Glider
Captain
Hello Glider
In defence of Soren, BK 3.7cm was airborne version of 3.7cm Flak 18, and LW had developed a very powerful APCR ammo for it, it's problem was that its penetration power sharply reduced when the hit angle increased/decreased from perpendicular (depends how one gives the hit angle). So if a battery of 3.7cm Flak guns had those special shots it might have been possible that while the upper side armour was impenetrable a bit substandard turret side armour might have been penetrable from 600m, a bit so and so but maybe. Because of this behaviour of the APCR ammo, Ju 87G pilots tried to achieve as close as possible perpendicular hits when attacking Soviet armour..
On German total losses, I would say appr 42.000 panzers, StuG,s StuHs, StuPzs, JgPzs and Pak/Sfls based on M-H's figures, when one takes into account those lost before May 41, those produced during the last couple months of the war and those lost in the last 3+ months of the war unless someone can give info on mass surrenders of AFVs somewhere in Reich in May 45.
Juha
Juha
Thanks for your comments. I understand that the BK 3.7 was an airbourne version of the Flak guns. My problem is the statement that the T34 85 was vulnerable to flak fire.
Its a bit like me saying the Crusader III tanks were fine as the 6pd HE shells were effecrtive against AT guns. That would of course be rubbish as the tanks were not given the HE ammunition. If the Flak guns were not given the APCR ammunition then to say that they were a risk to T34/85 tanks is equally rubbish.
A theoretical risk is not a real risk.