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]

Originally Posted by dimlee

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]

Originally Posted by CzechTexan

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]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/arch...dkanone37.html

[Furio]

Originally Posted by 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/arch...dkanone37.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]

Originally Posted by Furio

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)