Rudel's tank kill count is correct?

[GregP]

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?

Rudel flew 2,530 ground attack missions. He was credited with the destruction of 519 tanks, one battleship, one cruiser, 70 landing craft and 150 artillery emplacements. He claimed 51 aerial victories and the destruction of more than 800 vehicles. So, he claimed something destroyed on 63% (OK, 62.9%) of his missions. Considering he was a ground attack pilot, that is not unreasonable, especially if you allow for "normal" overclaiming. His claim for a battleship was semi-likely. The Russian battleship was hit by two bombs and sank. Rudel dropped the second bomb and got the credit. Likely both bombs together caused the damage, but the last person to hit any target that gets destroyed usually gets the credit for it.

His 51 aerial victory claims are also not unreasonable in 2,530 missions. The real numbers probably more like 30 or so. I'm thinking his claims for destroying artillery emplacements mean that he strafed or bombed the emplacement and the crew was killed or fled and didn't shoot again. That is reasonable, but likely didn't destroy the gun each time or even most times.

Because someone was a Nazi didn't mean they were unskilled. I may not LIKE Hans Rudel but, if we were to nominate a ground attack pilot for being "the best," he would be a very good candidate. I can't think of too many ground attack pilots that we know about who would be considered "better." This does NOT mean I admire Rudel; I don't ... well, at least his political leanings. But, the man could fly and hit a target like few others.

 

[Just Schmidt]

There's the problem of what constitutes a kill, and how to ascertain that was achieved. A proper explosion of course will do, personally I doubt Rudel observed 500 tanks actually blowing up. Then there,s how to check that the tank you just shot up wasn,t killed already (baring the explosion or obvious burn out). Finally getting the confirmation in case your side are retreating is difficult, and even then some kills were from a combination of factors together with tankbusters, mines, anti-tank fire, 'normal' artillery fire and so on. Even afterwards a really precise picture was probably out of the question.

Much of this has been commented on already, and in addition there are the old threads.

Anyway a discussion with special attention to Rudel can be found here:

 

[GregP]

I have a hard time, in general, with any ground-kill claims. Suppose you strafe a troop column and many fall down and lie still. You don't want to waste ammunition, so you look and fly away. When you do, it is likely many survivors get up and walk away. Ground troops aren't stupid. If they stop moving, it is likely you will stop shooting. So, how can a pilot reliably check his ground kills without strafing them at least twice or more? Tough to say, with any accuracy.

Much easier with an aircraft. Nobody intentionally crashes a plane to fool you. Easier with ships, too. Nobody intentionally sinks a ship to fool you.

But, with tanks, trucks, and etc., it can be difficult to make sure of your results, even on the clearest day, especially if there are trees or forest in play.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have a hard time, in general, with any ground-kill claims. Suppose you strafe a troop column and many fall down and lie still. You don't want to waste ammunition, so you look and fly away. When you do, it is likely many survivors get up and walk away. Ground troops aren't stupid. If they stop moving, it is likely you will stop shooting. So, how can a pilot reliably check his ground kills without strafing them at least twice or more? Tough to say, with any accuracy.

Much easier with an aircraft. Nobody intentionally crashes a plane to fool you. Easier with ships, too. Nobody intentionally sinks a ship to fool you.

But, with tanks, trucks, and etc., it can be difficult to make sure of your results, even on the clearest day, especially if there are trees or forest in play.

Right, anyone driving past an auto accident at 65 mph is going to have issues figuring out what's broken and why. How much more so when you're going 3-4 times the speed, and having to navigate in three dimensions and not two, while your target is now behind you and confirming its destruction only exposes you to more ground-fire?

 

[Milosh]

There was a study done on what happened at Falaise. Some of the findings was that many of the tanks had been "killed" multiple times.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Same thing happened during Desert Storm.

 

[junkman3353]

Not the end-all/be-all of the discussion but recall that during WWII (and even up to today) Russian tanks commonly carried exterior fuel tanks that were mostly thin metal fuel barrels mounted on the rear deck. Wouldn't take much to set those things on fire. Even a near miss would puncture them and a glancing blow would create enough sparks to light them up. Rudel was a jerk but he operated in a target rich environment for his entire combat career. Substantial number of tanks destroyed-certainly, overclaiming-certainly.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not the end-all/be-all of the discussion but recall that during WWII (and even up to today) Russian tanks commonly carried exterior fuel tanks that were mostly thin metal fuel barrels mounted on the rear deck. Wouldn't take much to set those things on fire. Even a near miss would puncture them and a glancing blow would create enough sparks to light them up. Rudel was a jerk but he operated in a target rich environment for his entire combat career. Substantial number of tanks destroyed-certainly, overclaiming-certainly.

... and those fuel tanks going up may or may not knock a tank out, right?

 

[ThomasP]

While operated in a somewhat different environment, the records for RAF No.6 Sqn give the following information:

"Fire is opened at 700 yards closing to 200 yards, and both Brownings and 'S' Guns are used. The Brownings and 'S' Guns are harmonised at 500 yards. After each burst of one shell per gun the sights are realigned on the target. Normally about 5 bursts can be got in on each attack."

During operations in Libya and Egypt, No.6 flew 162 sorties from 7 June-November 1942, with 25 aircraft casualties, 10 category I (repairable at the unit level), 9 category II, and 6 category III (1 missing, 4 abandoned on the ground and lost to the enemy). Only 1 pilot was lost (the pilot of the missing plane) and presumed KIA.

During a mission to slow down the Germans during the retreat from Tobruk, 6 of No.6 Sqn's Hurricane IID attacked a unit of 14 enemy trucks and 1 tank. The No.6 Sqn record said "It was a pretty poor show as one truck got away."

During the 2nd Battle of El Alamein, after one sortie a German prisoner of war gave an indication of No.6 Sqn's effectiveness, reportedly saying that of his company of 12 tanks attacked by the Hurricanes, 6 were knocked out and left burning, and all others were hit.

Later during the Battle of the Mareth Line, No.6 Sqn claimed 148 tanks hit, with 47 destroyed. Over 200 other vehicles were claimed destroyed.

 

[Macandy]

Meh… massive over-claiming.

Here's a thing, RAF and USAAF pilots swore blind they had knocked out Tiger tanks by skipping machine gun and rounds off the road into the belly and killing them.
Just a shame not a single Tiger was ever found knocked out this way.

 

[Macandy]

Not the end-all/be-all of the discussion but recall that during WWII (and even up to today) Russian tanks commonly carried exterior fuel tanks that were mostly thin metal fuel barrels mounted on the rear deck. Wouldn't take much to set those things on fire. Even a near miss would puncture them and a glancing blow would create enough sparks to light them up. Rudel was a jerk but he operated in a target rich environment for his entire combat career. Substantial number of tanks destroyed-certainly, overclaiming-certainly.

Only in the Hollywierd war movies do fuel cans explode like napalm bombs.
Punch hole in can of diesel, you get a leaking can of diesel.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Correct that diesel won't explode. Did the Soviets field any gasoline-powered tanks?

 

[Greg Boeser]

Only in the Hollywierd war movies do fuel cans explode like napalm bombs.
Punch hole in can of diesel, you get a leaking can of diesel.

And product safety reports on Dateline.

 

[Shortround6]

Correct that diesel won't explode. Did the Soviets field any gasoline-powered tanks?

Mostly the stuff that was smaller than the T-34.

T-60, T-70, SU-76 All the old stuff, T-26, BT-7 etc. Most or all of these tanks did NOT have external fuel tanks although some may have carried fuel cans as cargo.

Diesel won't explode (mostly) , but it will burn.
A lot is temperature dependent. Just like liquid gasoline wont burn. It is the vapor that burns. Difference is that gasoline gives off enough vapors at around -40 degrees F to sustain combustion? or at least ignite.
Depending on your grade of diesel fuel you need around 100 degrees F for the same thing to happen. And that is the temperature of the fuel, not so much the temperature of the air.
Leak diesel onto pavement on a hot summer day and you might get a big surprise.
Hit a drum of diesel with a 37mm cannon shell next to a hot engine deck on a hot day and you might a totally different result than a few machine gun bullets leaking diesel down the side of a tank in Russia in February.

Russians did do some work on baffles and gutters and which way the air moved through the engine compartment after the winter war of 1940 after they lost a lot tanks to Molotov cocktails to try to redirect the path of burning fuel.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Mostly the stuff that was smaller than the T-34.

T-60, T-70, SU-76 All the old stuff, T-26, BT-7 etc. Most or all of these tanks did NOT have external fuel tanks although some may have carried fuel cans as cargo.

Diesel won't explode (mostly) , but it will burn.
A lot is temperature dependent. Just like liquid gasoline wont burn. It is the vapor that burns. Difference is that gasoline gives off enough vapors at around -40 degrees F to sustain combustion? or at least ignite.
Depending on your grade of diesel fuel you need around 100 degrees F for the same thing to happen. And that is the temperature of the fuel, not so much the temperature of the air.
Leak diesel onto pavement on a hot summer day and you might get a big surprise.
Hit a drum of diesel with a 37mm cannon shell next to a hot engine deck on a hot day and you might a totally different result than a few machine gun bullets leaking diesel down the side of a tank in Russia in February.

Russians did do some work on baffles and gutters and which way the air moved through the engine compartment after the winter war of 1940 after they lost a lot tanks to Molotov cocktails to try to redirect the path of burning fuel.

Former USAF firefighter here, I'm familiar with the properties of the fuels. And yeah, it was where any burning fuel might go that seems to be the big worry.

 

[dedalos]

Rudel flew 2,530 ground attack missions. He was credited with the destruction of 519 tanks, one battleship, one cruiser, 70landing craft and 150 artillery emplacements. He claimed 51 aerial victories and the destruction of more than 800 vehicles. So, he claimed something destroyed on 63% (OK, 62.9%) of his missions. Considering he was a ground attack pilot, that is not unreasonable, especially if you allow for "normal" overclaiming. His claim for a battleship was semi-likely. The Russian battleship was hit by two bombs and sank. Rudel dropped the second bomb and got the credit. Likely both bombs together caused the damage, but the last person to hit any target that gets destroyed usually gets the credit for it.

His 51 aerial victory claims are also not unreasonable in 2,530 missions. The real numbers probably more like 30 or so. I'm thinking his claims for destroying artillery emplacements mean that he strafed or bombed the emplacement and the crew was killed or fled and didn't shoot again. That is reasonable, but likely didn't destroy the gun each time or even most times.

Because someone was a Nazi didn't mean they were unskilled. I may not LIKE Hans Rudel but, if we were to nominate a ground attack pilot for being "the best," he would be a very good candidate. I can't think of too many ground attack pilots that we know about who would be considered "better." This does NOT mean I admire Rudel; I don't ... well, at least his political leanings. But, the man could fly and hit a target like few others.

It is the first time i read that rudel claimed 51 aerial kills. All my books about him say 9-11 kills. Do you have new evidence?

I dont believe he actually destroyed 519 tanks but he did fly 2519 ground attack missions. He kept flying after losing his lower leg. His personal courage is beyond question. He also was a fanatical Nazi, relatively unusual for lw pilots.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Correct that diesel won't explode. Did the Soviets field any gasoline-powered tanks?

As Shortround notes, their light tanks were gasoline powered and they started the war with a large stock of gasoline powered T-26s and BT-7s but the Germans took out most of those in 1941. T-34s, KVs and lend lease Shermans and Valentines were diesel powered. The JU-87G didn't appear until 1943 at which time the majority of front line Soviet tanks were diesel powered

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

As Shortround notes, their light tanks were gasoline powered and they started the war with a large stock of gasoline powered T-26s and BT-7s but the Germans took out most of those in 1941. T-34s, KVs and lend lease Shermans and Valentines were diesel powered. The JU-87G didn't appear until 1943 at which time the majority of front line Soviet tanks were diesel powered

Thanks, my knowledge of Soviet tanks is lacking and I appreciate the info.

 

[Milosh]

Thanks, my knowledge of Soviet tanks is lacking and I appreciate the info.

Engines of WW2

www.o5m6.de

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Engines of WW2

www.o5m6.de

Bookmarked for later reading, thanks for the link. The "informative" is a hopeful thang.