Ju-87G Stuka

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by Furio

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.

Originally Posted 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]

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 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]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by RPS69

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.

Originally Posted by RPS69

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?

Originally Posted by RPS69

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.

Originally Posted by RPS69

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.

Originally Posted by RPS69

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]

Originally Posted by RPS69

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.

Originally Posted by RPS69

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]

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?

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.