Response to Glider and Juha.

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Rudel in his Ju-87G2 aimed his twin 37-mm guns at the engine covers when destroying 519 tanks and 150 StuGsBTW, you know Rudel's withering opinion of RPs as "Quatsch". He told some Typhoon aces of 2TAF that he had tested RPs and rejected them as too inaccurate compared with guns. He did his homework while 2TAF did not.

Other Luftwaffe flyers testified that Hans-Ulrich Rudel filed bogus claims for tanks destroyed when other Stuka pilots flew over the same battlefield and reported no vehicles were burning. I don't take stock in what Rudel imagined about himself or the world around him. His Nazi handlers were not keen on applying science to investigate, substantiate, or question the claims of national heroes.

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Airborne PAKs could easily penetrate the StuG III's 12-mm top plate and the 10-mm top plate of the Jagdpanzer IV. Rudel in his Ju-87G2 aimed his twin 37-mm guns at the engine covers when destroying 519 tanks and 150 StuGs.

You did not consider the physics of this problem very carefully.

The Stuka pilots usually made heavy cannon attacks in a shallow dive, so a 37mm round could bounce off horizontal armor plate that was 10-15mm thick. The pilots could try a much steeper dive angle, but a heavy and poorly maneuvering machine like the Ju-87G would need a lot more room to pull out at the bottom -- which means that the pilot must open fire from a much greater height and distance -- throwing off his aim and lessening the chance of getting good strikes on the target.

Geometry is another reason why we can find endless accounts of tank-fired 75mm and 76mm shots that failed to penetrate the thinner side armor of Panther and Tiger tanks. It doesn't matter how big your gun is, you need a good angle of attack when shooting at a hard surface. I don't know why some of you think that a 37mm peashooter will do better.

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Of course aircraft vulnerable to FLAK were used in the FLAK suppression role. How else could FLAK be suppressed in WWII, or in Vietnam come to that?

Advancing the timeline to Vietnam will not help your case. No other air war provided us with more verification that sending aircraft straight into the teeth of flak was hideously expensive. No air force could afford to suppress so many flak guns, so the Americans reduced their ambitions to pinpointing radar sites that controlled some of the guns, missiles, and interceptors.

Better and less expensive solutions were studied and tested like the all-weather F-111 and its terrain-following radar. With or without smart bombs, it was the most cost-effective bomber in Southeast Asia. Despite the dangers of flying at supersonic speeds just 200 feet off the ground, F-111 airstrikes suffered few losses and did not require the support of escort fighters, AWACS, ECM aircraft, air-refueling tankers, or Wild Weasels. During its 1972 deployment, the 474th Tactical Fighter Wing flew over 4,000 combat sorties and lost six airplanes, for a loss rate of 0.15%, which is better than some outfits achieved in peacetime.

Originally Posted by tcolvin

The RAF did order a "large and expensive fleet (300 aircraft) of Vengeance bombers in 1940". The British taxpayer paid for them and took delivery in 1942/43. They would therefore have been available, manned by trained crews, bombed and fuelled up, and ready to blitz Hillman on D-Day

No taxpayer that I've ever met wants to spend money on obsolete weapons that can be deployed only on the speculation that battle conditions might become safer in the future.

British and American operational research teams studied, compared, and mapped the effectiveness of ALL air weapons kept in stock, not just rockets. If you showed us the results of real performance trials which tested these relevant airplanes, and which scored the mathematical difference in probability of hitting various targets with free-falling bombs, it would make this thread more interesting.

We both know that you do not have that kind of information, but you tried to form a hypothesis without it. I cannot think of a more blatant advertisement that you are not objective. Until you provide scientific proof that a lamentably outdated airplane could do the job better, you are spin-doctoring.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

Tony
firstly some general notes
Germany lost the war, so it didn’t develop a war-winning system
We still don’t know what was Rudel’s achievement, we only know what he claimed.
VVS wasn’t very happy with Il-2s with 37mm guns and concluded that large number of small hollow-charge bomblets was more effective antitank weapon than large calibre cannon, so the use of 37mm armed Il-2 was limited.

Personally I think that RAF should have kept some sqns which could have used 40mm Vickers S gun, it was capable to penetrate side and rear armour of all German AFVs but that of Tigers if terrain allowed shallow dive attacks from side and/or from rear. And the gun was very accurate.

Juha

Juha.
1. I beg to differ. The all-arms systems developed by Russia and Germany were both war-winning in that they both won wars.
Germany's system won the war against France and Britain in 1940 at a time when Russia was allied with Germany and the USA was neutral.
And Russia of course won its Great Patriotic War with Germany in 1945.
It would be misleading to term the Anglo-Canadian or US systems as war-winning just because they were allied with Russia in 1945.
2. Rudel's achievement in terms of numbers, whatever they were, should not be allowed to affect the fact that shooting a tank with a gun from an aircraft was more accurate than with an RP, and Rudel tried and tested both.
3. Your point about the Il-2 is well taken and I thank you for that. Note the Il-2 did not rely on RPs to destroy tanks, but rather hollow-charge bomblets dropped from low-overflying aircraft that were armoured against infantry weapons.
4. We agree about the British 40mm. The RAF knew about the gun's accuracy compared with RPs, so the decision to scrap it was final proof that effectiveness did not feature among 2TAF's success criteria.

Tony

[tcolvin]

Nifty.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
That is if we do disagree, as I have no idea.
Shalom.
Tony

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Why would Rudel be attacking and destroying German armor, ie STuGs?

So Vengeance crews would be sitting around for up to two years with a war going on waiting for June 1944. Then they would go into combat with no operational experience.

How could hollow charge bombs, developed in 1943, be of help in Belgium/France in 1940 or Sevastopol in 1942-42?

1. The Russian StuGs were Su-76 and Su-85, just as the British Stuka was the Vengeance. And I know that Samokhodnaya Ustanovka does not translate exactly as Sturmgeschütz, so please resist the temptation to correct me.
2. When the Vengeance was ordered in 1940, the British expected to win the war by 1942. In that event, the Vengeance would have been too late. You obviously don't know that.
3. German hollow-charge bombs were developed because of the shortcomings in ordnance experienced in 1940/42. Surely that was clear.

Tony

[Kutscha]

1. A StuG is a German AFV and a SU is a Russian AFV. They might have the same name when translated to English but using the name for another country's vehicle is not correct. The Wespe and the Hummel were the German SU's. When Rudel showed up with his Ju-87G most StuGs were used in the anti-tank role.

2. Well that is a new one.

3. OK, misread.

..........................................

The all-arms systems developed by Russia and Germany were both war-winning in that they both won wars.

At some cost I might add. Over 8.6 million dead and missing and 15 million wounded and survived for the USSR. Some 5.5 million for Germany, though not all were on the EF.

Neither had a strategic bombing force which tied up German resources that could have been put to good use on the Eastern Front.

[Juha]

Hello Tony
Germany knocked France out of war in 1940 partly because its all-arms system but not GB, in fact GB survived alone one year partly because LW wasn’t a strategic AF, not a big deal in itself because there was no effective strategic AF around in 1940.

4. RAF didn’t scrap 40mm gun Hurricanes, they moved them to Theaters in which losses were bearable. In NA 6 Sqn claimed to have hit 144 tanks of which 47 were claimed destroyed but lost 39 Hurrica IIDs to AA. In Burma 40mm armed Hurricanes first destroyed or knocked out 12 Japanese tanks while losing one Hurri and on 19 Feb. 45 20 Sqn destroyed 11 Japanese tanks without loss. Hurris in Burma were mainly used against river crafts because scarcity of Japanese AFVs there. But clearly AA was much weaker in Burma than in NA not to say in NW Europe . So what worked in Burma not necessary suited in ETO.

Juha

[Arsenal VG-33]

Originally Posted by Juha

Soviet tanks losses, as you see, Il-2s were not able to give free ride to Soviet AFVs, in fact losses were very heavy.
1944

Tanks: 16900

Heavy: 900 , Medium: 13800, Light: 2200

SP guns: 6800

Heavy: 900 , Medium: 1000, Light: 4900





Juha

Hello.

Just my two pences

PS Il-2 loss info

According to Yefim Gordon's Il-2 and Il-10 book, the Il-2 suffered the following losses:
Red Army: 10759 (24% to fighters, 43% to AAA, 32% failed to return, 1% on the ground)
Naval Forces:807

I would say, from V. Perov and O. Rastrenin book

For 1944: 3344 losses, 822 lost to fighters, 1859 to AAA, 569 failed to return, 34 on the ground.

Here is the statistics of Il-2 losses, according to Hans Seidl:
Year - Total Losses - To Enemy Action - % of Strength at Hand
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1941* - 1100 - 600 - 73.3%
1942 - 2600 - 1800 - 34.2%
1943 - 7200 - 3900 - 45.0%
1944 - 8900 - 4100 - 46.6%
1945** - 3800 - 2000 - 27.3%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 23600 12400 70.3%
* presumably from June 22
** until May 10
Therefore, over 50% of losses [not counting the 'worn out' category] was due to enemy.

I would say according to statistical Krivosheiev’s book, based on GHQ accounts. An account is to be complete and balance is about zero. So it’s done. Reasons of losses are of secondary importance.

So on 1.1.44 VVS had 8 800 stormoviks on line , and 10 200 on the 1.1.45
With 10 300 planes recieved for the year, it makes 8 900 account losses.

Exactly as for yout tank loss numbers, from the same source:
On 1.1.44 RKKA had 24 400 tanks and SU, 35 400 on the 1.1.45
Since 34 700 were recieved, 23 700 were lost.

Can you give us partition between those written-off for wear, for combat damages, for technical reasons?

So what conclusion?
Losses were high of course, but not dispropotionnaly higher than in the others armies. Despite them, the Red Army was constantly growing in force, quality and size...
For instance the Il-2 had a loss rate of 1 plane for 85 combat (in fact more than 85...) missions in 1944, instead of 1 for 13 in 1941. Not bad for a plane that had no more than 100 TBO engine hours anyway!
1.1%; compare to USAF bombers loss rate.


And others rough numbers from Alexeenko (using TsAMO op. 64-65 archives) docs:

2999 failed to return, 107 from fighers, 583 AAA, 38 on airfields, 1141 by accident, 2594 from wear ; 7452 total Il-2/10 losses.

It means some early, uncomplete and uncompilated stats probably at the end of 1944; the way your’e managing your stats even without being biaised, can change the whole picture and meaning.

So how was made the research work from later more complete and compilated archives used by Rastrenin or Krivosheiev? I don’t know...

But what is 100% sure from Efremov, Romanov, Zinoviev (yes, yes the famous anti-soviet dissident) and other Il-2 crews testimony, it is that was far better to write off planes for "combat reasons" rather for "flying accident". USSR was the kind of contry where pilots were easily prosecuted and sometimes executed for "unjustified plane crashes". It also should be remembered...when just looking at crude statistics.

Regards

[Arsenal VG-33]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Six Nifty .50s

Other Luftwaffe flyers testified that Hans-Ulrich Rudel filed bogus claims for tanks destroyed when other Stuka pilots flew over the same battlefield and reported no vehicles were burning. I don't take stock in what Rudel imagined about himself or the world around him. His Nazi handlers were not keen on applying science to investigate, substantiate, or question the claims of national heroes.

Rather pleasent post, i didn't knew about that.
If we have a statistical approach, from published soviet numbers, only 2,4% of soviet tank losses were due to the Luftwaffe. The lion's part is going to Anti Tank canons (mainly 75-88 mm) at about 75-80% losses. German tanks are for 6 to 10%, but there are mines, panzerfausts, infantery...

So even if all of the 93 500 lost soviet AFV's are tanks were all due to combat reasons (and this is untrue), it means that Rudel alone destroyed about 1/4 of them, due to the Luftwaffe.

If he was not a liar, what the hell were doing others Luftwaffe pilots?


Regards

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello Tony

4. RAF didn’t scrap 40mm gun Hurricanes, they moved them to Theaters in which losses were bearable. In NA 6 Sqn claimed to have hit 144 tanks of which 47 were claimed destroyed but lost 39 Hurrica IIDs to AA. In Burma 40mm armed Hurricanes first destroyed or knocked out 12 Japanese tanks while losing one Hurri and on 19 Feb. 45 20 Sqn destroyed 11 Japanese tanks without loss. Hurris in Burma were mainly used against river crafts because scarcity of Japanese AFVs there. But clearly AA was much weaker in Burma than in NA not to say in NW Europe . So what worked in Burma not necessary suited in ETO.

Juha

Let me re-phrase that, and see if it meets your exacting definitions.

2TAF was based on 1TAF's organisation, methods and commanders (Mary Coningham and then Harry Broadhurst), but decided to replace the 40-mm Hurricane IID with the RP Typhoon 1B, and the Hurricane IIC with the Bombphoon and Spitfire. 3TAF also opted for the Spitfire but maintained the Hurricane IIC and IID, and also operated the Vengeance dive-bomber. Thus the RAF TAFs ceased to have consistency in aircraft equipment and methods.

Tony

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Bill Walker

We are just playing with words here Tony, but you used the term "brain washing" in referring to decisions made by US senior military. Arriving at the same faulty conclusion through the same faulty thought process (if that is what actually happened) is hardly brain washing. If you called what appears to have happened simultaneously in the US and the UK the result of people of similar backgrounds reaching similar conclusions when presented with similar data, I would appreciate that as an interesting view point. When you allege active malfeasance in this process you lose all credibility in my eyes.

And are you serious when you talk about the "the VVS and Luftwaffe developed their part in the war-winning all-arms equation"? VVS maybe, but hardly the Luftwaffe.

The VVS suffered much higher casualties than the RAF in part due to their subservient role to the Army in the military and economical decision processes within the USSR. Given the massive casualties also suffered by the Russian Army and the Russian people, I don't see how the Russian process offers any advantage over what was done in the US and the UK. Destroying a bridge here or a pillbox there doesn't win wars. Sustained effort wins wars. The Allies (including the Russians) could do it, the Germans could not. The reasons for that are far more complex than anything we are discussing here.

Wars kill people. Arguing about whether it is better to kill these people or those people dishonours the deaths on all sides. Making those arguements with incorrect facts annoys me, that is why I post here from time to time.

You ignore, or skate over, the RAF culture which was in many/most/all (take your pick) respects a cult created by Trenchard. He selected the RAF's leaders and indoctrinated/conditioned/brainwashed them (you choose) in his beliefs at Cranwell. These leaders could never emotionally go against Trenchard's beliefs which were formulated by Slessor.
The USAAF in its driving ambition to replicate the RAF's independence from the Army, copied or imitated these RAF beliefs.
The use of the word 'brainwashed' was extended to the US Air Corps as an explanation why Trenchard's beliefs should have been transferred across national boundaries.
The rational approach to the use of air power was that which was taught in the VVS and Luftwaffe. In those organisations it was part of all-arms. Russians and Germans were never tempted by the Trenchardist belief that air power could win wars on its own and uniquely did not need to engage with the enemy's main force.
If Trenchard had never existed, the USAAF would never have adopted Trenchardist beliefs, because only a nut could have come up with them. And only a Churchill would have given Trenchard's beliefs the time of day.

Tony

Tony