Ju-87G Stuka

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by Furio

Then why use 88mm and larger calibre cannons in tank warfare? And why build tanks at all, if it was so easy to knock them off with a light gun?

Because BK 3.7 used tungsten carbide projectiles. Tungsten was rare and needed elsewhere. Also, since it lacked bursting charge, it didnt inflict as much damage as a normal shell. In reality, T-34s were highly vulnerable targets for a BK 3.7 due to their thin armor, but the thicker armored KV and IS tanks were hard nuts to crack, because the shell lost too much energy to do damage inside. This is why germans needed a bigger weapon (BK 7.5)

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

Then why use 88mm and larger calibre cannons in tank warfare? And why build tanks at all, if it was so easy to knock them off with a light gun?

Because penetration of armour is not a granted kill. Bigger shell-usually more energy left after penetrating, higher chance to do any lethal or crippling damage. Addded to that bigger gun means greater range and bigger shell means less prone to get glancing hits and less susceptible to wind.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Because penetration of armour is not a granted kill. Bigger shell-usually more energy left after penetrating, higher chance to do any lethal or crippling damage. Addded to that bigger gun means greater range and bigger shell means less prone to get glancing hits and less susceptible to wind.

History confirms. During the war, tanks were equipped with bigger and bigger guns, up to 120 mm. Specialized attack planes followed different paths. RAF tried the Vickers S on the Hurricane, but then preferred rockets on the MkIV and the Typhoon. Russians tried 37 mm. cannons on their Shturmoviks, but then returned to less specialized armament, more effective in the CAS role. Only Germans persisted, with questionable results. Some HS129 had impressive armament, but the type had poor performances, bad to execrable handlings and dangerously unreliable engines. As for the Ju87G, suffice to say that a big, two seat plane was needed to haul aloft just 24 rounds, with performances no better than a Westland Lysander.

I agree with Gaunt1: myths abound. The Il2 was an effective CAS type, and surely gave a big contribution to Russian victory, but its anti-tank abilities were dubious. As for the Ju87G, its fame came mainly by the super human Rudel’s feats, and I think the time has come to express some doubts about his victory tally, as it ultimately sums up to two whole tank divisions.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

Then why use 88mm and larger calibre cannons in tank warfare? And why build tanks at all, if it was so easy to knock them off with a light gun?

Small caliber guns only work against armored targets if you get really close. For a tank or an AT gun, that's not always possible, or desirable.

A gun like the 88mm KwK 36 mounted on the Tiger I could score kills on a T-34 at 1,500 m, and could reliably punch through any portion of its armor at 1,000 m. By contrast, a 37mm gun might need to get within a few hundred meters to have any chance of working.

For aircraft, weight and weapon size are huge problems, so you need a smaller, lighter weapon - which means a lower caliber gun. To compensate for the smaller caliber, you increase muzzle velocity, increase rate of fire, and possibly use special ammunition. But, even then, you have to get close to your target - both to hit reliably, and to punch through armor.

[Furio]

True, T34 were highly vulnerable targets for a BK 3.7, but in ideal conditions, that is: at short range and at 90°. If T34 were so much easy prey for the BK, and in general for small calibre weapons, Russians would have stopped producing and fielding them.
Ballistics and technicalities aside, we are talking about effectiveness of guns mounted on WWII airplanes. As historical evidences suggests, contrary to flamboyant victory claims, WWII planes were moderately effective against soft skinned vehicles, and not much against tanks. Because they could only use small calibre cannons with limited ammunition loads and with primitive gun sights; because they had poor performances and even poorer handling qualities; because they flew at low level, often in heavy turbulence; because they faced murderous anti aircraft fire.
All that being said, topic is about anti tank operations with our simmer’s plane types, and the Ju87G in particular. I don’t think that by making cannons more destructive we would obtain better realism. On the contrary: realism would require less effective weapons. I can’t find better words than those written by Pursuivant.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Currently, I think that cannons are reasonably well balanced. If you use them right they can be lethal, even against the heavy tanks. Really good virtual Stuka pilots can achieve kill percentages which would make Rudel look like a rookie by comparison, but which would also get them killed in real life.

The trick to using the Stuka G, or any other "panzerknacker", effectively, is attack from the rear at a steep angle, and then shoot when you're very close to the target. If you aren't pulling out of your dive at treetop level, you're doing it wrong.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

On the contrary: realism would require less effective weapons. I can’t find better words than those written by Pursuivant.

FWIW, veteran pilots learned that you needed to get really close and low in order to effectively engage ground targets, so it's not unrealistic for very brave/suicidal veteran pilots to pull out of their dives very low, or to conduct strafing runs at treetop height or below.

I don't have any good Soviet or German sources here, but as examples, Francis Gabreski (leading US Ace in the ETO) was captured after he damaged his plane's prop when it hit the edge of a railway embankment while making a strafing run, and that another US pilot making a low strafing run literally cut a German soldier's head off with his airplane's wing!

Of course, that makes it a pain to program the AI, since it means a whole bunch of collision avoidance programming that you can mostly ignore as long as AI aircraft don't fly below a couple hundred meters AGL.