WWII and Korean War Tankbuster Aces

Ive read somewhere that Rudel tried to "stalk" his prey by coming in at low altudes, followed by a small climb to reduce speed, and then a fairly shallow dive at about 40 degrees in the final run. Neither the Ju87-G or the HS129 were fitted with dive brakes (Ill stand corrected on that), so Rudel would open fire at relatively shallow angles....about 40 degrees. That contrasts to the steep dive angles used by RAN FB11s, which were often about 60 degrees or more. I think that has a lot to do with the different weapon types. Sea Furies would be relying mostly on their rockets and bombs.....here speed of the aircraft would actually assist in accuracy (shorter flight time) and the steeper the angle, the less margin for error. For the gun armed a/c the slower the approach, the more controllable the a/c, the more likley the fire would be able to hit a weak spot. The engine grating was small protection for the T-34, and the aiming point at least for Sea Furies during Korea. I dont know how successful that might be....controlling an aircraft so as to aim for a particular point on the tank would seem very difficult to me.

Presumably P-47 rockets got this Panther, they weren't as accurate as cannon shells but if a volley of several were fired together like a shotgun blast one would probably be bound to hit. Original caption: "P-47 Thunderbolt pilots inspect a Panther they destroyed"

Regarding ground attack with cannons, it's easy for pilots to get "ground fixated" on the target and not pull up in time, here's an example-
NAP1/c Takeshi Hirano's Zero hit the runway while strafing Hickam Field, Pearl Harbor, and then collided with palms, killing Hirano and several men on ground..

some-one asked "why so touchy about Rudel?" well in terms of killing tanks his kill tally achievements were minimal in the great scheme of things - merely a few days Soviet production at best. Whatever the number, Soviet factories were churning out thousands of AFVs monthly - well out of the range of any Luftwaffe bombers - 15,700 T-34s in 1943 alone (quoted in Evan Mawdsley, 'Thunder in the East'). By the time the Germans could field a tank to match the T-34 the Soviets had a huge numerical , if not qualitative, advantage. The up-gunned T-34-85 featured an 85mm gun and over 18,000 of these were produced during 1945. At the time of course Rudel's efforts and those of his comrades were feted. In reality Rudel's 'achievements' were but a drop in the ocean, a mere pinprick in the overall scheme of battle on the Eastern Front..

Two things worth mentioning

1) Russian tanks were diesel powered, which meant that hits in and around the fuel tanks and engine compartment weren't as likely to result in engine/vehicle fires. More often than not the sometimes spectacular fires seen after Russian medium and heavy tanks had been hit was because the ammunition had brewed up. The Russian tanks were more likely to be recoverable and repairable after strikes to the engine compartment cf petrol vehicles.

2) The Germans did not have large stocks of tungsten; in 1942; for example; in 1942 the Germans had to halt the development and production of the 7.5cm tapered bore Waffe 0725 tank gun because of inadequate supplies of tungsten (each AP shell used by this weapon needed about 1 kg of tungsten). A high explosive 37 mm shell might just penetrate the engine decking of a T-34, but realistically it would take tungsten cored ammunition to guarantee that any strikes would be able to get through to vital components. So a question would be what was the usual ammunition loading for a Ju-87G or Hs 129 armed with the 37mm?

Aozora said:

<>snip
So a question would be what was the usual ammunition loading for a Ju-87G or Hs 129 armed with the 37mm?

Click to expand...

According to Tony Williams, the 3,7cm BK and 5cm PaK were the only gun types that were allowed, after mid 1944, to have their ammo to be produced from tungsten (= Hartkernmunition)