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

[Moronic Max]

Originally posted by 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?

If the info provided in this thread about total number of Il-2s produced vs. total number of German AFVs KOed by air attack is correct, ground attack is massively overmodeled. It is not uncommon for an eight-plane squadron to rack up a few dozen tank kills in a mission, provided there are enough targets.

Granted, I can't aim for crap in the game, but the AI wingment seem to never miss when conducting an attack run; they will destroy their target on the first pass.

[John Kettler]

Hetzer38,

Well, blow me down! Outstanding set of finds!

1. Is high capacity HE. Have seen the mine term used for Gepard 35mm antiaircraft ammo.

2. Is HE incendiary, I believe.

3. Is HE.

Have skipped the others as they're not combat related. As best I can tell from my German-English tech dictionary, the Leuchtspur is the tracer element, but I don't know what the Zerleger is. Root word has to do with dividing and splitting up, though. None of the above 3 is PzGr 40 Hart Kerne (T/HVAP/APCR) ammo or even PzGr 38, APHE. Thus, I think there's something wrong with the list.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Hetzer38]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Hetzer38,

... None of the above 3 is PzGr 40 Hart Kerne (T/HVAP/APCR) ammo or even PzGr 38, APHE. Thus, I think there's something wrong with the list.

Regards,

John Kettler

Right, Lexikon der Wehrmacht also lists the Panzergranate mit Leuchtspur as avaiable ammunition for the 3,7-cm-Flak 18/36...

Edit:

And please have a look at my post in the CMBB-cross-post regarding BK 3,7 ammo.

Cheers, Hetzer.

[ March 05, 2007, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]

[John Kettler]

Hetzer38,

This drinking from the fire hydrant thing is great--within limits! The information you've found is fabulous, and keeps getting better.

Should also add that it makes the other tankbuster's account I cited pretty plausible.

At 100 meter range he could kill a Stalin tank.

Frontally! This ammo must be the Nur fur gegen panzer stuff Jim Steuard told us about.

It is, though, getting hard to keep track of all this fantastic information, what with its being spread out over two threads. Thanks to the CMBB cross-post, I have figured out that the Zerleger is the self-destruct element intended to destroy a shell after a certain TOF has occurred. Since HartKern ammo has no explosive, it logically follows that it would be ohne Zerleger, without self-destruct element. Now, off to die Lexicon!

Regards,

John Kettler

[RockinHarry]

After all there was a given procedure to "claim" kills of any sort, incl. tank/vehicle kills in the various nations air forces. The german army and those involved in promoting, as well as granting medals for combat performances had to made use of guidelines, regulations and procedures for their final decisions in the matter. They didn´t do promotions or granting awards without a good reason, not considering any secondary "morale raising" ones. Additionally it also was a matter of honor not to make unjustified claims, which could bring the false claimer before the court martial in many cases. Claiming "kills" did not had the (self-) purpose to raise a particular air force or army members ego and to grant him medals, it was rather part of the common after battle procedure to evaluate battle performances and combat results for the purpose to plan further (combat) actions.

What I mean to say, is that the numbers are not pure fantasy and pulled out of the hat light handedly just for propaganda reasons. Any of you know any of the procedures/regulations used for aknowledging "Kill claims"? I guess that individual "Claims" are multiple times higher just after any combat mission and that the "debriefing" procedures and staff/intelligence works lead to the final approved "claims" we see in those reports and biographies nowadays.

With regard to german army procedures and combat doctrines, I have no doubt that most figures reflect individual kill claims and combat performances pretty well. If some light would be shed on the matter (what is a "kill" and who decided it was credible?), I also think that Rudel´s claims would look less fantasy like even when considering that his person was heavily (mis-) used for Nazi propaganda. So were Erwin Rommel and other german peronalities who are known to be non-Nazis or involved in the resistance.

I also would be interested to know how individual tank/AC kill claims were handled in the soviet and western allied armies during WW2.

Now having read most the sources (internet links) in this thread, as well as digging a little bit myself I believe that the Ju-87 G was a capable tank killer in experienced hands, even if production numbers were comparatively low. Same counts for other dedicated (german) tank hunters. Having air supremacy or at least parity at many times on the eastern front surely helped much, since the majority of the kills/claims were made in the east.

[michael kenny]

The above is a typical reply (not intending to start an argument here)in that people 'know' the Germans had a strict verification system. Everyone 'knows' it but no one knows what it was or how it worked!

The situation in the East was that the kill claims were so high that an automatic 33% (rising to 50% in 1944) reduction was applied when collating the figures for intelligence use.

The Germans did that to their own figures.

In Normandy we can check German claims against fairly accurate Allied losses and guess what?

No more multiple kills (i.e.kills not claims) by single lone Tigers!

Hate to keep repeating this narrow point but Wittmann is by far the single most quoted example of a German tank ace in Normandy and it can be proved that the numbers cited in his award claim for Villers Bocage is at least out by a factor of x2, maybe even more.

The second most famous claim is by Will Fey in August when he claimed 15 Shermans in a single engagement. The corresponding War Diary of the engaged Unit shows they were not in action that day!

Barkman on 27/7/44 has a high profile as well but a recent reply to me from Steve Zaloga states that the 3rd AD losses that whole day were just 3 Shermans.

The Germans overclaimed like everyone else but it seems no one takes this into account when recycling unverified Unit claims as actual confirmed kills.

[Broompatrol]

Was Will Fey the one that supposedly was parked hull down behind a wall in a Panther and picked of a line of Shermans as they came down a road?

[bitchen frizzy]

What do you base this on? You're romanticizing and idealizing quite a bit.

Originally posted by RockinHarry:

After all there was a given procedure to "claim" kills of any sort, incl. tank/vehicle kills in the various nations air forces. The german army and those involved in promoting, as well as granting medals for combat performances had to made use of guidelines, regulations and procedures for their final decisions in the matter. They didn´t do promotions or granting awards without a good reason, not considering any secondary "morale raising" ones. Additionally it also was a matter of honor not to make unjustified claims, which could bring the false claimer before the court martial in many cases. Claiming "kills" did not had the (self-) purpose to raise a particular air force or army members ego and to grant him medals, it was rather part of the common after battle procedure to evaluate battle performances and combat results for the purpose to plan further (combat) actions.

What I mean to say, is that the numbers are not pure fantasy and pulled out of the hat light handedly just for propaganda reasons. Any of you know any of the procedures/regulations used for aknowledging "Kill claims"? I guess that individual "Claims" are multiple times higher just after any combat mission and that the "debriefing" procedures and staff/intelligence works lead to the final approved "claims" we see in those reports and biographies nowadays.

With regard to german army procedures and combat doctrines, I have no doubt that most figures reflect individual kill claims and combat performances pretty well. If some light would be shed on the matter (what is a "kill" and who decided it was credible?), I also think that Rudel´s claims would look less fantasy like even when considering that his person was heavily (mis-) used for Nazi propaganda. So were Erwin Rommel and other german peronalities who are known to be non-Nazis or involved in the resistance.

I also would be interested to know how individual tank/AC kill claims were handled in the soviet and western allied armies during WW2.

Now having read most the sources (internet links) in this thread, as well as digging a little bit myself I believe that the Ju-87 G was a capable tank killer in experienced hands, even if production numbers were comparatively low. Same counts for other dedicated (german) tank hunters. Having air supremacy or at least parity at many times on the eastern front surely helped much, since the majority of the kills/claims were made in the east.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Broompatrol:

Was Will Fey the one that supposedly was parked hull down behind a wall in a Panther and picked of a line of Shermans as they came down a road?

No I think that would be Barkmann. Fey had a Tiger.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Hetzer38,

Well, blow me down! Outstanding set of finds!

1. Is high capacity HE. Have seen the mine term used for Gepard 35mm antiaircraft ammo.

2. Is HE incendiary, I believe.

3. Is HE.

Have skipped the others as they're not combat related. As best I can tell from my German-English tech dictionary, the Leuchtspur is the tracer element, but I don't know what the Zerleger is. Root word has to do with dividing and splitting up, though. None of the above 3 is PzGr 40 Hart Kerne (T/HVAP/APCR) ammo or even PzGr 38, APHE. Thus, I think there's something wrong with the list.

Regards,

John Kettler

Zerleger is a time-fuse implement that detonates the round after a set time of flight. In the Bundeswehr it is called Selbstzerleger, and was in the 20mm HE incendiary rounds. It works based on round rotation, i.e. if rotations drop below a certain number (which is preset and unalterable in the 20mm), the round will detonate. For the 20mm, this happened after ca. 1,600m flight distance, if memory does not trick me, but I was taught this 20 years ago. The aim is to prevent the round coming down onto the heads of your own troops/your own territory, if it fails to hit.

All the best

Andreas

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

The above is a typical reply (not intending to start an argument here)in that people 'know' the Germans had a strict verification system. Everyone 'knows' it but no one knows what it was or how it worked!

if i am not mistaken, every kill needed to be proven either by a witness or gun cam film. when a pilot thought he might have just gotten a kill he called for others to check it out. when he landed he would file a report on the kill and witnesses would file their reports. then an officer would either accept or reject the kill claim based on the reports (i.e. do they prove that the enemy target was indeed destroyed). of course such a system does not remove "human error", but it does set some limitations for it.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

The Germans overclaimed like everyone else but it seems no one takes this into account when recycling unverified Unit claims as actual confirmed kills.

you are right, no one takes it into acount.

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

The above is a typical reply (not intending to start an argument here)in that people 'know' the Germans had a strict verification system. Everyone 'knows' it but no one knows what it was or how it worked!

Barkman on 27/7/44 has a high profile as well but a recent reply to me from Steve Zaloga states that the 3rd AD losses that whole day were just 3 Shermans.

Hmmm...this is private correspondence between you and Zaloga, or can you provide a link or reference to the above? This is a pretty bold implication to randomly throw about as you have done without some sort of reference. One would hope that the S4 reports for the battalion in question & divisional G4 reports for the day of, as well as the next day or two would be employed to verify. Further crossing checking of what were complete losses and those that may have been knocked out but were recoverable and repairable.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Hmmm...this is private correspondence between you and Zaloga, or can you provide a link or reference to the above? This is a pretty bold implication to randomly throw about as you have done without some sort of reference.

It was one of 3 examples, 2 of which I presume you accept?

One would hope that the S4 reports for the battalion in question & divisional G4 reports for the day of, as well as the next day or two would be employed to verify. Further crossing checking of what were complete losses and those that may have been knocked out but were recoverable and repairable.

I was of course refering to the oft quoted example of Barkmann destroying several Shermans. A damaged tank is not a destroyed one. I am not too well referenced on US losses so did defer to Zaloga's assertion. However I can categorically state that both the Wittmann and Fey claims are grossly inflated.

It is striking that the high German kill rates claimed for Russia are not repeated in the West.

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

A damaged tank is not a destroyed one.

It counts as a kill though if the crew bails out and hauls ass to the rear and the vehicle is combat ineffective for the remainder of the battle.

However I can categorically state that both the Wittmann and Fey claims are grossly inflated.

Are you comparing kill claims to written off vehicles ?

It is striking that the high German kill rates claimed for Russia are not repeated in the West.

Hmmmmmm.... the Germans for all intents and purposes wrote the Western version of the history of the Eastern Front. Given the Cold War angle wouldn't it be awfully convenient if your former enemy and newly found ally did great damage to your perceived new enemy while doing next to necligible damage to your own gear ?

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Tero:

It counts as a kill though if the crew bails out and hauls ass to the rear and the vehicle is combat ineffective for the remainder of the battle.

Then we can say that the 130 odd Tigers in Normandy were 'killed' some 300 times?

A damaged tank is not a kill. Wounded is not killed.

Are you comparing kill claims to written off vehicles ?

For Wittmann I am saying that the absolute maximum number of tanks he could have even hit at Villers Bocage was 10-12. It is not even confirmed that it was he who hit all of those 10 as 2 other Tigers were firing at the same Targets. He was cited as destroying 20+

Fey's claim (widely reported in most German accounts) is very odd. The nicest way of putting it is that it is totaly without any verification.

The Wittmann kill claims can be compared to the actual losses. Fey's claim is completely without any matching Allied accounts

Hmmmmmm.... the Germans for all intents and purposes wrote the Western version of the history of the Eastern Front. Given the Cold War angle wouldn't it be awfully convenient if your former enemy and newly found ally did great damage to your perceived new enemy while doing next to necligible damage to your own gear ?

In the East(where records are scarce) multiple scores are routinely claimed.

In the West (where we have Allied loss figures)

There are very few such claims.

Taken together with their own method of applying a 50% reduction in claims I think we can safely say that German kill claims were inflated.

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Then we can say that the 130 odd Tigers in Normandy were 'killed' some 300 times?

If they were KO'd, repaired and KO'd again more than once then yes, they were killed 300 times. They were written off only once.

A damaged tank is not a kill.

A damaged (KO'd) tank not fighting is killed. Wether or not it is a total loss is irrelevant.

Wounded is not killed.

Comparing humans to machines is not relevant.

For Wittmann I am saying that the absolute maximum number of tanks he could have even hit at Villers Bocage was 10-12.

It is not even confirmed that it was he who hit all of those 10 as 2 other Tigers were firing at the same Targets. He was cited as destroying 20+

AFAIK the claim count given includes also Bren carriers and other assorted vehicles and not just tanks.

The Wittmann kill claims can be compared to the actual losses. Fey's claim is completely without any matching Allied accounts

What is missing is the daily (weekly, monthly) Allied strenght reports which would indicate how many vehicles were being repaired during given timeframe. We know some 33 000 M4's were produced but I have never seen how many were written off as combat losses and how many went through the repair facilities/units. That figure should not be too hard to collect from the most excellent Allied archives but somehow the figure has never been of interest to the prominent historians. All we talk about is how inflated the kill claims were but we can not verify how many tanks were actually killed.

In the East(where records are scarce) multiple scores are routinely claimed.

Who says the records are scarse ?

It is rather ironic the most accurate actual KO/write off figures I have seen are for Red Army tank losses during Winter War at as seen here .

In the West (where we have Allied loss figures) There are very few such claims.

We have the loss figures ? Where ?

Taken together with their own method of applying a 50% reduction in claims I think we can safely say that German kill claims were inflated.

Agreed. They are inflated just like anyone elses. Then again when a KO'd tank is repaired and sent to the fighting again then it can be killed more than once.

[Andreas]

As far as I know the German kill award system was only recognising claims for TWOs, not for temporary kills.

The way I understand it the tank had to burn or suffer catastrophic damage to count.

As for Wittmann, if you look at this article, you'll see it credits him with 24 tanks (20 Cromwells and 4 Firefly), so no, the claim of 20+ does not include Bren carriers and HTs.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/foothold.aspx

All the best

Andreas

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

As far as I know the German kill award system was only recognising claims for TWOs, not for temporary kills.

That was the Finnish way too. Nevertheless that applies (in the Finnish practise) only to kills awarded to individuals. The Finnish official kill estimate figure for tanks is not the sum of the kills awarded to the individuals. In that figure every KO's tank is tallied as each contributed to the success/failure of the Finnish forces. A unit would report (say) 10 tanks KO'd during a battle and that X were recovered by the enemy . (Finnish tankers also collected needed spares during the summer of 1944 from the KO'd vehicles if the vehicles could not be recovered to the rear by the Finnish troops. But I digress... )

The way I understand it the tank had to burn or suffer catastrophic damage to count.

That is my understanding too.

As for Wittmann, if you look at this article, you'll see it credits him with 24 tanks (20 Cromwells and 4 Firefly), so no, the claim of 20+ does not include Bren carriers and HTs.

OK. Does that BTW make the figure any less credible ? In other words: is the article relying on Wittmans claims or the official unit history ?

[Andreas]

I believe the 20+ figure is coming from the official German account of the battle. The 20 Cromwells and 4 Fireflies are (together with 3 Stuarts) the tank casualties of the day of 4th CLY (see below). It is just that the article assigns all of them to Wittmann, while there were a few other German tanks around as well.

As Michael points out, it has more to do with what was needed to make a good Signal article then with reality.

Regt move forward at first light towards VILLERS BOCAGE 8157, A Sqn leading, followed by A Coy RB. No opposition and A Sqn reach feature East of VILLERS BOCAGE (area 8358). Column split at 823578 by two Tigers, RHQ brewed up completely. A Sqn continue and take up battle positions. B Sqn hold town but unable to get through to A Sqn. 1000 - A Sqn surrounded and attacked by Tigers and infantry. Call for immediate assistance, but none could get through.

1030 - CO, who was with A Sqn, reports position untenable, withdrawal impossible.

1035 - All stations go off the air. B Sqn ordered to hold village at all costs. 4Tp B Sqn, with infantry and A/Tk guns under Lt L Cotton MM, after a 6 hour street battle, destroy 4 Tigers and 3 Mark IV.

1600 - B Sqn reports village still held by us, but infantry in area 820575. 1/7th Queens attack, but fail to clear opposition. B Sqn Leader (now acting CO) ordered to withdraw Regt to 780580. This carried out without further loss. C Sqn cover withdrawal.

Major IB Aird takes over command of Regt, Major EP MacColl 2i/c, Capt FA Jarvis MC commands B Sqn, Capt KH Hiscock commands C Sqn.

Missing: Lt Col The Viscount Cranley MC (CO),

Major A Carr (2i/c),

Major PMR Scott MC & Bar (A Sqn Leader),

Capt BWG Rose (Adjutant),

Capt RRB Brown,

Capt AR Smith,

D Colvin,

Lt WF Garnett,

Lt DL Sellars,

Lt LP Hurley (UDF),

Lt PH Strode,

Lt RSA Ingram.

76 ORs.

Wounded: Lt JSW Simonds MM,

Capt HIC MacLean (remained at duty),

Capt P Dyas (remained at duty)

5 ORs

Killed: 4 ORs

Vehicle Casualties: 20 Cromwells

4 Fireflys

3 Humber scout cars

3 Stuarts

1 half track.

http://www.warlinks.com/armour/4_cly/4cly_44.html

All the best

Andreas

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Tero:

It is rather ironic the most accurate actual KO/write off figures I have seen are for Red Army tank losses during Winter War at as seen here .

this is a bit offtopic, but you might find this page interesting as it's even more accurate on Soviet Winter War tank losses. the table at winterwar.com only has stats for 7th and 13th Army but the RKKA site has tables for 8th and 9th Army as well + some stats on individual tank brigades.

EDIT: BTW if my memory isn't failing me those Soviet loss tables aren't complete, as not all units had filed their reports before they were pulled from the front. though perhaps it was with some Continuation War Soviet tank losses, i can't remember for sure.

[ March 08, 2007, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[RockinHarry]

Originally posted by Moronic Max:

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

If the info provided in this thread about total number of Il-2s produced vs. total number of German AFVs KOed by air attack is correct, ground attack is massively overmodeled. It is not uncommon for an eight-plane squadron to rack up a few dozen tank kills in a mission, provided there are enough targets.

Granted, I can't aim for crap in the game, but the AI wingment seem to never miss when conducting an attack run; they will destroy their target on the first pass. </font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

As Michael points out, it has more to do with what was needed to make a good Signal article then with reality.

Me thinks this debate is hung up too much on the personal claims/awarded kills of some prominent figurehead individuals.

IMO it is irrelevant historically if the kill claims/awards numbered 20+ tanks and they were all awarded to Wittman (or Rudel) if the actual losses correspond accurately with the claims/awards.

[Shrike]

RockinHarry, I do believe IL-2/FB/Pacific Fighters uses a relaxed flight model for the AI. Unless it has been changed recently (I haven't been following it lately), that has always been the case.

/interjection

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Tero:

Me thinks this debate is hung up too much on the personal claims/awarded kills of some prominent figurehead individuals.

IMO it is irrelevant historically if the kill claims/awards numbered 20+ tanks and they were all awarded to Wittman (or Rudel) if the actual losses correspond accurately with the claims/awards.

The claims made for German tank units are way too high. If you pick out some of the high scorers and show that they did indeed go over the top then it is highly relevant. If the most quoted can be proved to be inflated then the system is shown to be faulty.

There should be no debate about this because the Germans themselves knew the claims (in Russia) were inflated. They applied an official reduction because they noticed the mistake.

The kill v damaged debate is not really valid.

Read any German account by a tank unit and you will notice that they never ever mention damaged tanks as lost yet when writing about Allied Units they include every single possible tank casualty as a confirmed kill:

'Super Panzer leader Hans held up an entire English Division and destroyed 40 tanks. His battered Tiger was towed back to have its turret replaced, tracks mended and engine repaired. His driver and loader were killed but we lost no tanks today.'

For far too long we have had to read about double digit kill claims for the Panzers when in fact they did not do as well as they like to think. You can read about the 5 shermans for one Panther tale but when you find the matching figures they do not support the uber-panzer myth.

There are dozens on Panzer Unit histories around but not one of them take into account the 50% reduction in kill claims when advancing their claims. They never even mention it.