Ju-87G Stuka

[CzechTexan]

I'm finishing up a Ju-87G campaign and I was wondering about the lethality of its big guns. I think I remember a while back that there were complaints about the guns not having enough killing power against tanks in our beloved flight sim.

In real life, it seems the "G" had many, many tank kills during the war. I've read that toward the end the Soviets had more heavier tanks like the IS-2 and those could not be killed by the G. G pilots would therefore go after the softer targets. Rudel still continued to score many kills at the end.

As for me, I must not be a very good shooter because it's hard for me to kill tanks with the G. It's not a problem with softer tanks like the Su-76.

Anyway, I'm just wondering if the lethality of the guns are modelled accurately in this sim. Or, if that problem has been corrected and I'm just a bad shot.

[dimlee]

I used 87G a lot many years ago, in 4.07 or earlier, on/offline. As I remember, T-34 was not a problem after some training, but successful attack on IS or KV required more skills and tactics, steeper angle and targeting to aft section. Don't know about current implementation though.
As for WWII... Let's apply common sense and remain sceptical to victory claims numbers, especially from mid 1943 on Eastern Front, when Germans were on retreat and damaged/destroyed tanks mostly remained on Soviet side.

[Furio]

As for WWII... Let's apply common sense and remain sceptical to victory claims numbers, especially from mid 1943 on Eastern Front, when Germans were on retreat and damaged/destroyed tanks mostly remained on Soviet side.

Exactly.
“During retreat from the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391 armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of which just 33 had been victims of any sort of air attacks”. Flying Guns WWII, A.G. Williams, E.Gustin.
These numbers are hardly surprising if we consider three things:
The pilots has just seconds in the heat of the battle and in the midst of explosions and smoke to choose between a lethal direct hit, a damaging but not lethal one and a near miss.
A 37 mm. shell can inflict damage, but not lethal damage most of the times.
A damaged tank is repairable.
About victory claims… Often they were just that: claims.

[gaunt1]

I think I remember a while back that there were complaints about the guns not having enough killing power against tanks in our beloved flight sim.


Wasnt it the opposite? That some guns are too powerful vs tanks?
As far as I know, the only guns that were effective: Vya, NS-37, NS-45, BK 3.7 and BK 7.5 Any other gun was useless vs tanks in reality.

[CzechTexan]

Wasnt it the opposite? That some guns are too powerful vs tanks?
As far as I know, the only guns that were effective: Vya, NS-37, NS-45, BK 3.7 and BK 7.5 Any other gun was useless vs tanks in reality.

OK, maybe that was the case.
About claims...I also believe the case of over-claiming kills. I also believe that tanks could be repaired or dragged away from where they were "killed" in order to be repaired later.

As for the IL-2 sim... I guess the consensus is that the guns are accurately modelled for killing effect. Thanks for all the replies!

[Pursuivant]

I'm finishing up a Ju-87G campaign and I was wondering about the lethality of its big guns. I think I remember a while back that there were complaints about the guns not having enough killing power against tanks in our beloved flight sim.

Past arguments on this topic boiled down to complaints by wanna-be Ulrich Rudels that the Ju-87G's cannons aren't 1940s Hellfire missiles vs. sticklers for historical accuracy who actually read the after-action reports on relative effectiveness of airborne cannon and rockets.

The summary of all those reports is that ground attack pilots were seriously overclaiming kills, especially vs. very hard targets like the IS-2 or Panther.

OTOH, they probably weren't overclaiming by that much for kills vs. soft targets.

Currently, I think that cannons are reasonably well balanced. If you use them right they can be lethal, even against the heavy tanks. Really good virtual Stuka pilots can achieve kill percentages which would make Rudel look like a rookie by comparison, but which would also get them killed in real life.

The trick to using the Stuka G, or any other "panzerknacker", effectively, is attack from the rear at a steep angle, and then shoot when you're very close to the target. If you aren't pulling out of your dive at treetop level, you're doing it wrong.

[gaunt1]

Well, actually the BK 3,7 was very powerful. Original round was able to penetrate 58mm armor, more than enough vs T-34/76s (the slope of its armor had little effect), and also vs T-34/85s, except turret sides. Later it received another round which was able to penetrate as much as 120mm!

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Bordwaffen/Bordkanonen/Bordkanone37cm/bordkanone37.html

[Furio]

Well, actually the BK 3,7 was very powerful. Original round was able to penetrate 58mm armor, more than enough vs T-34/76s (the slope of its armor had little effect), and also vs T-34/85s, except turret sides. Later it received another round which was able to penetrate as much as 120mm!

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Bordwaffen/Bordkanonen/Bordkanone37cm/bordkanone37.html

Then why use 88mm and larger calibre cannons in tank warfare? And why build tanks at all, if it was so easy to knock them off with a light gun?

[Furio]

Seriously, and more kindly speaking, the theoretical penetration is not everything. The BK 3.7 had even better performances in optimal conditions, being able to penetrate 140 mm., at 100 m. and 90°. But at 60° and same distance, penetration was halved at 70 mm. In the end, real world anti tank aircraft of WWII were not that much effective. Surely less effective than the simulated ones of our beloved sims.
In my opinion.

[gaunt1]

Then why use 88mm and larger calibre cannons in tank warfare? And why build tanks at all, if it was so easy to knock them off with a light gun?

Because BK 3.7 used tungsten carbide projectiles. Tungsten was rare and needed elsewhere. Also, since it lacked bursting charge, it didnt inflict as much damage as a normal shell. In reality, T-34s were highly vulnerable targets for a BK 3.7 due to their thin armor, but the thicker armored KV and IS tanks were hard nuts to crack, because the shell lost too much energy to do damage inside. This is why germans needed a bigger weapon (BK 7.5)

[gaunt1]

In the end, real world anti tank aircraft of WWII were not that much effective.

As far as I know, there were only 3 planes that were truly effective vs tanks:
Ju-87G, Hs-129B3, and Hurricane with Vickers S-guns. The rest, including IL-2, just a myth.

[Furio]

True, T34 were highly vulnerable targets for a BK 3.7, but in ideal conditions, that is: at short range and at 90°. If T34 were so much easy prey for the BK, and in general for small calibre weapons, Russians would have stopped producing and fielding them.
Ballistics and technicalities aside, we are talking about effectiveness of guns mounted on WWII airplanes. As historical evidences suggests, contrary to flamboyant victory claims, WWII planes were moderately effective against soft skinned vehicles, and not much against tanks. Because they could only use small calibre cannons with limited ammunition loads and with primitive gun sights; because they had poor performances and even poorer handling qualities; because they flew at low level, often in heavy turbulence; because they faced murderous anti aircraft fire.
All that being said, topic is about anti tank operations with our simmer’s plane types, and the Ju87G in particular. I don’t think that by making cannons more destructive we would obtain better realism. On the contrary: realism would require less effective weapons. I can’t find better words than those written by Pursuivant.

Currently, I think that cannons are reasonably well balanced. If you use them right they can be lethal, even against the heavy tanks. Really good virtual Stuka pilots can achieve kill percentages which would make Rudel look like a rookie by comparison, but which would also get them killed in real life.

The trick to using the Stuka G, or any other "panzerknacker", effectively, is attack from the rear at a steep angle, and then shoot when you're very close to the target. If you aren't pulling out of your dive at treetop level, you're doing it wrong.

[majorfailure]

Then why use 88mm and larger calibre cannons in tank warfare? And why build tanks at all, if it was so easy to knock them off with a light gun?

Because penetration of armour is not a granted kill. Bigger shell-usually more energy left after penetrating, higher chance to do any lethal or crippling damage. Addded to that bigger gun means greater range and bigger shell means less prone to get glancing hits and less susceptible to wind.

[Furio]

Because penetration of armour is not a granted kill. Bigger shell-usually more energy left after penetrating, higher chance to do any lethal or crippling damage. Addded to that bigger gun means greater range and bigger shell means less prone to get glancing hits and less susceptible to wind.

History confirms. During the war, tanks were equipped with bigger and bigger guns, up to 120 mm. Specialized attack planes followed different paths. RAF tried the Vickers S on the Hurricane, but then preferred rockets on the MkIV and the Typhoon. Russians tried 37 mm. cannons on their Shturmoviks, but then returned to less specialized armament, more effective in the CAS role. Only Germans persisted, with questionable results. Some HS129 had impressive armament, but the type had poor performances, bad to execrable handlings and dangerously unreliable engines. As for the Ju87G, suffice to say that a big, two seat plane was needed to haul aloft just 24 rounds, with performances no better than a Westland Lysander.

I agree with Gaunt1: myths abound. The Il2 was an effective CAS type, and surely gave a big contribution to Russian victory, but its anti-tank abilities were dubious. As for the Ju87G, its fame came mainly by the super human Rudel’s feats, and I think the time has come to express some doubts about his victory tally, as it ultimately sums up to two whole tank divisions.

[gaunt1]

Even though IL-2s, Typhoons, P47s were almost totally useless vs tanks, they did incredible destruction in supply convoys, which, in long term, was far more effective than to destroy tanks themselves. On the german side, Hs-129 and Fw-190F were also highly effective in this role.

(A flyable Typhoon would be awesome in the game, but I wouldnt mind an earlier Fw-190F, like the F-3 too)

[majorfailure]

Even though IL-2s, Typhoons, P47s were almost totally useless vs tanks...

In terms of killing tanks, sure. For harassing tanks maybe not. It sure does not help the tank crews' stress level and rational decision making being pinged by planes cannons/MGs -even if they were totally sure that they were invulnerable to air attack - and I'd bet they were not.

[RPS69]

Some corrections:

There was no need to attack on a 90º approach.
Attacks should be done on a 45º to 60º dive.
The concept that made those attacks good, was the armour on top back of most tanks.
It will seldom be thicker than 30mm, being the KV an exception with 40mm.

In game, the Bk canon are supposed to penetrate easily up to 35mm armour, making 40mm invulnerable to Bk attacks, never matter the angle.

Discussing effectivity of air weapons against tanks, assuming that a kill is only such when the tank is destroyed for good, it's actually hilaryous.

Damaging tracks, killing engines, putting them on fire, force them to button up, and so on, are succesfull air attacks.

Il2 37mm canon, were a failure because they were not synched. They were useless against tanks. Actually they found some use as anti shipping weapon, where aiming wasn't that important.

On the other side, Stuka G weapons, were reasonably effective, the main problem with the aircraft itself, was it's low surviving capability once it was attacked by enemy fighters... as long as enemy fighters weren't as useles as the ones on Rudell's accounts.

Hs129, when they were not harassed by enemy air opposition, were quite effective. At first, when they were first used on the battle of Kharkov, they tried for the first time a 30mm PaK. Pilots were critical of the weapon, because they believed it was useless, so they called it so, but at the end of the battle, when german troops advenced and reached knocked out T34's, they discovered that the 30mm penetrated T34's turret sides, and killed commander and gunner. Yes... they penetrated the turret armour!

In game, the development is quite good. You can kill many tanks with the Ju87G, by doing a 45º dive, and firing on convergence. You have a single shot to take with both bullets hitting the same place.

I use it at 300m, and calculate firing time by dive angle, and height. When I reach near convergence distance, I fire a single shot, and take care to climb again. Is useless to try a second shot, because you will only score near misses on the sides of the tank. Thay are a damn small target.

Also, on IL2 tanks won't change direction and make your aim somewhat more difficult. Same as ships, they don't engage on evasive maneuvers, so it is actually easyer to score a shot, because tanks are trotting ducks on a row.

[Furio]

Some corrections:

There was no need to attack on a 90º approach.
Attacks should be done on a 45º to 60º dive.
The concept that made those attacks good, was the armour on top back of most tanks.
It will seldom be thicker than 30mm, being the KV an exception with 40mm.

I didn’t talk of 90° dive. I talked about the bullet hitting target at 90°, regardless of plane position. At any other hitting angle, penetration is reduced, up to glancing and no penetration at all.


Discussing effectivity of air weapons against tanks, assuming that a kill is only such when the tank is destroyed for good, it's actually hilaryous.

Damaging tracks, killing engines, putting them on fire, force them to button up, and so on, are succesfull air attacks.

A damaged and temporarily disabled tank can be an advantage during a battle, but cannot be considered a kill, if it isn't captured. Otherwise, the same tank could be killed countless times. A kill means:
A) A completely destroyed tank.
B) A damaged, immobilized and captured tank.

Il2 37mm canon, were a failure because they were not synched. They were useless against tanks. Actually they found some use as anti shipping weapon, where aiming wasn't that important.
The lack of sinc made bursts impossible, but how many bursts can you fire with the 12 rounds per gun of a Ju87G?

On the other side, Stuka G weapons, were reasonably effective, the main problem with the aircraft itself, was it's low surviving capability once it was attacked by enemy fighters...
I agree with you. Ju87G was very slow and vulnerable, but at least it has a gunner. The Hs129 was even slower, had no rear defence and had a built-in enemy in the form of unreliable engines.

as long as enemy fighters weren't as useles as the ones on Rudell's accounts.
I would not take too seriously Rudel's tales. His victory tally is more than suspicious.

In game, the development is quite good. You can kill many tanks with the Ju87G, by doing a 45º dive, and firing on convergence. You have a single shot to take with both bullets hitting the same place.
Also, on IL2 tanks won't change direction and make your aim somewhat more difficult. Same as ships, they don't engage on evasive maneuvers, so it is actually easyer to score a shot, because tanks are trotting ducks on a row.
Agreed. In game, you can fly the Hs129 with perfectly reliable engines and fire easily the Shturmovik’s 37 mm. cannons.

[majorfailure]

Discussing effectivity of air weapons against tanks, assuming that a kill is only such when the tank is destroyed for good, it's actually hilaryous.

A tank is killed when it is out of the fight for good -and that means usually either destroyed when on the advancing side, or at least immobilized and the territory it is on in enemy hands on the retreating side.

Damaging tracks, killing engines, putting them on fire, force them to button up, and so on, are succesfull air attacks.
Tank tracks are not that easy to put out of commision, and it would require quite a lucky hit from any aerial gun to do that. Ever seen a real life sized track link of a medium tank of that era? -They are quite big and sturdy.

Killing engines or putting them on fire -without penetration of the engine compartment rather unlikely.

And a buttoned up tank is not out of the fight, it only is at the disadvantage.
Maybe easier to kill by ground troops - but as soon as the air attack is over still a good tank in perfect fighting condition.

[Pursuivant]

Then why use 88mm and larger calibre cannons in tank warfare? And why build tanks at all, if it was so easy to knock them off with a light gun?

Small caliber guns only work against armored targets if you get really close. For a tank or an AT gun, that's not always possible, or desirable.

A gun like the 88mm KwK 36 mounted on the Tiger I could score kills on a T-34 at 1,500 m, and could reliably punch through any portion of its armor at 1,000 m. By contrast, a 37mm gun might need to get within a few hundred meters to have any chance of working.

For aircraft, weight and weapon size are huge problems, so you need a smaller, lighter weapon - which means a lower caliber gun. To compensate for the smaller caliber, you increase muzzle velocity, increase rate of fire, and possibly use special ammunition. But, even then, you have to get close to your target - both to hit reliably, and to punch through armor.

[Pursuivant]

On the contrary: realism would require less effective weapons. I can’t find better words than those written by Pursuivant.

FWIW, veteran pilots learned that you needed to get really close and low in order to effectively engage ground targets, so it's not unrealistic for very brave/suicidal veteran pilots to pull out of their dives very low, or to conduct strafing runs at treetop height or below.

I don't have any good Soviet or German sources here, but as examples, Francis Gabreski (leading US Ace in the ETO) was captured after he damaged his plane's prop when it hit the edge of a railway embankment while making a strafing run, and that another US pilot making a low strafing run literally cut a German soldier's head off with his airplane's wing!

Of course, that makes it a pain to program the AI, since it means a whole bunch of collision avoidance programming that you can mostly ignore as long as AI aircraft don't fly below a couple hundred meters AGL.

[Pursuivant]

On the other side, Stuka G weapons, were reasonably effective, the main problem with the aircraft itself, was it's low surviving capability once it was attacked by enemy fighters... as long as enemy fighters weren't as useless as the ones on Rudel's accounts.

It's not that Soviet fighters were useless, it's that Rudel was amazingly good. There's one incident where went up against an ace Soviet pilot (probably Lev Shestakov) while flying a Stuka and won.

I use it at 300m, and calculate firing time by dive angle, and height. When I reach near convergence distance, I fire a single shot, and take care to climb again. Is useless to try a second shot, because you will only score near misses on the sides of the tank. Thay are a damn small target.

This is exactly how you do it.

45-60* dive angle aiming at the tank's rear deck, while trying to keep your airspeed down. Time your shot for 300 m or closer, take your shot and then immediately pull out of your dive so that you just miss the ground.

Flaps and dive brakes up, full throttle, and then some sort of evasive action - like a climbing turn - while you extend range and regain altitude.

In the game, you can make repeated attacks. In real life, pilots who survived to become veteran pilots learned that it was "one and done" - unless you were absolutely sure that any flak in the area had been neutralized.

IL2 tanks won't change direction and make your aim somewhat more difficult. Same as ships, they don't engage on evasive maneuvers, so it is actually easier to score a shot, because tanks are trotting ducks on a row.

There's also that stupid, predicable "bump and turn" obstacle avoidance routine that all ground vehicles in IL2 use. If you take out the lead vehicle in a convoy, you know exactly how the rest of the convoy will react and you can use that to your advantage.

At least for convoys of soft vehicles or lightly armored vehicles, you take out the flak guns first. Then you take out the lead vehicle which will bring the rest of the convoy to a stop. For soft vehicles, you can then strafe down the column, working from front to back. For AFVs, pick them off one by one making side or rear attacks, but starting from the front of the convoy.

[Pursuivant]

I didn’t talk of 90° dive. I talked about the bullet hitting target at 90°, regardless of plane position. At any other hitting angle, penetration is reduced, up to glancing and no penetration at all.

Is this correct? Obviously, it's correct in real life, but does IL2 actually model angle of impact when calculating armor penetration? I'm not sure that it does.



A damaged and temporarily disabled tank can be an advantage during a battle, but cannot be considered a kill, if it isn't captured.

You're right, but IL2 doesn't model damaged ground vehicles. A ground vehicle is either dead or in perfect health. Certainly, you don't get credit for damaged vehicles.

In that way, I think that IL2 is unintentionally realistic, in that it sort of models the kill claims made by ground attack pilots. (The unofficial rule being that if you put gunfire into a vehicle it's a kill, even if a few hours at the maintenance unit will set things right.)

Otherwise, the same tank could be killed countless times.

This was, and is, is a very common reason for pilots (and tankers) to make exaggerated kill claims.

Unlike in IL2, where the game helpfully shows you (and tells you, if you've got Padlock and HUD messages on) whether you've killed a vehicle or not, in real life it's sometimes quite hard to tell if an AFV is damaged to the point of destruction.

That means that different pilots (and tankers) might shoot up the same "dead" vehicle multiple times thinking that it was still a valid target.

A kill means:
A) A completely destroyed tank.
B) A damaged, immobilized and captured tank.

The ordinance units would probably count a "kill" as "damaged beyond effective repair", which can mean all manner of things.

But, setting an AFV on fire is usually a good way to wreck it, since the heat of the fire ruins the armor as well as any internal equipment.

In combat, it's more useful to think of "mobility kills" (vehicle can't move), "gun kills" (weapons systems no longer functional), and "combat effectiveness" kills (crew wounded, killed, or otherwise no longer willing or able to fight, vital equipment destroyed, low on fuel, etc. to the point that the vehicle won't be taking any further part in the action that day.)

If IL2 paid more attention to ground vehicle ops, then it might be useful to model mobility and gun kills. Right now what it does is crudely models combat effectiveness kills.


I would not take too seriously Rudel's tales. His victory tally is more than suspicious.

His claims were subject to the usual very strict Luftwaffe kill-claiming procedures - at least for air-to-air kills. Rudel might have been an unrepentant Nazi, and possibly a braggart, but he was undoubtedly one of the finest attack pilots ever.

I think that there's a lot of truth to his stories. Certainly, his story about sinking the Marat is valid, as is his sortie record (over 2,500 combat missions!). How many ground vehicles he actually destroyed is questionable, but it's probably a considerable number.

[KG26_Alpha]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1X21-pUQsw

[Furio]

It's not that Soviet fighters were useless, it's that Rudel was amazingly good. There's one incident where went up against an ace Soviet pilot (probably Lev Shestakov) while flying a Stuka and won.


Amazing is not enough, “incredible” is more fitting word. Any Russian fighter had an enormous speed and manoeuvrability advantage over a Stuka, so big that no pilot’s ability on earth could balance it, if not by pure chance. If ever happened, this incident demonstrates just luck.

[Furio]

His claims were subject to the usual very strict Luftwaffe kill-claiming procedures - at least for air-to-air kills. Rudel might have been an unrepentant Nazi, and possibly a braggart, but he was undoubtedly one of the finest attack pilots ever.

I think that there's a lot of truth to his stories. Certainly, his story about sinking the Marat is valid, as is his sortie record (over 2,500 combat missions!). How many ground vehicles he actually destroyed is questionable, but it's probably a considerable number.

The problem is not that Rudel was an unrepentant Nazi, but that his feats were surely amplified by Nazi propaganda, and we don’t know how much. In the process, his ego was inflated to the point that, very humanly, he probably ended up believing his own tales. But why today should we take his words for granted? He surely was a fine pilot, but how he really compares to his comrades? Anyone knows – this is a serious question, not a rhetorical one – how many Luftwaffe pilots flew the same plane types as Rudel, mainly the Stuka?

[_1SMV_Gitano]

[...]Anyone knows – this is a serious question, not a rhetorical one – how many Luftwaffe pilots flew the same plane types as Rudel, mainly the Stuka?

You can have and idea from www.ww2.dk website, Air Units --> Ground-attack units section, and checking what units had operational Ju-87D/G on strength. An example is 10. (Pz.)/SG77: http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/schlacht/b10sg77.html

[RPS69]

I didn’t talk of 90° dive. I talked about the bullet hitting target at 90°, regardless of plane position. At any other hitting angle, penetration is reduced, up to glancing and no penetration at all.

Sorry, I understood that you were implying a 90° dive. It wasn't clear.
Anyway 30mm are easily penned by 37mm BK, on any angle in between 45° and 90° at around 300m


A damaged and temporarily disabled tank can be an advantage during a battle, but cannot be considered a kill, if it isn't captured. Otherwise, the same tank could be killed countless times. A kill means:
A) A completely destroyed tank.
B) A damaged, immobilized and captured tank.


I must disagree. The pilot job is done, it can't depend on the ground troops performance to be asigned as a kill.
Tank is abandoned, crew is badly injured, or temporarily out of comission, the attack is a kill.

Many kills were scored by pilots that never realized that they were that successful. Not all kills are spectacular.


The lack of sinc made bursts impossible, but how many bursts can you fire with the 12 rounds per gun of a Ju87G?

None, that weapon doesn't fire any bursts at all. It must always be a precision shot.


I agree with you. Ju87G was very slow and vulnerable, but at least it has a gunner. The Hs129 was even slower, had no rear defence and had a built-in enemy in the form of unreliable engines.


I don't know the Gnome to be unreliable, it makes it underpowered, but they weren't unreliable.


I would not take too seriously Rudel's tales. His victory tally is more than suspicious.

Propaganda inflated most probably, as some other british bomber pilots.
Anyway, my comment was supposed to be an irony.

[RPS69]

Amazing is not enough, “incredible” is more fitting word. Any Russian fighter had an enormous speed and manoeuvrability advantage over a Stuka, so big that no pilot’s ability on earth could balance it, if not by pure chance. If ever happened, this incident demonstrates just luck.

I don't share this. Low level flyers, with good maneuver capacity, were tough targets. Fast fighters, trained to hit and run, see those targets as a good opportunity to start a nice and long chat with the worms.

Many of this planes at slow speeds, got better maneuver capacity than the fighters themselves, and they were also better at low level handling.

A fighter pilot trained to dive and shoot as near as possible, will see a low level flying aircraft as a "not on the manual" procedure.
If they overshoot, they were most likely to end six feet under, without the need for a grave digger.

[Pursuivant]

I don't share this. Low level flyers, with good maneuver capacity, were tough targets. Fast fighters, trained to hit and run, see those targets as a good opportunity to start a nice and long chat with the worms.

That's exactly what happened. Rudel was a master of his aircraft and was able to make sharp evasive maneuvers at close to ground level. His opponent either took a lucky shot from Rudel's rear gunner and/or stalled out with too little altitude to recover.

Rudel only knew that he'd won the fight when his rear gunner told him the Soviet plane had crashed, which tells you that he was utterly focused on defense.

By rights, Rudel should have been dead, but his opponent got greedy for the kill, got sucked into a low speed maneuver fight, and then screwed up (or got unlucky) doing it.

Smart tactics for the Soviet pilot would have been to get a few of his buddies together and do "Thatch weave" beam attacks by sections. Twisty, windy, slow speed evasive tricks only work well against one opponent. They don't work so well if you're bracketed by 2 or 4 fighters.

[Pursuivant]

I don't know the Gnome to be unreliable, it makes it underpowered, but they weren't unreliable.

Gnome-Rhone Motors made for the Germans in Occupied France were occasionally sabotaged (or, perhaps, just manufactured as shoddily as possible, with a muttered "A bas les boches" to send them on their way). Ditto for other German aircraft whose parts were made or assembled by enslaved or subjugated workers.

I don't know how common sabotage was, however, nor how easy it was for the sabotage to get past quality control inspectors. Also, I have no idea how much damage was detected and fixed during testing and delivery.

My ignorant guess is that German ferry pilots probably suffered most from sabotage, and that the mechanics at the front caught all but the most subtle sabotage attempts before the airplane went into battle.

[Furio]

Anyway 30mm are easily penned by 37mm BK, on any angle in between 45° and 90° at around 300m

The difference between theoretical and practical effectiveness of small calibre anti tank weapons is demonstrated by the simple fact than all combatants went ahead producing, fielding and using with success tanks, arming them with as big guns as possible.


I must disagree. The pilot job is done, it can't depend on the ground troops performance to be asigned as a kill.
Tank is abandoned, crew is badly injured, or temporarily out of comission, the attack is a kill.


To kill or impair the crew, you need to inflict a really severe damage. This is a kill, you’re right. But if you simply hit a tank, doing little and repairable damage, than it’s not a kill, is just a “damaged tank”. It becomes an effective tactical result only if ground troops capture the vehicle. If it doesn’t happen, because the same ground troops are retreating, it has only temporary tactical value. Counting it as kill, considering a “pilot’s job” done, is an accounting trick good for pile up victory tallies.


Propaganda inflated most probably, as some other british bomber pilots.
Anyway, my comment was supposed to be an irony.

It’s true. I’m sceptical about victory claims and books written by aces of any nationality. Any book and any ace. My scepticism grows with the number of claimed kills, and in this regard Rudel is at the top.

As for irony, I’m not English speaking, and I have the feeling the same is true for you. Often irony is lost in translation.:smile:

[Furio]

That's exactly what happened. Rudel was a master of his aircraft and was able to make sharp evasive maneuvers at close to ground level. His opponent either took a lucky shot from Rudel's rear gunner and/or stalled out with too little altitude to recover.

Rudel only knew that he'd won the fight when his rear gunner told him the Soviet plane had crashed, which tells you that he was utterly focused on defense.

By rights, Rudel should have been dead, but his opponent got greedy for the kill, got sucked into a low speed maneuver fight, and then screwed up (or got unlucky) doing it.

Smart tactics for the Soviet pilot would have been to get a few of his buddies together and do "Thatch weave" beam attacks by sections. Twisty, windy, slow speed evasive tricks only work well against one opponent. They don't work so well if you're bracketed by 2 or 4 fighters.

Ju87D had a wing loading of 196 kg./m2. The Yak 9t (not the lighter of Russian fighters) had a wing loading of 176 kg/m2. Why the Yak should stall at higher speed than the Dora? Or how the Dora should manoeuver better at low altitude?
In any case, if not by luck and chance, a Stuka can win only if the fighter pilot is incompetent or makes a series of bad mistakes. History demonstrated that slow and lightly armed bombers were easily shot down, regardless their pilots and gunners ability. And Rudel's memories.

[Furio]

Gnome-Rhone Motors made for the Germans in Occupied France were occasionally sabotaged (or, perhaps, just manufactured as shoddily as possible, with a muttered "A bas les boches" to send them on their way). Ditto for other German aircraft whose parts were made or assembled by enslaved or subjugated workers.

I don't know how common sabotage was, however, nor how easy it was for the sabotage to get past quality control inspectors. Also, I have no idea how much damage was detected and fixed during testing and delivery.

My ignorant guess is that German ferry pilots probably suffered most from sabotage, and that the mechanics at the front caught all but the most subtle sabotage attempts before the airplane went into battle.

Gnome Rhone engines, as far as I know, were small engines, powerful for their size and for this very reason unreliable, as it happens for any hot rod engine. They also lacked effective filters and suffered badly for dust and sand ingestion, both common occurrence in North Africa and Eastern Front. Lastly, they were not famous for their toughness, being usually put out of service by the slightest damage. With such an engine, having two of them cancels any safety advantage, actually doubling the chances of trouble.

Engines aside, the HS129 was very slow, had bad handling and limited manoeuvrability, and had no rear defence. Therefore, it could be reasonably employed only against lightly defended targets. When it entered service, Luftwaffe had increasing difficulty in attaining air superiority and ultimately was unable to attain it even locally, and this ended HS129 career. In my opinion, as good as it were its cannons, the HS129 cannot be considered an effective weapon system.

[majorfailure]

Sorry, I understood that you were implying a 90° dive. It wasn't clear.
Anyway 30mm are easily penned by 37mm BK, on any angle in between 45° and 90° at around 300m
Penetration even if easily achieved is not a sure kill. It is possible even for a 122mm shell to penetrate and do no harm -though unlikely.


I must disagree. The pilot job is done, it can't depend on the ground troops performance to be asigned as a kill.
Tank is abandoned, crew is badly injured, or temporarily out of comission, the attack is a kill.
And that was just what happened. Pilots claimed kills because they believed to have destroyed a vehicle. But if not for a spectacular kill like a ammo cook-off, it is not easy for pilots to assure a kill, a hit vehicle may stop because its engine is dead, or crew killed - or it might just stop to engage a target.

Many kills were scored by pilots that never realized that they were that successful. Not all kills are spectacular.
Exactly. But this works the other way round too, e.g. many kills were claimed by pilots that were not sucessful. And also anything in camouflage is a tank, at least at 400 mph....

Propaganda inflated most probably, as some other british bomber pilots.
Anyway, my comment was supposed to be an irony.
Usually I'm sceptical, but Rudel was beyond human -and I don't mean that to be a compliment, and if such someone has a lot of luck, and quite some talent as a pilot he might as well get to such feats without cheating. He made a few thousand missions, and got shot down countless times, survived every time, if nothing else he is the luckiest WWII aviator ever.

[RPS69]

And that was just what happened. Pilots claimed kills because they believed to have destroyed a vehicle. But if not for a spectacular kill like a ammo cook-off, it is not easy for pilots to assure a kill, a hit vehicle may stop because its engine is dead, or crew killed - or it might just stop to engage a target.

Well, a tank under enemy fire that got it´s engine dead, is a dead tank, normally it's crew will bail out as fast as possible. Stranded tanks are canon ammo magnets


Exactly. But this works the other way round too, e.g. many kills were claimed by pilots that were not sucessful. And also anything in camouflage is a tank, at least at 400 mph....

For sure!, but maybe there is another kind of confusion here, pilots may report armoured vehicles, without distinguishing a tank from an armored transport. In german that's a normal confusion, since the term "Panzer" means armoured, but not necessarily a tank.


Usually I'm sceptical, but Rudel was beyond human -and I don't mean that to be a compliment, and if such someone has a lot of luck, and quite some talent as a pilot he might as well get to such feats without cheating. He made a few thousand missions, and got shot down countless times, survived every time, if nothing else he is the luckiest WWII aviator ever.

Lol! The guy ended the war as almost a Cyborg! And then he traveled to Argentina with Kurt Tank as a test pilot during Peron's time. He surelly was a bit on the crazy side.
But the fact that he survived the whole war flying a Stuka for most of the time, must mean a lot. Even if he didn't kill everything he claims, surviving all those missions make him someone to be appraised as a pilot.

[RPS69]

They also lacked effective filters and suffered badly for dust and sand ingestion, both common occurrence in North Africa and Eastern Front.

Sorry, but this did happened in the first attempt on being delivered to North Africa. Later it was corrected, and the aircraft achieved some success, until allied air superiority was too much even for axis fighters...


Lastly, they were not famous for their toughness, being usually put out of service by the slightest damage. With such an engine, having two of them cancels any safety advantage, actually doubling the chances of trouble.

Sorry again... but... this aircraft got it's engines protected from ground fire, and it wasn't described as an issue, at least after 1942.


Engines aside, the HS129 was very slow, had bad handling and limited manoeuvrability, and had no rear defence. Therefore, it could be reasonably employed only against lightly defended targets. When it entered service, Luftwaffe had increasing difficulty in attaining air superiority and ultimately was unable to attain it even locally, and this ended HS129 career. In my opinion, as good as it were its cannons, the HS129 cannot be considered an effective weapon system.

You state a lot of true concepts, with a questionable conclusion. No airforce without air superiority would have had a successfull anti tank aircraft!
Those aircraft were all vulnerable to fighter attacks, since their armour was intended to protect them against hand held weapons, not canons.
They performed well at slow speeds, and low altitude, and that was it's job.
This same platform with better engines, would have been better, but the concept as it was, it was good.
It actually has a kind of a modern sibling on the A10. It is almost the same concept, with jets...

[Pursuivant]

Ju87D had a wing loading of 196 kg./m2. The Yak 9t (not the lighter of Russian fighters) had a wing loading of 176 kg/m2. Why the Yak should stall at higher speed than the Dora? Or how the Dora should manoeuver better at low altitude?

I have no idea. Rudel didn't describe the incident in detail. He claims that the Russian pilot was either shot by his gunner or lost control due to the backwash of the Stuka's propeller. All we know is that Rudel and his gunner survived and the Russian pilot did not.

The incident is possibly historically accurate, since the Soviet ace Shestakov went missing in the same operational area where Rudel was operating. Beyond that, there's no real evidence.

But, I think that we're in agreement that the odds heavily favor a competently-flown fighter against a Stuka.

[Pursuivant]

Gnome Rhone engines, as far as I know, were small engines, powerful for their size and for this very reason unreliable, as it happens for any hot rod engine. They also lacked effective filters and suffered badly for dust and sand ingestion, both common occurrence in North Africa and Eastern Front. Lastly, they were not famous for their toughness, being usually put out of service by the slightest damage. With such an engine, having two of them cancels any safety advantage, actually doubling the chances of trouble.

Good summary. The problems you describe could easily be interpreted as sabotage, even if there actually was none.

Engines aside, the HS129 was very slow, had bad handling and limited manoeuvrability, and had no rear defence.

This is my impression of the plane. It's only good points were good pilot armor and a reasonably robust airframe.

[Furio]

You state a lot of true concepts, with a questionable conclusion. No airforce without air superiority would have had a successfull anti tank aircraft!
Those aircraft were all vulnerable to fighter attacks, since their armour was intended to protect them against hand held weapons, not canons.
They performed well at slow speeds, and low altitude, and that was it's job.
This same platform with better engines, would have been better, but the concept as it was, it was good.
It actually has a kind of a modern sibling on the A10. It is almost the same concept, with jets...

You’re right, leaving aside different information about the Gnome Rhone, we draw different conclusions. In the end, my opinion is that all specialized anti-tank aircraft of WWII, of all nations, were a failure, and the Hs129 was the worst one simply because it was the most specialized.

As I see it, if a type can operate only with complete air superiority, it has no true tactical value. It’s a weapon you can use only when you’re already winning the battle.

The A10 is totally incomparable, being technologically in a different world. However, its real value in a symmetrical battle, with real air opposition, was never demonstrated.

[Furio]

I have no idea. Rudel didn't describe the incident in detail. He claims that the Russian pilot was either shot by his gunner or lost control due to the backwash of the Stuka's propeller. All we know is that Rudel and his gunner survived and the Russian pilot did not.

The incident is possibly historically accurate, since the Soviet ace Shestakov went missing in the same operational area where Rudel was operating. Beyond that, there's no real evidence.

But, I think that we're in agreement that the odds heavily favor a competently-flown fighter against a Stuka.

The point is: all we know is what Rudel told about this encounter. And his tale is very suspicious. He was flying a plane with much slower top speed, much lower manoeuvrability and probably higher stalling speed (depending on load, of course). Its only advantage was the presence of a gunner, and we should eventually applaud gunner’s marksmanship, but we know that most, if not all, light bombers had similar defensive armament, and usually suffered heavy to appalling losses, regardless their pilots ability.

Overall, Rudel’s memories defy all the rules of probability and his victory tally makes one wonder how Germany lost the war.

[Janosch]

I've always thought that Rudel was a very handsome man.

As a side note, the style of his writing is absolutely hilarious! He's so serious that it's funny. Also, the real bragging in his book is not the things he claims to have killed, but the things he claims to have said in various situations.

[majorfailure]

As I see it, if a type can operate only with complete air superiority, it has no true tactical value. It’s a weapon you can use only when you’re already winning the battle.
Anit-tank planes can also operate in an environment with local air superiority -so you do not need the total air control.
But the whole concept is questionable, though - as the western allies somewhat proved in WW2, using fighter-bombers to do the ground work.

The A10 is totally incomparable, being technologically in a different world. However, its real value in a symmetrical battle, with real air opposition, was never demonstrated.
Technologically different, yes, but same concept. In a symmetrical battle it would fare as well as Shturmoviks in 43 - okay, not brilliant. Without any form of control in the air that thing would have been about as useless as the Hs129 in 44.

Overall, Rudel’s memories defy all the rules of probability and his victory tally makes one wonder how Germany lost the war.
There were quite a lot of soldiers fighting in all WW2. So I would not say it defies the rules of probability. Say among all these million soldiers there were a few thousand as talented as Rudel, that could be right couldn't it?. And then just say that among ten thousand soldiers there was one that was as lucky not getting killed as he was -could be right? -Then just because you have that many soldiers fighting, you will have a reasonable probability to get one to a few Rudel.
And Germany would have lost the war with ten thousand Rudels. Biting off more than you can chew is always a bad idea, and they tried to bite with the mouth still full.

[Pursuivant]

The point is: all we know is what Rudel told about this encounter.

Maybe Rudel's gunner was like the AI Ace gunners in IL2, with immunity to G-forces and laser-like accuracy and ranging ability! :)

Other than that, we can debate the technical merits of the planes involved all day, but I think that ultimately the outcome of the fight can be summed up by two fighter pilot maxims:

"I'd rather be lucky than good." (And, if nothing else, Rudel had the devil's own luck.)

"It's not the plane, it's the man in the plane."

Overall, Rudel’s memories defy all the rules of probability and his victory tally makes one wonder how Germany lost the war.

Agreed. I think that Rudel's victory total against ground vehicles is probably (unintentionally) overstated, like the kill claims for just every other ground attack pilot.

His total of air-to-air kills is probably fairly accurately, since all his claims had to be verified by very strict Luftwaffe kill-claiming procedures. While there was still some overclaiming under this system, I think that the odds are that Rudel is legitimately an ace pilot (i.e., 5+ aerial kills).

His sortie total is probably also fairly accurate, since his pilot's logbook could easily be verified by other sources. Of all Rudel's achievements, this is probably his most amazing feat. You don't survive over 2,000 sorties as a ground attack pilot on the Eastern front without a remarkable combination of luck and skill.

Overall, Rudel’s memories defy all the rules of probability and his victory tally makes one wonder how Germany lost the war.

That's one of the tremendously depressing things about modern warfare. When there are millions of men fighting, the actions of one man on the battlefield, no matter how heroic, seldom make a difference in the overall course of the war. Instead, impersonal factors like logistics, national economic output, demographics, and weather play more of a role.

[RPS69]

That's one of the tremendously depressing things about modern warfare. When there are millions of men fighting, the actions of one man on the battlefield, no matter how heroic, seldom make a difference in the overall course of the war. Instead, impersonal factors like logistics, national economic output, demographics, and weather play more of a role.

Ouch! All of my dreams of counting, were destroyed! You are mean! :-P

[Furio]

Original topic’s thread has been largely stolen, with my contribution, so some apologize are needed. However, I’ve read many interesting posts, including those I disagree with, and I must thank everyone for sharing their thoughts, and ask for everyone’s patience, as I’m going for another round.:rolleyes:



There were quite a lot of soldiers fighting in all WW2. So I would not say it defies the rules of probability. Say among all these million soldiers there were a few thousand as talented as Rudel, that could be right couldn't it?. And then just say that among ten thousand soldiers there was one that was as lucky not getting killed as he was -could be right? -Then just because you have that many soldiers fighting, you will have a reasonable probability to get one to a few Rudel.
As I understand it, probability doesn’t work this way, but in the opposite direction. There’s not any law requiring Rudel as the final outcome. In other words, it’s not like a National Lottery where, as thin as the winning chances are, a number is ultimately drawn. A war can be – and most probably is – fought without any single soldier reaching such mythical results.
We are talking of people that risked their life with each sortie, and each time faced no small probability of being killed. Regardless of your magic evasive manoeuvres, how many times you can evade anti-aircraft fire and enemy fighters? If your plane is hit, how many times bullets and shells can pierce wings, fuel tanks and fuselage, leaving you alive? If your plane is shot down, how many times can you bail out or land in the field without crashing with fatal result, or without being captured?
2.500 missions and 30 times shot down are the numbers declared by Rudel. To put it simply, I consider them unbelievable, period. Logbooks and documents are falsifiable for propaganda purpose.


And Germany would have lost the war with ten thousand Rudels. Biting off more than you can chew is always a bad idea, and they tried to bite with the mouth still full.
Here I disagree, and I think numbers disagree also. If we take for good Rudel’s victory tally, just 240 of Rudel-type men would have destroyed 124,560 tanks, more that the total built in Russia during the whole war. Now, let’s divide Rudel’s efficiency by a factor of ten, for a victory tally of 50 destroyed tanks each. Just 2.491 pilots would have been enough to obtain the same result. If we consider that Russian tanks faced also many other dangers, mainly German panzers, jagdpanzers and 88 mm. guns, a much lower kill number was needed to win the war. It’s just a guess, but 25,000 destroyed tanks could have been more than enough to change history. And to obtain that result just 500 pilots, each one with one tenth of Rudel’s victory tally, are needed.
Play a little with different numbers, if you like, but the picture doesn’t change that much and, Rudel apart, says something about anti-tank weapons efficiency.

[RPS69]

Furio, what you are doing is very similar to some religious man, that was very upset with some enlightnend frenchman that demonstrated God's non-existance.
In revenge, he demonstrated Napoleon non-existance while he was still alive. To the point that he confirmed the truth of his thesis after knowing Napoleon's death, stating that before demonstrating his thesis was wrong, they preferred to kill Napoleon, so to not have the need to counter demonstrate nothing...

Statistics could always be arranged on a convenient way, to afirm whatever you want.

But while Majorfailure stement was on the uniqueness side, you tried the reciprocate, and that is always a false condition, at least using the same simplification.

Nazi Germany never build so many Ju87, and Hs129 to generate so many Rudells. So if you want to extrapolate for the number built, there was only one Rudell, so to have 2500 Rudell's, you need to multiply the actual number of each type flown by Rudell, for the number of aircraft and attack pilots available. This number would be higher than the whole availability of aircraft on aviation history!

[Pursuivant]

Furio has a point in that Rudel was at least partially a creation of Nazi propaganda. And, his kill claims might have been inflated, either for propaganda reasons or just due to "fog of war."

Are there non-biased, post-WW2 analyses of Rudel's war record?

My guess is that there's probably a lot of truth to the legend, but I'm not going to take Rudel's word for all of it. In particular, his kill claims for ground vehicles might be badly overstated.

RPS69 makes a great point that the Stuka G was a very rare bird. Certainly it was a specialist's tool, introduced at a time when Germany was rapidly running to out of qualified combat pilots.

When we can create missions with hundreds of aircraft of the same type with a few button clicks we can forget how scarce some planes actually were.

[Furio]

Furio, what you are doing is very similar to some religious man, that was very upset with some enlightnend frenchman that demonstrated God's non-existance.
In revenge, he demonstrated Napoleon non-existance while he was still alive. To the point that he confirmed the truth of his thesis after knowing Napoleon's death, stating that before demonstrating his thesis was wrong, they preferred to kill Napoleon, so to not have the need to counter demonstrate nothing...

RPS, the story about Napoleon is interesting and funny, and says a lot about the times we live in. That said, my English must be very bad, if an exercise in scepticism gives the feeling of a religious zealot. In any case, I don’t take lightly people’s feelings, so let me say something that should be obvious: I respect everyone’s opinion, no matter how much I disagree, and I never duel intentionally with anyone. I’ve read many interesting points in this thread, food for thoughts and incentive for research. I thank again everyone for this, Majorfailure included.

Statistics could always be arranged on a convenient way, to afirm whatever you want.
I disagree. To demonstrate whatever you want you need to falsify numbers, and I didn’t do that. Moreover, I didn’t use complicate statistic methods or tricks, just simple, elementary math. And I never talked about 2,500 Rudels unleashed on Earth, a frightening thought!
Perhaps I was unclear, perhaps there’s something wrong in my reasoning, so it’s wiser to take a fresh start. We have these numbers.
2,500 missions claimed by Rudel.
30 times shot down, as above.
519 tank kills, as above.
Now we need the approximate number of tanks fielded by Russia. As usual, the net gives a lot of different numbers. Somewhere I found 124,560 tanks produced by Soviet Union from January 41 to December 45. Some should be subtracted, being built after war’s end, but lend lease tanks should be added. I propose the estimate number below.
130,000 tanks fielded by Soviet Union during the war.
Some simple math gives us these results.
251 Rudels would have destroyed all 130,000 tanks.
231 Rudels if the tanks were 120,000.
192 Rudels if the tanks were 100,000, and so on.
Russian tanks suffered losses from German panzers, jagd-panzers and antitank guns. On top of these, how many tanks needed to be destroyed by air attack alone for Germany to win the war?
48 Rudels would have destroyed 25,000 tanks (48.1 Rudels, to be precise).
19 Rudels would have destroyed 10,000 tanks (19.2 Rudels, to be precise).
My guess is that 10,000 tanks, all destroyed on the battlefield or in the vicinity, would have been more than enough. A first conclusion can be drawn: not Rudel alone, but a small number of his peers would have changed the course of history.
Let us make a further step, and consider less formidable pilots and comparing them to the above numbers. We consider pilots with a victory tally of 50 kill each (a little less than one tenth of Rudel’s claims).
500 “one-tenth Rudels” would have destroyed 25,000 tanks.
200 “one-tenth Rudels” would have destroyed 10,000 tanks.
A second conclusion can be drawn: a relatively small (500 at most, 200 more probably) number of “one-tenth-Rudels” would have changed the course of history.

From the above numbers, if reasonably correct, I draw my own conclusion: Rudel was a braggart. The real value of anti-tank planes (and other anti-tank weapons) was modest.

Returning to facts and numbers, let’s consider the 2,500 combat missions flown by Rudel. If I remember correctly, USAAF Eight Air Force retired crews after 25 missions, to afford them fair survival chances. Certainly USAAF was conservative, but Rudel claimed to have flown 100 times these 25 missions. Even quadrupling the American limit to 100 missions, Rudel claimed 25 times that number. Just think about how risky Eight Air Force missions were, multiply that risk 25 times and you end up with Rudel’s career.

From the above numbers, if reasonably correct, I draw my own conclusion: Rudel was a braggart. In reality, he flew fewer missions, or most of these had no risk at all.

30 times shot down. I know that Rudel was severely wounded and lost a leg, but just think a little at this number. Try to hit an airplane for 30 times with bullets and shells, always leaving the pilot alive. Pilots apart, for 30 times the plane receive fatal damage: one time the engine is stopped, another the fuel tank sets on fire or explode, control linkages are severed, wings or tail are shot away, and each time the pilot bail out or crashland successfully, and always comes out alive and is never captured.
There’s no need for statistical analysis here.

Conclusion, I’m not saying that Rudel didn’t exist, but that he was a braggart. I went a little off talking about falsified documents. This is not necessary. Just in case, I say it again: all the above is my opinion, and I’m smiling, not grinding my teeth.:)

[majorfailure]

There’s not any law requiring Rudel as the final outcome. In other words, it’s not like a National Lottery where, as thin as the winning chances are, a number is ultimately drawn. A war can be – and most probably is – fought without any single soldier reaching such mythical results.
Never said "require", just said allows. And how ever improbable it may be, not impossible.

2.500 missions and 30 times shot down are the numbers declared by Rudel. To put it simply, I consider them unbelievable, period. Logbooks and documents are falsifiable for propaganda purpose.

In a state so focused to document everything correctly, even their own war crimes? And at least for missions flown, there would have been witnesses to every take-off and every landing. Not impossible to do, but I'd bet some witness would have come forward after the war and tried to debunk the myth then. The shotdowns should even today be verifyable by comparing documents.


Here I disagree, and I think numbers disagree also. If we take for good Rudel’s victory tally, just 240 of Rudel-type men would have destroyed 124,560 tanks, more that the total built in Russia during the whole war. Now, let’s divide Rudel’s efficiency by a factor of ten, for a victory tally of 50 destroyed tanks each. Just 2.491 pilots would have been enough to obtain the same result. If we consider that Russian tanks faced also many other dangers, mainly German panzers, jagdpanzers and 88 mm. guns, a much lower kill number was needed to win the war. It’s just a guess, but 25,000 destroyed tanks could have been more than enough to change history. And to obtain that result just 500 pilots, each one with one tenth of Rudel’s victory tally, are needed.
Play a little with different numbers, if you like, but the picture doesn’t change that much and, Rudel apart, says something about anti-tank weapons efficiency.
You know i was deliberately overexaggerating, do you?

But let's just extend this a little further. It is just too much fun.
Ten thousand Rudels would not have been able to kill as many tanks each as Rudel did, even given no shortage on planes and fuel and so on.
Rudel was operating in a target rich environment - he usually should have found more targets than he was able to shoot at. But if there were more Rudels around it gets increasingly difficult to find targets to the point where more than one Rudel is hunting the last available enemy vehicle - and they need to find it first.
So 10000 Rudels may be able to largely kill any AFVs the Red Army could throw at the Germans - still the Wehrmacht needs to occupy Russia with lots of ground to cover and infantry, artillery, airforce still defending. Already overextended supply lines getting even more extended, making any partisan warfare more effective - impossible to occupy all of Russia in time. And after total occupation the war is not won, there are still enemies, one you just gave a big breathing space(Britain), and one who is still powering up, and by that time - maybe unknowingly - has degraded your ally Japan from a vital to a medium threat (Midway).
So i do think even with the help of ten thousand Rudels the Germans would not have been able to conquer Russia, Great Britain and North Africa in time to make it impossible for the US to get seriously involved in the ETO, which in the end should highly likely lead to defeat - even if it may prolong the war for a few years - in the end your leadership errors kill you -and attacking any and all powers around you except a few allies at the same time is even beyond dumb.


30 times shot down. I know that Rudel was severely wounded and lost a leg, but just think a little at this number. Try to hit an airplane for 30 times with bullets and shells, always leaving the pilot alive. Pilots apart, for 30 times the plane receive fatal damage: one time the engine is stopped, another the fuel tank sets on fire or explode, control linkages are severed, wings or tail are shot away, and each time the pilot bail out or crashland successfully, and always comes out alive and is never captured.
There’s no need for statistical analysis here.
As I said he must have been one of the luckiest pilots in that war.

[gaunt1]

Soviet tank losses became completely unsustainable by the end of war. They were already running out of tanks in 1944-1945, despite the myths. Total losses are around 95.000 (a shocking number, but true), while total produced is around 110-120.000 That means, 20 Rudels would be enough in that hypothetical scenario...

[Furio]

The whole numbers game exploded in my hands! :roll: Each new number I write just adds to the confusion, so I would try one last time, reducing the whole thing to the very bare-bones essence.
20 (twenty, not 2,500 nor 10,000) Rudels would have changed the course of war.
200 pilots with one tenth of his ability and luck would have obtained the same result.
400 pilots with one twentieth of his ability and luck would have obtained the same result.
Germany lost the war, and this leave us with two possible explanations:
Rudel’s victory tally is far from reality.
Rudel’s victory tally is near reality, and all other Luftwaffe attack pilots were incredibly ineffective, unable to reach even one tenth to one twentieth of his results, while flying the same types against the same enemy.
This is what numbers tell to me, and I would not insist further on it.


In a state so focused to document everything correctly, even their own war crimes? And at least for missions flown, there would have been witnesses to every take-off and every landing. Not impossible to do, but I'd bet some witness would have come forward after the war and tried to debunk the myth then. The shotdowns should even today be verifyable by comparing documents.

This is an interesting and serious objection, but at least three explanations come to my mind. They do not exclude each other. On the contrary they sum up happily.
First: the Germans were surely meticulous, but they concocted as much propaganda as any other combatant. By definition, propaganda alters reality, often to a bewildering level.
Second: Rudel was surely a great pilot and surely obtained remarkable results. He soon became a hero, than a super hero, and who would question a super-hero’s word? As a super-hero, returning from a mission he could claim anything. Nobody would contradict him, both for his status and for his propaganda value.
Third: after the war, witness became rapidly scarce. For many years Nazi war crimes fell into oblivion, while the attention of Western public was redirected toward the new enemy: Soviet Union. In the new climate, Rudel was free to relive his super-hero myth with a successful book, a good thing for his ego, his pocket and his political party.
As for debunking myths, it’s never easy. Between history and myths, people always favour myths. Look at how little success I had here in this thread!


Never said "require", just said allows. And how ever improbable it may be, not impossible.
As I said he must have been one of the luckiest pilots in that war.

Here I think we’ll disagree forever. Everything is possible, you’re right. You can throw two dice and obtain two sixes, then again, and then again, but each time it’s less and less probable, to the point that it’s practically impossible. You cannot stretch luck forever. Please read again what I’ve written about USAAF policy on the matter. I maintain my opinion: Rudel flew fewer missions, or most of his missions had very low risk, or no risk at all.

I don’t want to repeat what I’ve already said about being shot down 30 times.

[Furio]

Soviet tank losses became completely unsustainable by the end of war. They were already running out of tanks in 1944-1945, despite the myths. Total losses are around 95.000 (a shocking number, but true), while total produced is around 110-120.000 That means, 20 Rudels would be enough in that hypothetical scenario...

This is a significant number. May you quote the source? This source gives any breakdown for these losses? Destroyed in combat with enemy tanks, by enemy artillery, on mine fields, by air attack?
Thanks.

[Furio]

On Wikipedia, this summary can be found.
2,530 mission flown, 2,100 with Ju87 variants, 430 with Fw190.
Credited with the destruction of:
1 battleship (the Marat)
1 cruiser
1 (or 2) destroyers
70 landing crafts
800 vehicles of all types
150 artillery
519 tanks
4 armoured trains
9 (or 11) aircrafts
If the 800 vehicles don’t include tanks, the total of single target destroyed is:
1,557
Not counting an unspecified, but high number of bridges, bunkers and supply lines (whatever these last could be). The word “hundreds” is used.
All of the above is credited as individual kills, ships included. No shared kills are listed.

He was shot down or forced to land 30 times by anti aircraft fire (never by enemy fighters).
He rescued 6 stranded aircrew from enemy held territory.
He was wounded five times.
He lost a leg on February 8th 1,945, returned to fight on March 25th , claiming 26 more tanks before surrendering to U.S. forces on may 8th.

[Derda508]

I followed this thread with a lot of interest.
All in all I tend towards Furios side, hopefully not only because I find Rudel an absolutely despicable person.
I am pretty sure that he was a very good pilot, but largely a creature of propaganda. The Nazis, despite their mass-ideology that tried to eliminate indiviuality, needed heroes. The public especially loved fighter pilots like Marseille. Hitler himself, who always perceived the war from the perspective of a foot soldier in WWI trenches, never liked the 'gentlemanly' fighters pilots, but favoured the bombers (interestingly labelled 'Kampfflieger', that is fighters, while fighters are 'Jäger' = hunters). The idea of bringing unescapable death from above most probably was a wet dream of his sick brain. So there was a need to find a bomber pilot and make him a propaganda hero. Rudel was fitting the description and very willing and ready to believe that he was the 'chosen one'
It is true that the Nazis were obsessed with keeping records and kill claim procedure was meticulous. But for propaganda exeptions were easily madeor numbers were manipulated. For example the rumours never died that Galland, as long as he was in favour, reached his kill numbers by shooting down airplanes that were already crippled by his squadron members (no shared kills in the Luftwaffe system), other pilots like Krupinski found it sometimes pretty hard to get their kill claims accepted.
So I think it is easily possible that every time Rudel started the engine of his plane, it was counted as a sortie. Or equally that he was credited with the kills of other pilots of his squadron, who conveniently did not return ...

[gaunt1]

This is a significant number. May you quote the source? This source gives any breakdown for these losses? Destroyed in combat with enemy tanks, by enemy artillery, on mine fields, by air attack?
Thanks.

Here you go:
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/

total losses are 96.500 tanks and SP guns.

source: G.F. Krivosheev , et al, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, Edited by Colonel General G.F. Krivosheev, Greenhill Books, London, 1997. p. 253, table 95.

No breakdown for these unfortunately. But one thing is sure, more than 25.000 of them can be attributed to a single type, the most successful tank killer of WW2: the StuG III.

[Furio]

Here you go:
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/

total losses are 96.500 tanks and SP guns.

source: G.F. Krivosheev , et al, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, Edited by Colonel General G.F. Krivosheev, Greenhill Books, London, 1997. p. 253, table 95.

No breakdown for these unfortunately. But one thing is sure, more than 25.000 of them can be attributed to a single type, the most successful tank killer of WW2: the StuG III.

I’ve carefully read this page, and others in the same site, including one that deals with our very topic: effectiveness of anti tank aircrafts versus tanks. Overall, the feeling is that the author read a lot of books, but didn’t do any first hand research. He then plays with available numbers (just like me…:rolleyes:) and draws his conclusions, but the lack of direct research cast doubts about the reliability of these conclusions. They are good when he chooses a good source, but we can only have or have not faith in his choices.
That said, author cites reports from Research and Analysis teams entering combat areas, once they were secured, to verify the real effect of weapons and tactics on the battlefield. Or, to put it simply: to compare claims and reality. He cited two cases: Normandy 1,944 and Kursk 1,943 from German side. Somewhat confusing, he then analyses overall result of Soviet ground attack aircrafts for the whole war, basing his evaluation mainly on German reports.
The results are:
4-5% kill-claim ratios for Allied in Normandy, with an overclaiming of 95%, mostly by Typhoons.
2-5% for Germans at Kursk, overclaiming of 95% at best, mostly by Hs129s and Ju87Gs.
6-7% for Russian in the whole war, overclaiming of 93 %, mostly by Il2 and Pe2.
For what is worth, I read elsewhere the same analysis result about Normandy. It is perhaps significant that Russians, with the less specialized Shturmoviks and Peshkas, obtained the best results, but I doubt that the word “best” can be used for such dismal performances. The author cited as the probable causes:
Primitive gun sighting.
Poor precision of unguided rockets.
Very limited ammunition load for cannons, and very low rate of fire.
Very short useful times for target acquisition, sighting, firing and assessing results, all the while manoeuvring to avoid anti aircraft fire.
All of the above looks reasonable to me, and I would add the effect of dust and smoke on visibility, and of wind and typical low-level turbulence on sighting for slow aircraft with relatively low wing loading.
However, in all those analysis (as surely in my posts too) the author makes some suspicious mistakes. For example, talks abut the Il2 and Il10 as being specialized anti-tank types, while they were multi purpose CAS types, with the exception of the Il2-37 with 37 mm cannons, built in relatively small numbers and only briefly employed.
Elsewhere, while debunking the T34 myth, he says: “In addition, USAAF and RAF gave the Russians air superiority for the first time (in 1,944)”. This is clearly absurd, as no USAAF or RAF units were fighting in Russia. I suspect he was implying that the indirect effects of bombing offensive on Western Front should be factored, but then the reverse is equally true, as Russians kept busy Luftwaffe forces that otherwise would have been available against USAAF/RAF bomber offensive. In a “what if” folly, he says that Russia would have lost war in 1,941 if not saved by Lend Lease help received in subsequent years. I have a better “What if”. Demoralised by shameful defeats and appalling losses, Stalin committed suicide in October 1,941, Soviet Union surrendered and Germany conquered the world.
We should always be sceptical about everything: Rudel’s claims and historical analysis by book readers, like we all are.

[swiss]

Returning to facts and numbers, let’s consider the 2,500 combat missions flown by Rudel. If I remember correctly, USAAF Eight Air Force retired crews after 25 missions, to afford them fair survival chances. Certainly USAAF was conservative, but Rudel claimed to have flown 100 times these 25 missions. Even quadrupling the American limit to 100 missions, Rudel claimed 25 times that number. Just think about how risky Eight Air Force missions were, multiply that risk 25 times and you end up with Rudel’s career.



The USAAF had replacement pilots which put them in the comfortable position to come up with the tour of duty system.
The Germans on the other hand did not - their tour of duty was over with their death/capture.
Most Germans aces had flown a ridiculous amount of missions till they were shot down and killed.
Most German aces actually were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_World_War_II_ground_attack_aces

or most of his missions had very low risk, or no risk at all.


In "Stuka Pilot" he never claimed his missions were super risky iirc.

[Furio]

The USAAF had replacement pilots which put them in the comfortable position to come up with the tour of duty system.
The Germans on the other hand did not - their tour of duty was over with their death/capture.
Most Germans aces had flown a ridiculous amount of missions till they were shot down and killed.
Most German aces actually were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_World_War_II_ground_attack_aces



In "Stuka Pilot" he never claimed his missions were super risky iirc.

This is a well-known fact. It should be considered that USAAF calculated the risk for a loss rate of around 5%, considering 10% a prohibitive limit, and the 25 missions mark was not easy to reach.
The only explanation I can think of is different duration of missions. Fortresses and Liberators flew for hours over enemy held territory, while a Stuka based near frontline could possibly complete a mission in a matter of minutes, facing, however, a much more dangerous anti-aircraft fire at low level.
Be it as it may, the Wikipedia list is interesting. There is one pilot that possibly reached half Rudel’s missions (approximately 1,300), a small group under the half limit and the rest down to a third or less. Claimed tank kills are much lower, around one-sixth on average, with just one approaching one quarter. It would be interesting to see the rest of the list, going down to less successful pilots.

[majorfailure]

This is a well-known fact. It should be considered that USAAF calculated the risk for a loss rate of around 5%, considering 10% a prohibitive limit, and the 25 missions mark was not easy to reach.
The only explanation I can think of is different duration of missions. Fortresses and Liberators flew for hours over enemy held territory, while a Stuka based near frontline could possibly complete a mission in a matter of minutes, facing, however, a much more dangerous anti-aircraft fire at low level.


I seriously doubt AAA fire at low level was more dangerous than what initially the level bombers faced. Targets were well defended by AA, and the straight and level flying masses of bombers made even the low hit probabilities of high alt FlaK a real serious threat. Anti tank planes usually do not hunt for tanks far behind the frontlines, most of the time when used against enemy advances there is not that much FlaK to be expected -on the march forward it is either too slow or lacks protection. And unlike Germany the Soviets were not too keen on FlaKpanzers, so I'd bet the biggest threat to a Stuka pilot was enemy fighters - which made it a pretty risky job - but maybe not on par with USAAF bombers crews.
The USAAF had replacement pilots which put them in the comfortable position to come up with the tour of duty system.
The Germans on the other hand did not - their tour of duty was over with their death/capture.
Most Germans aces had flown a ridiculous amount of missions till they were shot down and killed.
Most German aces actually were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_World_War_II_ground_attack_aces

Now I'm getting doubts, more missions than everyone else, okay. More victories, okay. But significantly more kills/mission than everyone else on top -and that by a large margin -around double. Either they let him have a lot of easy kills -or he made them easier.

[RPS69]

Rudell's claims could be easilly asumed as over the line.
But even on 10% they are impressive.

On the number of missions flown, you really got a spot when you differentiated the mission duration beteween the german and the allied sides.
There was an example of this on the osprey book about the Hs123.
Through the battle of France, they report this plane as being the first type to stop a tank charge using only air power.
There was a french column heading for the airbase where they were stationed, and they proceeded to harass and attack this column of french tanks until they retreated. I don't remember if there were any kind of tank losses there, but the point is that the planes landed and take off more than once in a single day. Something not unussual on the german side.
Why the French quited the attack, the book asumes it was because of the 123's. But only God knows what really happened over there.

[gaunt1]

Its quite easy to stop tanks. A near miss can easily cause significant damage to tracks, especially with larger bombs. Hs-123s were slow planes, where the pilot had more time to aim than in a Ju-87, so they could aim their bombs more precisely. This way, even SC 50 can be effective in stopping tanks (not destroying, thats enitrely out of question)

[RPS69]

Its quite easy to stop tanks. A near miss can easily cause significant damage to tracks, especially with larger bombs. Hs-123s were slow planes, where the pilot had more time to aim than in a Ju-87, so they could aim their bombs more precisely. This way, even SC 50 can be effective in stopping tanks (not destroying, thats enitrely out of question)

I share this point of view, but it was disregarded by fellow forum posters upward in the thread.

[Furio]

Rudell's claims could be easilly asumed as over the line.
But even on 10% they are impressive.
I agree with you.

On the number of missions flown, you really got a spot when you differentiated the mission duration beteween the german and the allied sides.
There was an example of this on the osprey book about the Hs123.
Through the battle of France, they report this plane as being the first type to stop a tank charge using only air power.
There was a french column heading for the airbase where they were stationed, and they proceeded to harass and attack this column of french tanks until they retreated. I don't remember if there were any kind of tank losses there, but the point is that the planes landed and take off more than once in a single day. Something not unussual on the german side.
Why the French quited the attack, the book asumes it was because of the 123's. But only God knows what really happened over there.

At Peleliu, Corsairs probably flew the shortest bombing missions ever. The target was less than two miles away from airfield, and pilots hadn’t even time to retract landing gear. So what we would need is not missions number, but mission duration, hard to get, I think. Then enemy opposition should be factored, even harder to do reliably.

[Furio]

I share this point of view, but it was disregarded by fellow forum posters upward in the thread.

You’re right. There are a lot of things we didn’t consider, and a lot more we simply don’t know. Then there are all the things we can only make educated guess about. My guess is that a tank moving on the battlefield is a small and difficult target, even for a near-missing bomb, and slow speed never helped any plane to survive.
I think we are talking too much about weapons effectiveness. On paper, Russian PTAB hollow charge bombs were a fearsome weapon, being dropped by the hundreds. However, not enough German tanks were destroyed by air attack to prove this lethality (or so available numbers suggest).
My educated guess is that, regardless of weapons, WWII era attack airplanes were largely inadequate for anti-tank warfare.

[gaunt1]

On paper, Russian PTAB hollow charge bombs were a fearsome weapon, being dropped by the hundreds.

They were fearsome weapons in practice too. But not against tanks. It was a devastating weapon against truck convoys, but was nearly impossible to hit tanks with them. Still, it was incredibly effective: Destroying a supply convoy was far more important than destroying a few tanks.

[Pursuivant]

At Peleliu, Corsairs probably flew the shortest bombing missions ever. The target was less than two miles away from airfield, and pilots hadn’t even time to retract landing gear. So what we would need is not missions number, but mission duration, hard to get, I think. Then enemy opposition should be factored, even harder to do reliably.

You can sort of figure out mission duration by number of sorties in a day, and, of course, distance from home airfield to the front lines.

Pilot logs contain all that information, but we almost never get to see them.

Degree of opposition could be inferred from maintenance logs - which record damaged and missing aircraft. But, I'm not sure that such data exists anymore.

[RPS69]

There was another point that may have helped Mr Rudell while flying the 87G.

When your side is deffending, you get a target rich environment, and... early warning!

This same early warning isn't available to the attacking side, unless they deploy a ridiculous amount of fighters all along the front line, like on the western side. With also a far stretch front line than on the eastern front.
He should be very unlucky just to pick the few freie jagds missions developed by the russians before 1944, on the wider front of the war.

He stopped flying the 87G after this wasn't healthy anymore.

Also, tanks damaged on an aborted penetration, may end being destroyed by their own crews.
Say, He got extremely lucky, killed the column commander, and the rest just fled from combat, putting their vehicles on fire. Rudell destroyed a whole tank column... who knows!

War isn't just some simple hell, it is a very bureaucratic, and chaotic hell!

[dimlee]

I suspect he was implying that the indirect effects of bombing offensive on Western Front should be factored, but then the reverse is equally true, as Russians kept busy Luftwaffe forces that otherwise would have been available against USAAF/RAF bomber offensive.

LW fighter force in Eastern Front in 1944-45 was cut down to bare minimum. Priorities were clear: home defence first, the rest secondary.

[Furio]

LW fighter force in Eastern Front in 1944-45 was cut down to bare minimum. Priorities were clear: home defence first, the rest secondary.

If this is true, then the reverse should be true also. Russians gained air superiority for RAF and USAAF during the previous year, exactly when the bomber offensive was risking failure. And it was 1,943 the decisive year for the outcome of war. In 1,944, war was already lost for Germany, regardless LW shifting from East to West, North to South or whatever. In my opinion.

[RPS69]

Russians gained air superiority for RAF and USAAF during the previous year

Nope!
It was really the other way.
Casualties on the home defense, provoqued the removal of full squads from the eastern front. They were supposed to be less important there, than on home defense. Eastern units were depleted on western front behalf. There was an operational atrition on the eastern front, but nothing compared to the attempts on stopping the bomber ofensive.

[Furio]

Nope!
It was really the other way.
Casualties on the home defense, provoqued the removal of full squads from the eastern front. They were supposed to be less important there, than on home defense. Eastern units were depleted on western front behalf. There was an operational atrition on the eastern front, but nothing compared to the attempts on stopping the bomber ofensive.

So, keeping LW squadrons on the Eastern front had no relevance whatsoever in the Western skies, and that is true for any war year.
I think that numbers are more reliable than opinions (mine included, of course). Relevant numbers to be considered are:
How many LW pilots defended western skies in 1,942?
How many in the following years?
In the same years, how many LW pilots were busy shooting down thousands of poor Russians, and how many were lost in the process?
On top of that, how many ground attack pilots could be diverted to fighter units if they were not busy killing hundred of thousands of Russian tank crews?
During 1,943, Eight Air Force bombing offensive ran the serious risk of being stopped, because of clearly unsustainable losses. In that period, how many more pilots would have been enough for LW to achieve that result?

As indicative as these numbers could be, they would not tell the whole truth. Such was the scale of World War II, and such complex the reasons of its final outcome that I’m more than sceptical about any claim, including those about who conquered air superiority.
In any case, I’m leaving for some vacation and have no time to play more with numbers. Have a nice year, guys!
Oh, and many thanks to Daidalos Team. Who knows, perhaps they’ll have some surprise for us soon!:grin:

[hun_77]

I just finished with the "Kanonenvögel"-campaign, and I had a lot of fun - thank You very much for the beautiful missions!
To make you jealous: Some old videos from virtual experts.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iqBDiQtGnY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbcX7cqU4Cw

[Pursuivant]

To make you jealous: Some old videos from virtual experts.

That's some great flying and shooting. I particularly like the way that both pilots use a hammerhead turn to reverse direction and come in for another pass. Both also use rudder extremely well to make fine adjustments in aim, and perfectly correct for deflection and bullet drop.

Of course, in both cases, there's almost no AAA fire.

Had those T-34s been equipped with turret-mounted MG, or if they had mobile AAA support, things might have been very different for the Stuka pilots. Also, human AAA gunners will understand that a Stuka headed into a stall turn is a nice, predictable, nearly immobile target and adjust fire accordingly.