PDA

View Full Version : Rudel Ju-87 G1 guncam!



F16_Neo
03-09-2007, 09:54 AM
Sorry if this already been posted, but it's a must-see!
Brutal is the word!

Now, where is my Stuka... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg&eurl=http%3A...iewtopic%2Ephp%3F250 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ef19vs%2Ese%2Fe107%5Fplugin s%2Fforum%2Fforum%5Fviewtopic%2Ephp%3F250)

F16_Neo
03-09-2007, 09:54 AM
Sorry if this already been posted, but it's a must-see!
Brutal is the word!

Now, where is my Stuka... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg&eurl=http%3A...iewtopic%2Ephp%3F250 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ef19vs%2Ese%2Fe107%5Fplugin s%2Fforum%2Fforum%5Fviewtopic%2Ephp%3F250)

JG52Karaya-X
03-09-2007, 09:58 AM
Seen it already, those Bk3.7 cannons sure are hard hitters, look at the size of the water fountains... must be some 30-50m high

FPSOLKOR
03-09-2007, 10:11 AM
Reposting from ACWOS:

I'm afraid to call saint anger against me, but... This matter had been discussed several times at Russian-speaking forums... A bit of loss statistics...

1 Gv TA (Lvov-Visla operation): art fire-310, mines-0, aviation-14, other-12
3 Gv TA (Lvov-Visla operation): 322, 10, 49, 0
4 Gv TA(June - Sept 1944): 230, 3, 6, 0
4 Gv TA(Orel operation): 312, 41, 7, 0
Here are the fights which germans claim that they had stoped russian tanks by aviation only... most effective-12,9%. Art fire is by far more effective.


http://militera.lib.ru/science/radzievsky_ai/index.html

On average throughout the war russian tank armies lost 6% to aviation. Most noticeable figure I met was 17,7%

On the other hand germans were effective against support columns, and tank without fuel is senceless... That was the reason for such great (indirect) losses of tanks to aviation in 1941. German 37 mm was as effective as mg151\20 (As a matter of fact 20mm cannons are by far better against trucs than 37mm due to its higher ROF and better aiming).

Speaking of Rudel... So far it was proven that it was he who managed to cripple "Marat" (but not sink it - in less then 3 month it was firing at Germans again)? but speaking of 519 tanks... To aviation reasons in the areas of his operation throughout the war total losses of tanks were around 600 units (with armored cars included)... So... it is highly unlikely that all other pilots did nothing at all and only watched how Rudel bombed and strafed. He was nothing more than just a lying nazi son of a *****... Like most of the pilots on all sides of the WWII (lying, I mean, not necesserely nazi).

Lets see how effective was NS 37:

Field trials showed that BZT-37 (API) round fired from Il-2 could penetrate armour of all German armoured cars, armored viehcles, light tanks as well as "Wespe", "Marder II" and "Marder III" from 500 m distance from any direction. German medium tanks StuG 40, Pz III Ausf L/M, Pz. IV Ausf G/H, StuG IV and Jgd Pz IV/70 with side armor 30 mm could be penetrated by BZT-37 from 100 m if dive angle did not exceed 10-15 degrees. Attack should be carried out from ther rear or side, hitting wheels and other structures apart from clear armor would not lead to critical damage. To critically damage a tank no less than 7(!) shells penetrating armor is required. On average due to recoil and other factors (such as FLACK and fighter presence) in real life only 8-17% probability to cause critical damage with usage of ALL ammo on a single plane was given to the Il-2 pilot.

I seriouselly doubt that Ju-87 pilot had more chances - he was in even worse conditions: cannons were a lot lower, causing severe pitch when fired, ROW was lower, what caused more yaw and a lot more factors. On the better side - Ju 87 was slower, so the pilot had better primary shot aim. As i said - singular penetration was most often not enough to put tank out of action (at leas it is known that a t-34 of pre-war production sustained 3 direct hits by AP 88 shell, and was destroyed when it was hit by HE time-delayed shell, when it penetrated armor and blew inside of the crew compartment, leaving engine compartment intact)...

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&...=13&id=80&Itemid=123 (http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=13&id=80&Itemid=123)


http://www.battlefield.ru/pics/panther_10.jpg
Direct hit by FAB-100. Panther.

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/pz4_09.jpg [/img]
Destroyed by attack planes. Balaton

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/jagdtiger_02.jpg
Destroyed by planes St-Adriasberg

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/mobelwagen_01.jpg
Destroyed by attack planes. Balaton

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/ussr/t34_13.jpg
Destroyed by german aviation 1941

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&...ew&id=203&Itemid=104 (http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=203&Itemid=104)

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&...ew&id=204&Itemid=105 (http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=204&Itemid=105)

Q: Have you ever been on the strafing runs?
A: Around 10 times. We flew along roads and shot everything we saw. I got a couple of bullet holes and that's it. I can't say about results, though. One of ours once described a strafing run when he overturned a Tiger by cannon fire. Non sense of course. Bullet can't do such damage.

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/pilots/tikhomirov/tikhomirov.htm

Lurch1962
03-09-2007, 05:44 PM
In looking at Rudel's 37mm cannon fire in this clip, the shells are seen to enter the frame from the right side. This suggests that the camera is mounted somewhat outboard on the port wing--an interesting location.

But what's more interesting is that in spite of the moderate focal length of the lens (it's clearly not a wide or normal lens), there is very little recoil-induced shake. Certainly very much less than our virtual counterpart in Il2 subjects us to! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

--Lurch--

Bewolf
03-10-2007, 02:21 AM
Probably another plane taking the shots.

mazexx
03-10-2007, 03:39 AM
Well, Rudel sure was one of the REAL nazi pigs that I would have loved to line up in my sights...

It's interesting to see the blast from those 37mm rounds hitting the ground. I really didn't think they had that much "boom" in them.

/Mazex

joeap
03-10-2007, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Probably another plane taking the shots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree those cannons had brutal recoil...can only imagine the B-25 with the 75mm in its nose.

No comments on FPSOLKOR's excellent post? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

JG52Karaya-X
03-10-2007, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mazexx:
Well, Rudel sure was one of the REAL nazi pigs that I would have loved to line up in my sights... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How come? Because he strafed military ground targets such as landing vessels, ships, road columns, etc.?

You'd have to shoot every Sturmo pilot, half the 8th airforce and the whole Typhoon force then as well (plus a few others).

NagaSadow84
03-10-2007, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/jagdtiger_02.jpg
Destroyed by planes St-Adriasberg
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jagdtiger 332 of 3./sPzJgAbt 653 was actually blown up by it's own crew.

FPSOLKOR
03-10-2007, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
How come? Because he strafed military ground targets such as landing vessels, ships, road columns, etc.?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He announced that he was nazi at least till his last known to me interview... So he was nazi. Nazi party was found guilty by international trial and was forbidden. That is, by supporting nazi party after Nurbergtrial he became an outlaw... But since he wrote such humiliating book about Russians he was supported by West... IMO.

About that tank - it was damaged by supposedly american strafing run and later blown up.

leitmotiv
03-10-2007, 09:45 AM
The Luftwaffe had more true believers in the NSDAP creed than the Kaiserlich navy, and the nominally Prussian army. Look at Baumbach and Hajo Herrmann (who is still alive and still unrepentent), for example---but these two, and Rudel, were among the greatest fighting pilots in the history of air warfare. If I wanted a target knocked out, even if I had been a Christian old-guard Prussian who hated Nazis, I'd have wanted guys like those three on my wing.

Badsight-
03-10-2007, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
He announced that he was nazi at least till his last known to me interview.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
im trying to find a link here

its the last Pierre closterman interview , he became good freinds with Rudel

had some real insights to the kind of guy Rudel was , Pierre closterman didnt consider him a Nazi at all - contrary to what we here about the Iron-Cross-with-Diamonds awardee

Bewolf
03-10-2007, 01:02 PM
Rudel was a harcore Nazi. He stated that himself several times. That is independant from his achivements, though.

StG2_Schlachter
03-10-2007, 01:55 PM
What makes a person a nazi?

joeap
03-10-2007, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
What makes a person a nazi? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well...what he writes or says himself.

Achtung Panzer page (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen9.htm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In 1946, Rudel left the Bavarian hospital and started working as a haulage contractor and in 1948, left for Argentina, where he worked for the State Airplane Worksand organized with other escaped Nazis a NSDAP party-like structure.

In 1951, Rudel published two booklets in Buenos Aires, "Wir Frontsoldaten zur Wiederaufrüstung" (We Frontline Soldiers and Our Opinion to Rearmament of Germany) and "Dolchstoß oder Legende" (Daggerthrust or Legend). In the first book, Rudel claims to speak for all frontline soldiers stating that they would fight again against the Bolsheviks and that Germany's "Lebensraum" (Living Space) is in the East.In his second book, Rudel condemns notonly all the soldiers who tried to kill Hitler as traitors, but also the staff officers of the Wehrmacht stating that both groups were directly responsible for the defeat. Rudel condemns soldiers because the turmoil caused by the assassination allowed the Allied forces to succeed with the Invasion of Europe, while he condemns the staff officers of the Wehrmacht because they could not see Hitler's genius in warfare and worked silently against him. Those two booklets were followed by some more of similar nature.
...

Rudel continued his sporting activities and became a candidate for the Deutsche Reichspartei (DRP) an ultraconservative party but was unsuccessful. The "Stuka Ace" died in Germany in 1982. In 1984, his diary was published again and two of the greatest Allied fighter pilots, Douglas Bader and Pierre Clostermann wrote a warm and praising foreword to this edition, surely being unaware of Rudel's political activities.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I remember reading somewhere else that he writes with a great deal of contempt and racism for the "Asian Hordes" he fought in the East. Not just a politically based hatred of Stalinism but racism.

general_kalle
03-10-2007, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">can only imagine the B-25 with the 75mm in its nose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Henchel attacker got armed with the german 7.5 cm.(75 mm) cannon aswell. must be quite a punch.

by the way. its in the game. its called Henchel(some number) /Wa

FPSOLKOR
03-10-2007, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
im trying to find a link here

its the last Pierre closterman interview , he became good freinds with Rudel

had some real insights to the kind of guy Rudel was , Pierre closterman didnt consider him a Nazi at all - contrary to what we here about the Iron-Cross-with-Diamonds awardee </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks to joeap i do not need to repeat all this Rudels ****. On the other hand I still respect him as a pilot... While i'm disgusted by his believes. Though, I really think that he, as well as at least 20 best pilots of Third Reich was just a propaganda icon, who did not want to understand this fact.

dugong
03-11-2007, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
What makes a person a nazi? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Selling soup and yelling at people really loud and obnoxiously. At least that I what I learned from TV.

leitmotiv
03-11-2007, 08:12 PM
There is no doubt Rudel thought Hitler was right---it's clear as glass in his book. He admits he, Rudel, was a rather humorless, non-smoker, tea total, sports fanatic. Gunter Grass makes fun of guys like Rudel in his Danzig novels---the so-called "idealists" who were believers in the Nazi credo. No matter what, he was one heck of a fighter. Lost his lower leg in 1945 and they couldn't keep him in the hospital---flew missions with a bleeding stump.

Ob.Emann
03-11-2007, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NagaSadow84:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/jagdtiger_02.jpg
Destroyed by planes St-Adriasberg
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jagdtiger 332 of 3./sPzJgAbt 653 was actually blown up by it's own crew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With no offense to FPSOLKOR intended, I think alot of the tank wreck photos from battlefield.ru should be taken with a good-sized grain of salt.

As I recall from reading posts in other WWII/armour forums, the site battlefield.ru, aside from being rather biased in general, has a propensity for mis-captioning photos to fit whatever 'agenda' they are trying to push. The photo above is a perfect example of this.

rugame
03-11-2007, 11:43 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I have read that myself about battlefield.ru as well

zugfuhrer
03-12-2007, 01:23 AM
As far as I can see the Stuka fires HE not AP and the targets are something in water.

FPSolkor where there no losses to infantry- tank- and AT-fire or does art fire include this.
What period, what unit?

Where do you get thoose figures from?
Early Soviet figures are not always correct.

When the archives got opened they showed totally different figures than the officially and politically corrected.

FPSOLKOR
03-12-2007, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
FPSolkor where there no losses to infantry- tank- and AT-fire or does art fire include this.
What period, what unit?

Where do you get thoose figures from?
Early Soviet figures are not always correct.

When the archives got opened they showed totally different figures than the officially and politically corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source is shown in the link, Infantry = other, AT fire means artillery of any origin - if it was penetrated by shell, it is artillery. We discussed aviation, so I cleared that part.

Archives are not opened - at least major part of it. Some of my colleagues are sitting in there, trying to find something out. For example - soon there will be a complete book coming out in Russian (it seems that it will never be published in english) by Mikhail Bykov about all 10 and more kills aces. Let me tell you - first positions changed... It is describing VVS and PVO units on the basis of the archive material (how many of those were really shot down is to be researched in the future).

About battlefield - well, it should be approached with caution, as every possible source of information... So, I'm by no means saying that they are completelly right. It was just close-by, when I wrote that message.

BBB_Hyperion
03-12-2007, 07:53 AM
FPSOLKOR

Did you consider following.

When you compare Tanks "lost" only what about damaged or repaired "lost" etc.

Tanks are easy to repair. So you can take one out (counted as lost) with tank engine shot etc several times and it keeps coming back until it is rather burned out or beyond repair. While the tank is out he may take some hours , days to repair granted time for repair ,replacement parts etc.Additional a tank can change sides too.

While the bomber or fighter bomber or ground attack pilot has only some seconds to overview the damage as far that is possible considered speed and range at all. Following categories of observations could be done. Guns , Bombs hit tank stopped = done,tank smokes done etc. If it stopped for that reason is just decoy the pilot is not able to verify only ground troops are.

As i have seen in the russian archives for kursk offensive (don't have the originals tho but doubt that they are more precise) repaired on same day of damage or 2nd may not even mentioned in reporting unit strength. So even while damaged unit strength is not effected .

Here is a report for Normandy and how allied air power effected ground movements etc . It has a similar conclusion that very little tanks had been taken out by air strike.
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html)

An more interesting discussion would be how much damage can air strikes cause and how much does delaying with air strike influence combat operations.

The bk37 mm has pretty good values for tank busting from the air.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

140 mm at 300 m 90 degrees (degrees 90 to flat plate)
70 mm at 300 m 60 degrees
35 mm at 300 m 30 degrees (interpolated)

Argumentation that t34 for example has sloped armor at 45 degrees does not help it somehow .You can calculate yourself that you don't dive in at 90 degrees to target . For example the side armor 45 degrees does have 90 degrees angle when attack comes from 45 degrees. The Engine block needs 35 degrees. So technically taking out tanks from ju87 isn't impossible it requires precise aim and the right approach. Not sure how many pilots could aim that good and were able to track tank movement right.

When we look Rudel's sorties closely.

2,530 /519 tanks (even when we know that 519 is amored cars & tanks)

4,87 Sorties for 1 Tank Kill or 20 % chance of a tank hit per sortie .

Of course would be interesting to see tank sorties only and the results but cant find the data.

I don't see it is impossible but surely not all "kills" were 100 % out of service.

Ruy Horta
03-12-2007, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mazexx:
Well, Rudel sure was one of the REAL nazi pigs that I would have loved to line up in my sights... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?

Yes, he was a National Socialist of some conviction, but apart from his political ideas there is no evidence of him being any more than a (great) combat pilot during WW2. Now that deserves respect, period.

National Socialism, for the masses is little more than an over developed form of Nationalism slash Chauvinism slash Patriotism, with a strong flavor of anti-communism. In fact sentiments which are not uncommon to this day.

Note that I am strongly opposed to National Socialism, only in part because of its racial ideas, just to put things straight.

Ruy Horta
03-12-2007, 08:10 AM
Lets keep it simple.

Put out of action by direct cause, that's a claim. Doesn't matter if the vehicle (boat, tank, truck or aircraft) is repairable.

Of course this does not include minor repairs.

If we ignore Rudel's exact number of claims, it is still certain that he achieved quite a record.

I am quite surprised about the effect of these 37mm cannon. Although I always suspected that they were somewhat underestimated, I didn't realize to what extend.

leitmotiv
03-12-2007, 08:24 AM
Look at the height of the water columns from American 500 or 600 or 1000 pound bombs near-missing MUSASHI and a Japanese destroyer. Darker mushroom cloud a bomb or torpedo hit. Those 37mm pop guns certainly made presentable splashes!

http://www.combinedfleet.com/musas_jm.jpg

FPSOLKOR
03-12-2007, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
FPSOLKOR

Did you consider following.

When you compare Tanks "lost" only what about damaged or repaired "lost" etc.

Tanks are easy to repair. So you can take one out (counted as lost) with tank engine shot etc several times and it keeps coming back until it is rather burned out or beyond repair. While the tank is out he may take some hours , days to repair granted time for repair ,replacement parts etc.Additional a tank can change sides too.

While the bomber or fighter bomber or ground attack pilot has only some seconds to overview the damage as far that is possible considered speed and range at all. Following categories of observations could be done. Guns , Bombs hit tank stopped = done,tank smokes done etc. If it stopped for that reason is just decoy the pilot is not able to verify only ground troops are.

As i have seen in the russian archives for kursk offensive (don't have the originals tho but doubt that they are more precise) repaired on same day of damage or 2nd may not even mentioned in reporting unit strength. So even while damaged unit strength is not effected .

Here is a report for Normandy and how allied air power effected ground movements etc . It has a similar conclusion that very little tanks had been taken out by air strike.
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html)

An more interesting discussion would be how much damage can air strikes cause and how much does delaying with air strike influence combat operations.

The bk37 mm has pretty good values for tank busting from the air.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

140 mm at 300 m 90 degrees (degrees 90 to flat plate)
70 mm at 300 m 60 degrees
35 mm at 300 m 30 degrees (interpolated)

Argumentation that t34 for example has sloped armor at 45 degrees does not help it somehow .You can calculate yourself that you don't dive in at 90 degrees to target . For example the side armor 45 degrees does have 90 degrees angle when attack comes from 45 degrees. The Engine block needs 35 degrees. So technically taking out tanks from ju87 isn't impossible it requires precise aim and the right approach. Not sure how many pilots could aim that good and were able to track tank movement right.

When we look Rudel's sorties closely.

2,530 /519 tanks (even when we know that 519 is amored cars & tanks)

4,87 Sorties for 1 Tank Kill or 20 % chance of a tank hit per sortie .

Of course would be interesting to see tank sorties only and the results but cant find the data.

I don't see it is impossible but surely not all "kills" were 100 % out of service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again... I realize what I'm speaking about - I'm trying to say that 519 claims does not correspond directly to 519 destroyed tanks... (I do not know how many of those he claimed with guns and bombs selectively - so the chanse to hit a tank with a cannon fire would be lower)

70 mm at 300 m 60 degrees means that 70 mm of armor (What type? I gave exact tank types to be shot at, but in case of Soviet tanks of WWII it is completely incorrect. Tanks coming out of Kharkov, Leningrad and Chelyabinsk factories at different years had drastically different armor composition) would be punctured by shell. That is - the tip of the shell will be clear of the inner side of the armor, while the shell itself could be still in the armor. Such "Penetration" is not enough stop a tank. Keeping in mind that anti-tank munitions mostly consisted of Wolfram (Tungsten) core shells, even penetration did not necessarily would lead to the destruction of the tank. Now to the kill tolls: In aviation as well as in tank forces only minor damage would be repaired by tank crews, and serious damage (such as destroyed engine) would be towed to the field or stationary repair unit. (Special statistics exists of how many tanks were repaired, but as it is not of my field of interest i can not provide the exact numbers.) If tank got to such unit it was conscidered as "destroyed" by the pre-owning unit. If the tank came from the enemy it quite often would not be signed to the unit - simply because of the need to get more reinforcements sooner.

BBB_Hyperion
03-12-2007, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Once again... I realize what I'm speaking about - I'm trying to say that 519 claims does not correspond directly to 519 destroyed tanks... (I do not know how many of those he claimed with guns and bombs selectively - so the chanse to hit a tank with a cannon fire would be lower)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is a bomb more precise than a gun depends on target and pilot and gunplatform. The usage of bk37 mm was salvo of 3 or 4 shots = 2x 3 or 2x4 rounds. I would exspect a higher hit rate than bombs. Considering first shot most precise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
70 mm at 300 m 60 degrees means that 70 mm of armor (What type? I gave exact tank types to be shot at, but in case of Soviet tanks of WWII it is completely incorrect. Tanks coming out of Kharkov, Leningrad and Chelyabinsk factories at different years had drastically different armor composition) would be punctured by shell. That is - the tip of the shell will be clear of the inner side of the armor, while the shell itself could be still in the armor. Such "Penetration" is not enough stop a tank. Keeping in mind that anti-tank munitions mostly consisted of Wolfram (Tungsten) core shells, even penetration did not necessarily would lead to the destruction of the tank. Now to the kill tolls: In aviation as well as in tank forces only minor damage would be repaired by tank crews, and serious damage (such as destroyed engine) would be towed to the field or stationary repair unit. (Special statistics exists of how many tanks were repaired, but as it is not of my field of interest i can not provide the exact numbers.) If tank got to such unit it was conscidered as "destroyed" by the pre-owning unit. If the tank came from the enemy it quite often would not be signed to the unit - simply because of the need to get more reinforcements sooner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Diving speed adds to bullet speed as well theoretical values are without that . As you know ju87g had no dive brakes so approach was rather fast lets assume a minimum conservative of 300 km/h = 83,3 m/s . As you know already simplified 1/2* 0,405 kg* (1140+83,3)^2 = 303033 J Minimum available Energy . When you want to be more restrictive adding drag,absorption etc 250000 J. Additional you can add chance of deflection or breaking of the projectile.

You can use any steel type you want to calculate on how far it would go. You need special calculation for layered/sloped armor types. I know there were several types of armor in use different factory ,different tank with different alloys ,depending on time.
That is why you get complete available minimum energy independent of any plate used etc. You can draw your own conclusion on available armor types then.

There is no doubt that penetration of the armor alone does nothing . That is why engine block or turret ammo store is the main point for aiming. To Immobilize the tank on tracks is just a 2nd option. Here it highly depends on the available energy left in the projectile what damage can be caused and of course the place where and the state of the projectile (scattered or not).

As there are different systems on what to be considered destroyed. The "normal" System is.
Repairable is not destroyed . Destroyed is written off damaged beyond repair. In case of tanks burned out or chassis deformed etc.

So when you list destroyed tanks then that are actually tanks that at least some were repaired later from your statement above ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
If tank got to such unit it was conscidered as "destroyed" by the pre-owning unit.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FPSOLKOR
03-12-2007, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Is a bomb more precise than a gun depends on target and pilot and gunplatform. The usage of bk37 mm was salvo of 3 or 4 shots = 2x 3 or 2x4 rounds. I would exspect a higher hit rate than bombs. Considering first shot most precise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In terms of tanks it is. T-34 (MBT, so we are discussing it) would be pierced by 250 bomb if it blew no farther then 15 meters, and do not forget the blast effect, which makes crew unable to act for some time, which could be enough for German ground forces to shoot at tank. The recoil of the Bk is great enough to only first 2 rounds hit the target... What had been stated by many pilots.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Diving speed adds to bullet speed as well theoretical values are without that . As you know ju87g had no dive brakes so approach was rather fast lets assume a minimum conservative of 300 km/h = 83,3 m/s . As you know already simplified 1/2* 0,405 kg* (1140+83,3)^2 = 303033 J Minimum available Energy . When you want to be more restrictive adding drag,absorption etc 250000 J. Additional you can add chance of deflection or breaking of the projectile


You can use any steel type you want to calculate on how far it would go. You need special calculation for layered/sloped armor types. I know there were several types of armor in use different factory ,different tank with different alloys ,depending on time.
That is why you get complete available minimum energy independent of any plate used etc. You can draw your own conclusion on available armor types then

There is no doubt that penetration of the armor alone does nothing . That is why engine block or turret ammo store is the main point for aiming. To Immobilize the tank on tracks is just a 2nd option. Here it highly depends on the available energy left in the projectile what damage can be caused and of course the place where and the state of the projectile (scattered or not). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Calculations do nothing. I showed official trial materials (calculated expectations were similar to those which you showed), but I do not know of any such trials of the 87G. I'd really like to read. (no sarcasm - I really would).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As there are different systems on what to be considered destroyed. The "normal" System is.
Repairable is not destroyed . Destroyed is written off damaged beyond repair. In case of tanks burned out or chassis deformed etc. So when you list destroyed tanks then that are actually tanks that at least some were repaired later from your statement above ?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, yes. As in all armies... Tank is beyond repairs at this given situation, but repair units were basicly field factories - so their capabilities to repair the tank was far greater then could be expected. Tanks were calculated "destroyed" since they were written off by the owning unit. (btw - abandoned tank was also conscidered to be destroyed, while immobilised burning tank with damaged cannon, but with alive crew inside was damaged, untill crew dies or leaves it). Tank from the FRU almost never made it into the original unit, unless this unit was the only one in the area operating this type of tanks. When Soviets regained tanks that were abandoned over 2 years, if the tanks were capable of fighting (more or less modern) they would be repaired and sent to action. If field repair unit was not able to fix the tank, or this current tank was so obsolete that there was no sence in repairing it, it would be sent to closest stationary factory for complete overhaul or disassemblement.

BBB_Hyperion
03-13-2007, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
In terms of tanks it is. T-34 (MBT, so we are discussing it) would be pierced by 250 bomb if it blew no farther then 15 meters, and do not forget the blast effect, which makes crew unable to act for some time, which could be enough for German ground forces to shoot at tank. The recoil of the Bk is great enough to only first 2 rounds hit the target... What had been stated by many pilots.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How easy is it to put a bomb 15 Meter near a tank that is moving ? And you have just 1 chance to do so and approach from step dive to avoid skipping that . Wait i have some more detailed tests.

http://img11.imagevenue.com/loc171/th_87367_bomb_122_171lo.jpg (http://img11.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=87367_bomb_122_171lo.jpg)

Results translated. Marked red.

Trials from
Bombenversuchsplatz Udetfeld 1942

Trials did show that even pz I is secure from sc10 sc50 in detonation range of 5 to 10 m.

The trials done with sc250 did show the compareable low effectiveness of bigger bombs.

Now important part.
A sc250 in 5 m distance detonated ripped Churchill's MK IV chassis apart. T34 and M4 Sherman didn't show any effects even at a distance of 3 m . The test animals in the inside died duo pressure burst effect. On the t34 the diesel fuel started to burn.

Results from this trials small hollowcharged warheads are needed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Calculations do nothing. I showed official trial materials (calculated expectations were similar to those which you showed), but I do not know of any such trials of the 87G. I'd really like to read. (no sarcasm - I really would).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't see any official trial you showed data for BZT 37 (API) using steel shots ? Did i miss something ?

When calculations do nothing then why any modern weapon lab is doing them ?


BTW is this the Marat ?

http://www.steelnavy.com/images/OS%20Sevastopol/Sev0720afterexp.JPG


At least we agree that destroyed tanks is matter of method what counts. So when you have listed

1 Gv TA (Lvov-Visla operation): art fire-310, mines-0, aviation-14, other-12
3 Gv TA (Lvov-Visla operation): 322, 10, 49, 0
4 Gv TA(June - Sept 1944): 230, 3, 6, 0
4 Gv TA(Orel operation): 312, 41, 7, 0

The loss statistics include tanks that some could be repaired later as it was written off by unit ?

Blutarski2004
03-13-2007, 07:33 AM
Very interesting discussion. Particularly noteworthy to me is Solkor's comment about the advancing Soviets reclaiming knocked-out tanks from campaigns of previous years and putting them back into service.

Some comments of my own -

Rudel may have knocked-out or disabled 500+ tanks, but the number of tanks he succeeded in destroying beyond repair is unclear and quite probably unknowable. This is not to disparage Rudel's skill and bravery in any way. It's just the nature of the fighting environment. The only means of destroying a tank with certainty are to blow it up or burn it out. Any damage less than that simply puts the tank out of action for a few days or weeks until repaired and re-crewed.

The resistance of a tank to attack from the air is not necessarily a question of vertical armor thickness. When attacked from above, engine ventilation gratings, hull and turret tops, even the occasional open hatch, become significant areas of vulnerability. External fuel tanks, not uncommon on Soviet tanks of WW2, would also pose a considerable fire hazard.

I checked into one of my books, "German Aircraft Guns of WW1-WW2", by Hoffschmidt, which indicates that the Ju87G tank-buster was armed with two Rheinmetall Flak 18 37mm guns. Each gun was loaded on the ground with a single clip of 6 rounds, making a total ammunition load of only 12 rounds per sortie.

Excluding "special" ammunition such as tungsten cored shot, all standard German AT rounds from 37mm up were APHE with delay fuze. These rounds had a relatively better effect upon target than simple AP shot, being more likely to inflict crew casualties and incite internal fires.

The resistance of a given tank model to penetration of its armor could vary to a considerable degree depending upon when and where the particular tank was manufactured. T34s of pre-war manufcture had armor of excellent quality. T34s coming out of certain factories during the darker war years sometimes exhibited very poor armor resistance. I can recall one photo of a knocked-out T34 which showed a dramatic failure of its hull side armor, which had cracked and had a large slab driven into the hull compartment as if the plate had been extremely brittle. Some Panthers of very late war manufacture suffered penetrations of their front glacis armor by ammunition which had been unable to defeat the glacis of earlier manufactured versions.

Anyways, great discussion. Keep it going.

Werre_Fsck
03-13-2007, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
I remember reading somewhere else that he writes with a great deal of contempt and racism for the "Asian Hordes" he fought in the East. Not just a politically based hatred of Stalinism but racism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. Makes him just out of style in the contemporary mainstream view of the events - not one of the bad guys.

joeap
03-13-2007, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Werre_Fsck:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
I remember reading somewhere else that he writes with a great deal of contempt and racism for the "Asian Hordes" he fought in the East. Not just a politically based hatred of Stalinism but racism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. Makes him just out of style in the contemporary mainstream view of the events - not one of the bad guys. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes of course man of his times. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Nothing wrong with slavery or foot binding either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

FPSOLKOR
03-13-2007, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:



How easy is it to put a bomb 15 Meter near a tank that is moving ? And you have just 1 chance to do so and approach from step dive to avoid skipping that . Wait i have some more detailed tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
At least if we will speak of the first two years most of the tanks that were destroyed by aviation were bombed in a stand-still, due to the lack of fuel (big plus to the earlier air raids by German pilots)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Results translated. Marked red.

Trials from
Bombenversuchsplatz Udetfeld 1942

Trials did show that even pz I is secure from sc10 sc50 in detonation range of 5 to 10 m.

The trials done with sc250 did show the compareable low effectiveness of bigger bombs.

Now important part.
A sc250 in 5 m distance detonated ripped Churchill's MK IV chassis apart. T34 and M4 Sherman didn't show any effects even at a distance of 3 m . The test animals in the inside died duo pressure burst effect. On the t34 the diesel fuel started to burn.

Results from this trials small hollowcharged warheads are needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... No effect but crew is dead and fuel burning?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Didn't see any official trial you showed data for BZT 37 (API) using steel shots ? Did i miss something ?

When calculations do nothing then why any modern weapon lab is doing them ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The trial was carried out by NII AV VVS KA, that is aviation armament research institute in 1943.

Everyone is willing to know, what to expect, but usually in real life no plan survives the test (rephrase)...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW is this the Marat ?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks similar... At least the damage does.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At least we agree that destroyed tanks is matter of method what counts. So when you have listed

1 Gv TA (Lvov-Visla operation): art fire-310, mines-0, aviation-14, other-12
3 Gv TA (Lvov-Visla operation): 322, 10, 49, 0
4 Gv TA(June - Sept 1944): 230, 3, 6, 0
4 Gv TA(Orel operation): 312, 41, 7, 0

The loss statistics include tanks that some could be repaired later as it was written off by unit ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, thats the point. I believe that at least half of those returned to action sooner or later.

FPSOLKOR
03-13-2007, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Very interesting discussion. Particularly noteworthy to me is Solkor's comment about the advancing Soviets reclaiming knocked-out tanks from campaigns of previous years and putting them back into service.

Some comments of my own -

Rudel may have knocked-out or disabled 500+ tanks, but the number of tanks he succeeded in destroying beyond repair is unclear and quite probably unknowable. This is not to disparage Rudel's skill and bravery in any way. It's just the nature of the fighting environment. The only means of destroying a tank with certainty are to blow it up or burn it out. Any damage less than that simply puts the tank out of action for a few days or weeks until repaired and re-crewed.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost right, but... The hardest part of any tank to built is the hull, which requires special alloys and workers. The burned out soviet tank was a lot easier to rebuilt, than any other tank - diesel burns with lower temperatures, and there were so little to burn inside... The only serious problem was the tanks ammo, which tended to blow, when heated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The resistance of a tank to attack from the air is not necessarily a question of vertical armor thickness. When attacked from above, engine ventilation gratings, hull and turret tops, even the occasional open hatch, become significant areas of vulnerability. External fuel tanks, not uncommon on Soviet tanks of WW2, would also pose a considerable fire hazard... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True again, but... once again, hitting this spot requires gread skill from shaking and unstable platform...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The resistance of a given tank model to penetration of its armor could vary to a considerable degree depending upon when and where the particular tank was manufactured. T34s of pre-war manufcture had armor of excellent quality. T34s coming out of certain factories during the darker war years sometimes exhibited very poor armor resistance. I can recall one photo of a knocked-out T34 which showed a dramatic failure of its hull side armor, which had cracked and had a large slab driven into the hull compartment as if the plate had been extremely brittle. Some Panthers of very late war manufacture suffered penetrations of their front glacis armor by ammunition which had been unable to defeat the glacis of earlier manufactured versions.

Anyways, great discussion. Keep it going. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
T-34's produced in Leningrad during siege were of such poor quality of metal, so that they could not withstand their own cannons recoil, metal was too plastic, and after 20-25 shots the turret was unmovable... It's armor sometimes could be penetrated by 12,7 bullets...

BBB_Hyperion
03-13-2007, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Hmmm... No effect but crew is dead and fuel burning?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The tank is intact diesel fuel is hard to ignite even when it burns.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Everyone is willing to know, what to expect, but usually in real life no plan survives the test (rephrase)...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very true but theoretical values come very close today except maybe when unknown materials are used.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Yes, thats the point. I believe that at least half of those returned to action sooner or later. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So we both agree that destroyed as counted from air isn't always destroyed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Still i think bombs were ineffective against tanks not precise enough. Must be a hell of a pilot that can put the bombs on the tanks back or even close &lt; 3m. The anti tank gun is a better option more chances to take the tank out of service for a while.

How about AB Bombs with SD-4-HL . How much tanks hit with these were actually out.

FPSOLKOR
03-13-2007, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:


[QUOTE]The tank is intact diesel fuel is hard to ignite even when it burns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I stated earlier - tank without crew conscidered destroyed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Very true but theoretical values come very close today except maybe when unknown materials are used.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly, but it took a great deal of experiments earlier in history to be more or less accurate in theory nowadays...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So we both agree that destroyed as counted from air isn't always destroyed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Still i think bombs were ineffective against tanks not precise enough. Must be a hell of a pilot that can put the bombs on the tanks back or even close &lt; 3m. The anti tank gun is a better option more chances to take the tank out of service for a while.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is what I actually tried to explane earlier. About bombs: all information that I have and recollected memoirs all describe one thing - if large-caliber bomb (250 + ?) fell in 15 meter radius, that is 30 m diameter tank crew had less then 40% of chances to stay alive. 30 m is possible to achieve, especially in a dive. Anti-tank missile is better... If you know how to handle it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How about AB Bombs with SD-4-HL . How much tanks hit with these were actually out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
To be honest - no idea.

BBB_Hyperion
03-14-2007, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
As I stated earlier - tank without crew conscidered destroyed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Crew is no part of the equipment itself. Where crew is important is experience but not to check if the tank is usable or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So we both agree that destroyed as counted from air isn't always destroyed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Still i think bombs were ineffective against tanks not precise enough. Must be a hell of a pilot that can put the bombs on the tanks back or even close &lt; 3m. The anti tank gun is a better option more chances to take the tank out of service for a while. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
That is what I actually tried to explane earlier. About bombs: all information that I have and recollected memoirs all describe one thing - if large-caliber bomb (250 + ?) fell in 15 meter radius, that is 30 m diameter tank crew had less then 40% of chances to stay alive. 30 m is possible to achieve, especially in a dive. Anti-tank missile is better... If you know how to handle it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we need to investigate this further . But crew and tank should be separate . I can calculate the explosion and the pressure burst in distance not sure how it gets deformed or reflected when hitting the tank itself . SC250 is too weak for this. SC Bombs use 50 % explosives which type depends on year. SB Bombs use 75 % and SD 30 % PC 10 - 15 %.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How about AB Bombs with SD-4-HL . How much tanks hit with these were actually out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
To be honest - no idea.[/QUOTE]

Is there any info on ptab effect on german tanks to compare ?

Matz0r
03-14-2007, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is - the tip of the shell will be clear of the inner side of the armor, while the shell itself could be still in the armor. Such "Penetration" is not enough stop a tank. Keeping in mind that anti-tank munitions mostly consisted of Wolfram (Tungsten) core shells, even penetration did not necessarily would lead to the destruction of the tank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're forgetting the spalling effect, which was particularly bad in the t-34's case because of the over hardening of the tanks armor, making it brittle and prone to break up or spall without penetration. Spalling alone was known to wound, maim and often kill crews. In riveted tanks an anti-tank shell would often knock out the rivets inside the tank making them ricochet inside the crew compartment, rivited design was abandoned early in the war.

However, I do I understand you differing between complete destruction of the tank vs taking the tank out of action by damaging it or killing its crew. But it would still be considered destroyed regardless if it could be re-used or not.

luftluuver
03-14-2007, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I checked into one of my books, "German Aircraft Guns of WW1-WW2", by Hoffschmidt, which indicates that the Ju87G tank-buster was armed with two Rheinmetall Flak 18 37mm guns. Each gun was loaded on the ground with a single clip of 6 rounds, making a total ammunition load of only 12 rounds per sortie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There was 2 6 round clips per gun, making 24 rounds in total.

JerryFodder
03-14-2007, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mazexx:
Well, Rudel sure was one of the REAL nazi pigs that I would have loved to line up in my sights...

/Mazex </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A bit rich comrade. Stalin was just as big a scumbag as Hitler - he murdered 20 million of his own people for various reasons. By your logic i'd "love to line up every Sturmovik pilot in my sights".

LStarosta
03-14-2007, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JerryFodder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mazexx:
Well, Rudel sure was one of the REAL nazi pigs that I would have loved to line up in my sights...

/Mazex </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A bit rich comrade. Stalin was just as big a scumbag as Hitler - he murdered 20 million of his own people for various reasons. By your logic i'd "love to line up every Sturmovik pilot in my sights". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm... No.


You do know that Rudel was a hardcore Nazi, right?

HuninMunin
03-14-2007, 10:51 AM
And now?
Did he laugh evil while strafing medical convoys?

FPSOLKOR
03-14-2007, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
You're forgetting the spalling effect, which was particularly bad in the t-34's case because of the over hardening of the tanks armor, making it brittle and prone to break up or spall without penetration. Spalling alone was known to wound, maim and often kill crews. In riveted tanks an anti-tank shell would often knock out the rivets inside the tank making them ricochet inside the crew compartment, rivited design was abandoned early in the war.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depended heavily on the type, year and place of production.

Blutarski2004
03-14-2007, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I checked into one of my books, "German Aircraft Guns of WW1-WW2", by Hoffschmidt, which indicates that the Ju87G tank-buster was armed with two Rheinmetall Flak 18 37mm guns. Each gun was loaded on the ground with a single clip of 6 rounds, making a total ammunition load of only 12 rounds per sortie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There was 2 6 round clips per gun, making 24 rounds in total. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... I checked back in Hoffschmidt and the text is not perfectly explicit as to how many clips could be pre-loaded to the gun in its Stuka underwing configuration. So you may very well be correct. OTOH, the photos accompanying the Flak 18 section make it APPEAR as if there was only room for a single 6-round clip in the lateral loading tray. This would fit with the loading mechanism of the 40mm Bofors, which only accepted one clip at a time when firing.

Hoffschmidt does mention that the empty cartridges were fed back into their clip, which then itself passed through the breech mechanism to the other side of the gun. The spent cartidges were recovered when the plane rtb.

Not saying you're wrong by any means, because I do not know for sure, but what was your source on the 2 x 6-round clips per gun?

FPSOLKOR
03-14-2007, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:

Is there any info on ptab effect on german tanks to compare ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Required 70 m to stabilize in free fall, hit on average 1 bomb 15 sq m. Tank was on av 20-22 sq m, Il-2 could carry 192 or 220 bombs. 30 degree meeting would provide 60 mm of armor penetration.

Ruy Horta
03-14-2007, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
You do know that Rudel was a hardcore Nazi, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point is that most Nazis were little more than nationalists (german patriots) with a strong anti communinist streak, with some xenophobia and racism thrown in to complete the mix. Point is that much of these traights were still popular in during the cold war days...and to some extend even today, although in a different guise (your mileage may vary though).

Was Rudel a National Socialist, yes.

Of some conviction, but that alone does not equal a crime. If it does, he's just as guilty as million others, not all of them german and certainly many of them not even realizing how similar their ideas and traights are to this day...

National Socialism is but a name of something that still is very much alive today, often where you least expect it (certainly not with the clich skin heads...)

Taurus_Slo
03-15-2007, 05:49 AM
quote:
Ummm... No.


You do know that Rudel was a hardcore Nazi, right?

So what if Rudel was Nazi? Today most of the Americans are Pro Bush, but nobody says that Bush is like Hitler. And American do kill a lot of Iraqi people these days.

luftluuver
03-15-2007, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Taurus_Slo:
quote:
Ummm... No.

You do know that Rudel was a hardcore Nazi, right?

So what if Rudel was Nazi? Today most of the Americans are Pro Bush, but nobody says that Bush is like Hitler. And American do kill a lot of Iraqi people these days. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif Iraqis kill more of their own people than do Americans, by a long shot.

berg417448
03-15-2007, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Taurus_Slo:
quote:
Ummm... No.


You do know that Rudel was a hardcore Nazi, right?

So what if Rudel was Nazi? Today most of the Americans are Pro Bush, but nobody says that Bush is like Hitler. And American do kill a lot of Iraqi people these days. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I see you haven't checked the president's approval ratings lately!

FritzGryphon
03-15-2007, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but nobody says that Bush is like Hitler </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You gotta be kidding me. He's probably called Hitler more than any man alive.

A poor comparison, though. Hitler was a much better public speaker.

But back on topic, Stuka is cool.

Choctaw111
03-15-2007, 11:02 AM
I am amazed by the size of the explosions/impacts in the water! I have always said that the impacts were way to small for guns of that caliber but WOW I had no idea how powerful there really were! The ones we have in game now are like firing 30 cals. Those water geysers must shoot up a couple hundred feet! And one other thing. We really need to get rid of those shockwaves that we see when large caliber cannon rounds hit the ground.