Rudel's tank kill count is correct? (1 Viewer)

[ROK-BIRDMAN]

Rudel destroyed more than 500 soviet tanks and it was more than any other german tank aces.
I know stukas 37mm cannon can destroyed Soviet tanks but 37mm was not a perfect weapon.
Using 37mm cannon to attack enemy tank, stuka pilots attacked tank's weakness point but 37mm's power is still not sufficient.
In M26 vs Panther's tank engagement, after M26 shoot 3 90mm rounds and Panther was completely destroyed. So how about 37mm? It was really weak cannon to take out enemy tank.
So germans make Hs 129's 75mm cannon but rudel didn't rode in this plane.
I think 500+ tank kill was overclaim... however rudel was a greatest bomber pilot in the history.
What do you think?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think if was attacking them from the rear and above the 37mm was adequate to the task. Remember also that it's not just the size of the round but the muzzle velocity and the kinetic energy carried by the round.

 

[Snautzer01]

There are more then 1 threads about this. Prop not as many because of high moral booster movie star for germans and was ardent nazi till his death. Still great schlagtflieger

 

[ROK-BIRDMAN]

I think if was attacking them from the rear and above the 37mm was adequate to the task. Remember also that it's not just the size of the round but the muzzle velocity and the kinetic energy carried by the round.

I already know about this. But 37mm round's fragment effect was less than 75mm, 76mm... etc more bigger cannons.
37mm AP round can also penetrate T34's armor but 37mm's fragment effect was cannot be compared to 88mm's fragment effect.
In the real ww2 battle, a lot of tanks sustained more than one AP round which came from enemy tanks and AT guns.
Many T34's destoryed by more than 2~3 75mm or 88mm AP rounds. So, I think stuka pilots have to score more hits to T34 than AT guns like pak40 or 88mm.
But stuka can only carried 12 rounds for 37mm. Rudel was great pilot, but i don't think he can destroyed 500+ tanks...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I already know about this. But 37mm round's fragment effect was less than 75mm, 76mm... etc more bigger cannons.
37mm AP round can also penetrate T34's armor but 37mm's fragment effect was cannot be compared to 88mm's fragment effect.

You dance with the gun you brought.

In the real ww2 battle, a lot of tanks sustained more than one AP round which came from enemy tanks and AT guns.
Many T34's destoryed by more than 2~3 75mm or 88mm AP rounds. So, I think stuka pilots have to score more hits to T34 than AT guns like pak40 or 88mm.
But stuka can only carried 12 rounds for 37mm. Rudel was great pilot, but i don't think he can destroyed 500+ tanks...

12 rounds per gun -- 24 rounds. And the airplane will most often be able to maneuver to shoot at the tanks' weak spots and thereby make the best use of the limited ammo.

Remember too that many Russian tanks of the era were BT-5/-7s and not noted for their armor anyway.

I have no opinion on the accuracy or inaccuracy of Rudel's claims. I'm just pointing out that your claim about the 37mm being a "really weak cannon" could be questionable. It had a high muzzle velocity and shot fairly substantial rounds for its size. Was it ideal? No. But no matter how much you compare the 37 to the 88, you ain't getting an 88 onto a Stuka.

 

[Vincenzo]

I think overclaim was/is relative common. and i don't call Rudel a bomber pilot on him Ju 87G, as i don't call A-10 pilot a bomber pilot.
as other already wrote the 37mm was not a weak gun, it is not to compare with AT or tank gun, they targeted different part of the tank.

 

[jetcal1]

Dedicated and rabid Nazi. Undoubtedly an ego driven liar as well.

 

[pbehn]

The first thing I would question is the term "destroyed". It takes a lot to destroy a tank, it takes even more to know you have destroyed a tank flying above it, after firing on it.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Overclaiming is common in war.
There is no way we can verify Rudel's claims.
He probably engaged over 500 tanks. He undoubtedly destroyed some of these. He undoubtedly disabled many more than he destroyed. He probably hit more than he destroyed or disabled.

 

[Snautzer01]

My thread waffen revue has an article on the bk 3,7 cm Waffen Revue, German weapons explained in detail

 

[ROK-BIRDMAN]

가져온 총으로 춤을 춥니다.



총당 12발 -- 24발. 그리고 비행기는 가장 자주 기동하여 탱크의 약점을 공격할 수 있으며 제한된 탄약을 최대한 활용할 수 있습니다.

그 시대의 많은 러시아 탱크가 BT-5/-7이었고 장갑으로 유명하지 않다는 것을 기억하십시오.

나는 Rudel의 주장이 정확하거나 부정확하다는 의견이 없습니다. 나는 단지 37mm가 "정말 약한 대포"라는 주장이 의심스러울 수 있다는 점을 지적하고 있습니다. 그것은 높은 총구 속도를 가졌고 크기에 비해 상당히 많은 탄을 쐈습니다. 이상적이었나? 아니오. 그러나 37과 88을 아무리 비교하더라도 Stuka에서 88을 얻지는 못할 것입니다.

stuka g was appear in combat at 1943. There are few BT-5, BT-7 in combat and they were almost replaced by T34, T70.
I repeat, I didn't say 37mm can't destroy the tank. It just says that 37mm will consume more ammunition than other cannons, and Stuka's ammunition was not enough.
If you hit the rear and top of the T34, naturally 37mm penetrates the T34's aromor. But there is an engine instead of tank crews and ammunition depot, and the tank that the engine is destroyed does not burn down or explode in a fire. If it is recovered, it will be able to be put into the war after the repair.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

stuka g was appear in combat at 1943. There are few BT-5, BT-7 in combat and they were almost replaced by T34, T70.
I repeat, I didn't say 37mm can't destroy the tank. It just says that 37mm will consume more ammunition than other cannons, and Stuka's ammunition was not enough.
If you hit the rear and top of the T34, naturally 37mm penetrates the T34's aromor. But there is an engine instead of tank crews and ammunition depot, and the tank that the engine is destroyed does not burn down or explode in a fire. If it is recovered, it will be able to be put into the war after the repair.

BT-7s remained in service throughout the war, and the last I checked, a T-50/-60/-70's armor was equally thin. But you are clearly wedded to your views, so I won't waste my time on this discussion any more.

 

[Shortround6]

Germans were not using using regular AP ammunition in the JU 87G.

The 30mm and 37mm guns used from aircraft were one of the few exceptions the Germans had for tungsten cored ammunition.

Comparing this ammo and how well it penetrates in the way it was used. Rudel stated post war that the JU 87 could only be used in mobile battles when the tanks had moved ahead of the dug in AA guns. The JU-87 could not be dived like a dive bomber, the heavy guns put too great a strain on the wings if you tried to pull out doing that. The JU 87s flew low level and tried, when ever possible, to attack from the rear or at least the side of the tanks. Not head to head duals like the tanks were testing their ammo at.

The APCR ammo was supposed to penetrate 140mm at 100 meters range assuming the projectile hit at 90 degrees to the target.
However it was sensitive to impact angle and was reduced to 70mm penetration at 60 degrees.

None of this addresses if Rudel actually hit the number of targets he claims to have hit.

The Germans weren't not looking for a video game scene of complete destruction. A tank that no longer mobile and had the crew bailed out more than enough to count for a kill. It wouldn't be used that day or for a few days to come. If there was a fuel fire or ammunition fire so much the better.

 

[pbehn]

The Germans weren't not looking for a video game scene of complete destruction. A tank that no longer mobile and had the crew bailed out more than enough to count for a kill. It wouldn't be used that day or for a few days to come. If there was a fuel fire or ammunition fire so much the better.

An abandoned, undamaged tank is a great prize, you can use it yourself. But that wasnt what the claims were.

 

[Dimlee]

If I'm not mistaken, all of Rudel's Ju 87G operations were during the time when the Germans retreated. There was little chance, if any, to check his claims on the ground.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Impossible to verify given the nature of history, but it's EXTREMELY unlikely that Rudel's claims and the actual numbers of actual tank kills are the same.

Preponderance of evidence from WW2 and other conflicts is that aerial claims of ground targets are overstated anywhere from a 2 times to a 10 times multiple. That's just the nature of that type of engagement.

Sitting in an aircraft gives the pilot/gunner, and/or accompanying aircraft precious little time to verify anything apart from a catastrophic loss with a tank (explosion/turret loss/conflagration). Even in cases of fire or non catastrophic detonation (say, an engine bay fire), there is the possibility that a damaged tank was recovered and put back into service. Then there's all the conflicting factors that are involved in flying and fighting at the same time, particularly ground activity that could be misconstrued or misinterpreted as a kill.

Generally speaking, WW2 claims involving aerial cannon were less prone to over-claiming than those involving rocket/bomb attacks. But that's a bit like arguing that buckshot is more precise than birdshot.

For instance, take the British experience in the desert vs the British experience in Normady: In the Western Desert, Hurricane IIs armed with 40mm cannons claims were typically 2-5 times actual kills of armoured vehicles, as verified by looking at German AFV wrecks. In Normandy and Northeastern Europe, rocket firing Typhoon claims were typically 5-10 times higher than actual kills, and bomb dropping Typhoon claims were typically 4-8 times higher than actual kills.

Then you have to add to the picture some of the facets of the German claims system which promoted overclaiming by tying promotion and other opportunities to how many kills someone had. Then there were the German propaganda efforts around high profile individuals like Rudel, which aimed to promote the 'Nazi Superman' myth. Again, this is likely to promote some looseness when coming to verifying claims.

 

[Shortround6]

An abandoned, undamaged tank is a great prize, you can use it yourself. But that wasnt what the claims were.

In North Africa both sides were shooting up tanks until they got smoke or fire. The 37-50mm guns didn't blow things up very well. The Anti tank gunners on both sides had been tricked too may times by tanks that took a couple of hits, stopped and went doggo (played dead) while the crew tried to figure out where the enemy AT guns were. Once they located the gun or dug in tank the swung their turret onto the target and opened fire while the target had started engaging a new target.
When they started using 75mm guns hits that penetrated armor tended to do enough damage to take the tank out of action.

For airplanes shooting at tanks there was always going to be a lot of confusion as the misses are going to be close to the tank and raise up a lot of dirt/debris. Even if the Ju 87 only fired 3 rounds apiece at a tank that is 6 rounds either bouncing off the tank (and storage boxes/etc) or hitting somewhat close by in just a couple of seconds.

The Americans put a bunch of M4 Shermans back into service. Sometimes it was just a matter of taking out the causalities and cleaning it up and welding a plug or two to fit in the holes. Other times there was a considerable amount of work that needed to done. The only time the Americans really declared a tank "dead" was if it had burned as the fire would ruin the heat treatment of the armor. But that is at the salvage and overhaul stage. Even a tank that can be "fixed" in a few hours is out of the battle until it can be fixed.

Again I am not making any claims for Rudels claim accuracy, in fact somebody with his experience should have had a better idea of what was going on based on observation.
Dirt blown into the air doesn't look like burning diesel fuel. Steam doesn't look like smoke. Steam dissipates in fairly short order. smoke lasts for quite a while. let alone the color.

Wood smoke doesn't make the same color smoke that petroleum products do.

Pilots on their first few missions can make a lot of mistakes. Somebody like Rudel can make mistakes but not as many.

If you overclaim the effectiveness of the strike then there is less chance of a return strike to finish things off when the enemy is killing your ground troops. Poor intelligence. But we have seen that before, The British only had 50 fighters left

 

[ThomasP]

A couple of questions:

1. How many sorties did Rudel fly?
If he only flew 250 sorties in his Ju 87G then it is unlikely he killed 500 tanks. If he flew 1000 anti-tank sorties then there is a pretty good chance that his number is in the ballpark.

2. How many tanks did he claim using other versions of the Ju 87, or possibly totally different aircraft?

 

[GrauGeist]

In regards to the BK3,7 cannon versus armor:
The Ju87G and Hs129 enjoyed success against Soviet armor because they were diving on sloped armor (when not attacking the rear or top of the tank).

Sloped armor is resistant to enemy projectiles because of it's incline, causing the projectile to deflect away (in most cases) with little harm to the tank.
However, with an airborne cannon, it's projectiles are striking that tank's armor squarely, an angle that the tank was not designed to counter.

 

[Milosh]

In regards to the BK3,7 cannon versus armor:
The Ju87G and Hs129 enjoyed success against Soviet armor because they were diving on sloped armor (when not attacking the rear or top of the tank).

Sloped armor is resistant to enemy projectiles because of it's incline, causing the projectile to deflect away (in most cases) with little harm to the tank.
However, with an airborne cannon, it's projectiles are striking that tank's armor squarely, an angle that the tank was not designed to counter.

Striking at an angle also increases the thickness of the armor.

There was VERY few Hs129s (25) with the 75mm cannon and it was unwieldly to fly.