|
|
|
|
#1
12-25-2015, 06:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Thanks. 
|
|
#2
12-25-2015, 06:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#3
12-25-2015, 09:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ...
|
|
#4
12-25-2015, 10:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/t...e-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.
|
|
#5
12-26-2015, 09:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 ) 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.
|
|
#6
12-30-2015, 04:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47? A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! (Gunther Rall's lecture. June 2003, Finland)
|
|
#7
12-24-2015, 09:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The whole numbers game exploded in my hands!
 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. Quote:
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! Quote:
I don’t want to repeat what I’ve already said about being shot down 30 times.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
