Verification Process for Tank Busting Claims

[Boomerang]

I am seeking information about what process (if any) was used to verify the tank busting claims by the likes of Hans-Ulrich Rudel. Was there a formal process for claims to be submitted to the RLM for approval, such as applied for claims by fighters? If not, were the tallies of tank kills, such as the 519 claimed by Rudel, kept at unit level, or by individual pilots?

Also, I'd be interested in comments on the reliability, or otherwise, of tank busting claims.

Thanks

Boomerang

[Ruy Horta]

On a side note, do remember that much of the Luftwaffe specialist "Tank busting" was done in defensive battles, stopping armour that had broken through German lines or in very close support of the army. The wrecks would have been on German occupied ground or very near to it. That was the nature of fighting, as for the verification, I don't know for certain, but the ground troops would probably have been able to verify the bulk of claims.

Did you know that tanks (AFV) kills could be counted as air kills late in '45?

I didn't...

Quite surprised to find that bit information.

[Charles Bavarois]

Boomerang,

the prozess for verification for tank claims was ordered 22. May 1944, Az. 95/44 (LP (A) 5, V) and was published on 12. June 1944 in Luftwaffenverordnungsblatt.

As with all orders from higher ranks it was quite complicated. For example it explained exactly what a "Panzer" was. As a rule it what quite similar to the prozess for verifivation of Abschüsse. What is important is, that you had to have an witness in the air or on the ground (members of your own crew were not allowed) and that the claims were confimed at the Luftflottenkommando, not at the RLM.

The order also says, that a Panzervernichtung >> generally << is to be estimated like an Abschuss. But it also says, that the circumstances of the claim are important ("5 claims at one day or single claims against an dangerous flank-attack are more worth than 5 claims during many weeks"). For that reason copies of the pilots "Leistungsbuch" had to be forwared when requesting honors for Panzervernichtungen.

IMHO this order does not say that an "Panzervernichtung" is to be counted as a "Flugzeugabschuss", but only that - in connection with the granting of military honors - it is worth as much as an Flugzeugabschuss. I don't know, whether there was a later order, allowing the direct counting of a Panzervernichtung like an Abschuss.

HTH

Carl

[Boomerang]

Gentleman:

Thank you so much for your prompt replies. I particularly appreciate the specific details of the claims verification process.

It is interesting that the procedure was published in June 1944. Peter Smith's Ju 87 Stuka states that the Ju 87G tank buster first saw action on 5 March 1943, and that Rudel claimed 12 kills on 5 July 1943, near Belgorod. Apparently a number of claims pre-dated the June 1944 process.

What I have read indicates that the primary task of the tank busters was to attack Soviet tank columns that had penetrated the German Lines. If such penetrations were sealed off, knocked out tanks would be available for inspection. In the event of a general German withdrawal, this would not have been possible.

I do recall reading somewhere that, in the very late war period, tank kills were rated equally with A2A kills. To my great frustration, I can't locate the reference where I saw this (I'll be annoyed until I can find the book!)

IMHO the tank busters are a neglected topic - seems to me they were an inspiration for the USAF's A10 Thunderbolt (Warthog) - sorry if that's getting beyond the scope of this Board.

Thanks again for the replies.

Boomerang

[mkenny]

The link shows just how over the top some of the Kursk claims were.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000016.html

It was routine for all Army tank kill claims in the East to have a 50% dicount applied to them so presumably Air claims were more suspect.
Allied TAF kill claims in Normandy were as inflated so why isnt more common sense applied to these German CLAIMS.
Did Rudel never just damage a tank?

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

IMHO the tank busters are a neglected topic - seems to me they were an inspiration for the USAF's A10 Thunderbolt (Warthog) - sorry if that's getting beyond the scope of this Board.

If there was any German connection to the Warthog, that must have been to the Henschel Hs 129. Just look at the concept, the airframe, and generally the looks....

[Dick Powers]

I once spoke to civilian engineer who had been employeed by the Air Force in the mid- to late 60s. One of his assignments was the USAF team which developed the AX requirements, issued to industry oround 1970.

He said that the USAF had a difficult time finding any operational research or hard data about aircraft vs armor. To overcome this, the team interviewed ex- Luftwaffe pilots with experience in air to ground warfare on the Eastern Front.

The AX competition was won by Republic, and later turned into the A-10. So the Warthog is a descendant of the Ju-87.

This gentleman also said some of the ex-Luftwaffe pilots were "unrepentant Nazis".

[mkenny]

Originally Posted by Dick Powers

He said that the USAF had a difficult time finding any operational research or hard data about aircraft vs armor.

That is strange because there was a lot of it done in Normansdy in 1944.
Detailed tables listing cause of loss were done on a large number of AFV's that were destroyed in the breakout.

http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/norm.../airpower.html

[Boomerang]

mkenny:

Thank you so much for providing those links. The sites they link to certainly provide hard data to illuminate the air vs armour discussion and suggest (not surprisingly) that claims by pilots for tanks destroyed must be treated with caution. No doubt this applies to all the relevant air forces.

Going back to my remark about the Ju 87G being the inspiration for the USAF's A10 Warthog - point taken, the same comment could be applied to the Hs 129. Both the Ju87G and the Hs 129 exemplify the concept of a tank busting aircraft equipped with a high velocity cannon that is continued in the A10.

Cheers

Boomerang