Ju-87G Stuka

[Furio]

Originally Posted by 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...

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.

Originally Posted by RPS69

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.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Furio

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_o...nd_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]

Originally Posted by swiss

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_o...nd_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]

Originally Posted by Furio

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.

Originally Posted by swiss

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_o...nd_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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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

[Furio]

Originally Posted by RPS69

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

I agree with you.

Originally Posted by RPS69

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.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

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.