool clip.

[RockinHarry]

Any IL-2 players around? How good does the sim models ground attack in your opinion? I´m tempted to reinstall the sim and do some serious learning, as well as testing of the ground attack methods in various planes. (had to deinstall any game using the combined joystick/Midi port as I needed the Midi capabilty with greater importance) Unfortunately the Il-2 game version I have does not feature the Ju87-G,the HS-129 or late FW 190F flyable models. One should possibly refer to any of the grognard Il-2 player boards in the net. What would be the main ones?

[Sergei]

This is what the Forgotten Battles manual says:

Junkers Ju-87G-1

Engine: 1,400 HP

Take-Off Speed: 170 km/h

Landing Speed: 160 km/h

Combat Engine Setting: 2,650 RPM

Best Cruise: 2,200 RPM

Economy Cruise: 2,050 RPM

Prop Pitch Control: Manual

Mixture Control: No

Boost: No

Supercharger: Two Speed

Pilot Notes:

Ju-87G looks like a Stuka, sounds like a Stuka, and flies like a Stuka –

however, it’s anything but. Instead of bombs, the Ju-87G is equipped

with two 37mm gun pods under the wings that are specifically

designed to destroy enemy tanks. A single shot at the enemy tank’s

rear will crack it open. Ju-87G is slower and much less maneuverable

than a regular Stuka; therefore, you should try to stay at low levels to

avoid enemy flak and fighters.

Attacks are best initiated from 500 meters or so, in 15–45 degree

dives. Remember that the cannons are located under your wings;

therefore, convergence becomes very important when firing at

small targets like tanks. When firing outside convergence range,

your rounds are very likely to impact near the tank on both sides

without hitting it.

When attacked by enemy fighters, the rear gunner is the best

defense. Dive to ground level and maneuver to keep the enemy

fighter within the rear gunner’s defensive arc.

If you can cause the enemy to overshoot or extend, attacking

head-on with your 37mms should bring an end to any Soviet fighter.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Broompatrol:

you can bet that the footage of the aircraft was spliced to the gun camera footage. Unless there was a camera man on the ground in front of the tank watching the attack? My point being that with the liberties taken with foley and editing it is hard to really know what the context is of any given video.

Very true. That is why these clips should be viewed with extreme prejudice in mind. The attack method for example could be verified from the clip but beyond that the only data of real value should be derived from viewing unedited originals.

[Hetzer38]

Sorry for posting completly out of context, but!

There were several remarks about the Ju 87G-1 / G-2 having a maximum ammo-load of 12 rounds (6 per clip per gun)...

...gentlemen, this is incorrect. :cool:

During one of the staff meetings on November 3, 1942 Generalfeldmarschall Erhard Milch inquired into the possibility of either replacing the Ju87 with another type, or upgrading it's defensive armament. All present at the meeting agreed that an option of arming the Stuka with MK 108 30mm cannons should be looked into.

The decision was reversed in favor of a BK 3,7 37mm cannon, when its test program had been completed. In December 1942 a Ju87D-1 (WNr. 2552) was equipped with a pair of BK 3,7 cannons mounted on the underwing stations. Each cannon with its Lafette 36 mount and a full supply of ammunition aded 400 kg of weight, which reduced the aircraft's maximum speed to 270 km/h and greatly limited its maneuverability. The aircraft first flew at Rechlin on January 31, 1943 piloted by a Knight's Cross recipient Hptm. Hans-Karl Stepp. Stepp later continued flight testing of the machine at Bryansk proving range. The trials showed that a serious limitation of the modified machine was a modest ammunition of supply for the BK 3,7 cannons, which was only six round per gun. That was quickly fixed by joining two six-round magazines together, although the flight crews were still not impressed with that solution.

Ju87G-1 was a Ju87D-3 airframe without divebreaks or wing-mounted MG 17 7.92mm machine guns.

A number of Ju87G-1s which were built in February 1943 wound up on the Eastern front with an experimental tank-busting unit - Versuchsverband für Panzerbekämpfung, which was also known as Kommando Weiss after it's CO's last name. The unit suffered its first combat loss on March 18, 1943 when WNr. 1097 (DJ+FT) was destroyed.

When Ju87D-5 aircraft entered service, a decision was made to proceed with the development of Ju87G-2 model based on the D-5 airframe. That model featured longer wing span and larger wing area, which gave the G-2 slightly better handling characteristics compared to the G-1 version. The G-2 aircraft did not have dive brakes or wing-mounted 20mm cannons.

Both tank killing variants featured a twin MG 81Z 7.92mm machine manned by the radio operator and two Bordkanone BK 3,7 37mm cannons on the wing stations. The cannons were mounted in streamlined pods which hpoused the firing chamber, recoil damper, electro-pneumatic charging mechanism and an electrically powered trigger assembly. The ammunition was fed from two box magazines holding two frames of six rounds each. The magazine was placed on the the right hand side of the cannon. Spent shells were ejected through an opening on the opposite side of the weapon. After the last round had been fired, the lock would remain in the open position, which in turn triggered illumination of a cockpit annunciator on an SZKK 2 (Schußzahl-Kontrolltaste 2) ammunition counter.

The most commonly used ammunition was armor-piercing (Panzergranate) type. Each cartridge weighed 1,460g including a 623g bullet. New M and L types of armour-piercing ammunition were introduced in 1944. The L type bullet was 124.5mm long and featured a tungsten core which gave it a capability to penetrate a 120mm armor plate, provided it was not angled at less than 60 degrees.

...In total, 20 Ju87G-1s and 210 Ju87G-2s were manufactured.

from: Kagero Monograph 25 - Junkers Ju 87 vol. I - by Marek J. Murawski

...Ju87G-1 full-size-box-magazine...

(photo from: Kagero Monograph 25)

...half loaded right wingpod box-magazine:

(photo from: Luchtoorlog-Warplanes)

...compare the size of the six-round clip with the (overall) size of the box magazine...

(photo from: Luchterlog-Warplanes)

Eine weitere Ausführung G, die zur Bekämpfung von Panzern von oben vorgesehen war, erhielt unter den Tragflächen außerhalb der Fahrwerke zwei Kanonen BK 37 mit allerdings nur je 12 Schuss 37 mm Panzergranaten.

from: Luftarchiv.

A pair of underwing Flak 18 37mm flak guns were mounted with 12 rounds per gun, the normal wing armament generally being deleted to save weight.

from: Sturmvogel.

...makes for a whooping total of 24 rounds per "Kanonenvogel" - sortie. :cool:

Cheers, Hetzer.

[ March 08, 2007, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]

[Hetzer38]

Luchterlog-Warplanes also have an overview of the different rounds used for the BK 3,7:

My wacky translation of the text beneath the image (on the Luchterlog-page):

Overview of the 3,7cm BK ammunition.

No new ammunuiton had to be developed for the Stuka-Kanonen.

The Luftwaffe could rely on ammunition used by the Flak 3,7cm 18/38/37 and Pak 3,7cm 36/L45. These were:

1. Minengranatpatrone 18, Leuchtspur mit Zerleger for Luft-Boden attacks. (both upper sketches).

2. Brandsprenggranatpatrone, Leuchtspur mit Zerleger for Luft-Boden attacks.

3. Sprenggranatpatrone 18, Leuchtspur mit Zerleger for Luft-Boden attacks.

4. Springgranate 18 (blind) without Leuchtspur and Zerleger for weapon-testing.

5. Sprenggranatpatrone 18 (blind) Leuchtspur without Zerleger for exercises.

6. Granatapatrone 18 for weapon adjustment.

7. Exerzierpatrone 18 for the drill.

The Minengranatpatrone were mainly used against air aims.

+ the "M" and "L" types mentioned in my previous post...

Cheers, Hetzer.

[ March 04, 2007, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]