Ju-87G Stuka

[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.

[gaunt1]

Even though IL-2s, Typhoons, P47s were almost totally useless vs tanks, they did incredible destruction in supply convoys, which, in long term, was far more effective than to destroy tanks themselves. On the german side, Hs-129 and Fw-190F were also highly effective in this role.

(A flyable Typhoon would be awesome in the game, but I wouldnt mind an earlier Fw-190F, like the F-3 too)

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

Even though IL-2s, Typhoons, P47s were almost totally useless vs tanks...

In terms of killing tanks, sure. For harassing tanks maybe not. It sure does not help the tank crews' stress level and rational decision making being pinged by planes cannons/MGs -even if they were totally sure that they were invulnerable to air attack - and I'd bet they were not.

[RPS69]

Some corrections:

There was no need to attack on a 90º approach.
Attacks should be done on a 45º to 60º dive.
The concept that made those attacks good, was the armour on top back of most tanks.
It will seldom be thicker than 30mm, being the KV an exception with 40mm.

In game, the Bk canon are supposed to penetrate easily up to 35mm armour, making 40mm invulnerable to Bk attacks, never matter the angle.

Discussing effectivity of air weapons against tanks, assuming that a kill is only such when the tank is destroyed for good, it's actually hilaryous.

Damaging tracks, killing engines, putting them on fire, force them to button up, and so on, are succesfull air attacks.

Il2 37mm canon, were a failure because they were not synched. They were useless against tanks. Actually they found some use as anti shipping weapon, where aiming wasn't that important.

On the other side, Stuka G weapons, were reasonably effective, the main problem with the aircraft itself, was it's low surviving capability once it was attacked by enemy fighters... as long as enemy fighters weren't as useles as the ones on Rudell's accounts.

Hs129, when they were not harassed by enemy air opposition, were quite effective. At first, when they were first used on the battle of Kharkov, they tried for the first time a 30mm PaK. Pilots were critical of the weapon, because they believed it was useless, so they called it so, but at the end of the battle, when german troops advenced and reached knocked out T34's, they discovered that the 30mm penetrated T34's turret sides, and killed commander and gunner. Yes... they penetrated the turret armour!

In game, the development is quite good. You can kill many tanks with the Ju87G, by doing a 45º dive, and firing on convergence. You have a single shot to take with both bullets hitting the same place.

I use it at 300m, and calculate firing time by dive angle, and height. When I reach near convergence distance, I fire a single shot, and take care to climb again. Is useless to try a second shot, because you will only score near misses on the sides of the tank. Thay are a damn small target.

Also, on IL2 tanks won't change direction and make your aim somewhat more difficult. Same as ships, they don't engage on evasive maneuvers, so it is actually easyer to score a shot, because tanks are trotting ducks on a row.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Some corrections:

There was no need to attack on a 90º approach.
Attacks should be done on a 45º to 60º dive.
The concept that made those attacks good, was the armour on top back of most tanks.
It will seldom be thicker than 30mm, being the KV an exception with 40mm.

I didn’t talk of 90° dive. I talked about the bullet hitting target at 90°, regardless of plane position. At any other hitting angle, penetration is reduced, up to glancing and no penetration at all.

Originally Posted by RPS69

Discussing effectivity of air weapons against tanks, assuming that a kill is only such when the tank is destroyed for good, it's actually hilaryous.

Damaging tracks, killing engines, putting them on fire, force them to button up, and so on, are succesfull air attacks.

A damaged and temporarily disabled tank can be an advantage during a battle, but cannot be considered a kill, if it isn't captured. Otherwise, the same tank could be killed countless times. A kill means:
A) A completely destroyed tank.
B) A damaged, immobilized and captured tank.

Originally Posted by RPS69

Il2 37mm canon, were a failure because they were not synched. They were useless against tanks. Actually they found some use as anti shipping weapon, where aiming wasn't that important.

The lack of sinc made bursts impossible, but how many bursts can you fire with the 12 rounds per gun of a Ju87G?

Originally Posted by RPS69

On the other side, Stuka G weapons, were reasonably effective, the main problem with the aircraft itself, was it's low surviving capability once it was attacked by enemy fighters...

I agree with you. Ju87G was very slow and vulnerable, but at least it has a gunner. The Hs129 was even slower, had no rear defence and had a built-in enemy in the form of unreliable engines.

Originally Posted by RPS69

as long as enemy fighters weren't as useles as the ones on Rudell's accounts.

I would not take too seriously Rudel's tales. His victory tally is more than suspicious.

Originally Posted by RPS69

In game, the development is quite good. You can kill many tanks with the Ju87G, by doing a 45º dive, and firing on convergence. You have a single shot to take with both bullets hitting the same place.
Also, on IL2 tanks won't change direction and make your aim somewhat more difficult. Same as ships, they don't engage on evasive maneuvers, so it is actually easyer to score a shot, because tanks are trotting ducks on a row.

Agreed. In game, you can fly the Hs129 with perfectly reliable engines and fire easily the Shturmovik’s 37 mm. cannons.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

I didn’t talk of 90° dive. I talked about the bullet hitting target at 90°, regardless of plane position. At any other hitting angle, penetration is reduced, up to glancing and no penetration at all.

Is this correct? Obviously, it's correct in real life, but does IL2 actually model angle of impact when calculating armor penetration? I'm not sure that it does.

Originally Posted by Furio

A damaged and temporarily disabled tank can be an advantage during a battle, but cannot be considered a kill, if it isn't captured.

You're right, but IL2 doesn't model damaged ground vehicles. A ground vehicle is either dead or in perfect health. Certainly, you don't get credit for damaged vehicles.

In that way, I think that IL2 is unintentionally realistic, in that it sort of models the kill claims made by ground attack pilots. (The unofficial rule being that if you put gunfire into a vehicle it's a kill, even if a few hours at the maintenance unit will set things right.)

Originally Posted by Furio

Otherwise, the same tank could be killed countless times.

This was, and is, is a very common reason for pilots (and tankers) to make exaggerated kill claims.

Unlike in IL2, where the game helpfully shows you (and tells you, if you've got Padlock and HUD messages on) whether you've killed a vehicle or not, in real life it's sometimes quite hard to tell if an AFV is damaged to the point of destruction.

That means that different pilots (and tankers) might shoot up the same "dead" vehicle multiple times thinking that it was still a valid target.

Originally Posted by Furio

A kill means:
A) A completely destroyed tank.
B) A damaged, immobilized and captured tank.

The ordinance units would probably count a "kill" as "damaged beyond effective repair", which can mean all manner of things.

But, setting an AFV on fire is usually a good way to wreck it, since the heat of the fire ruins the armor as well as any internal equipment.

In combat, it's more useful to think of "mobility kills" (vehicle can't move), "gun kills" (weapons systems no longer functional), and "combat effectiveness" kills (crew wounded, killed, or otherwise no longer willing or able to fight, vital equipment destroyed, low on fuel, etc. to the point that the vehicle won't be taking any further part in the action that day.)

If IL2 paid more attention to ground vehicle ops, then it might be useful to model mobility and gun kills. Right now what it does is crudely models combat effectiveness kills.

Originally Posted by Furio

I would not take too seriously Rudel's tales. His victory tally is more than suspicious.

His claims were subject to the usual very strict Luftwaffe kill-claiming procedures - at least for air-to-air kills. Rudel might have been an unrepentant Nazi, and possibly a braggart, but he was undoubtedly one of the finest attack pilots ever.

I think that there's a lot of truth to his stories. Certainly, his story about sinking the Marat is valid, as is his sortie record (over 2,500 combat missions!). How many ground vehicles he actually destroyed is questionable, but it's probably a considerable number.

[KG26_Alpha]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1X21-pUQsw

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

His claims were subject to the usual very strict Luftwaffe kill-claiming procedures - at least for air-to-air kills. Rudel might have been an unrepentant Nazi, and possibly a braggart, but he was undoubtedly one of the finest attack pilots ever.

I think that there's a lot of truth to his stories. Certainly, his story about sinking the Marat is valid, as is his sortie record (over 2,500 combat missions!). How many ground vehicles he actually destroyed is questionable, but it's probably a considerable number.

The problem is not that Rudel was an unrepentant Nazi, but that his feats were surely amplified by Nazi propaganda, and we don’t know how much. In the process, his ego was inflated to the point that, very humanly, he probably ended up believing his own tales. But why today should we take his words for granted? He surely was a fine pilot, but how he really compares to his comrades? Anyone knows – this is a serious question, not a rhetorical one – how many Luftwaffe pilots flew the same plane types as Rudel, mainly the Stuka?

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Furio

I didn’t talk of 90° dive. I talked about the bullet hitting target at 90°, regardless of plane position. At any other hitting angle, penetration is reduced, up to glancing and no penetration at all.

Sorry, I understood that you were implying a 90° dive. It wasn't clear.
Anyway 30mm are easily penned by 37mm BK, on any angle in between 45° and 90° at around 300m

A damaged and temporarily disabled tank can be an advantage during a battle, but cannot be considered a kill, if it isn't captured. Otherwise, the same tank could be killed countless times. A kill means:
A) A completely destroyed tank.
B) A damaged, immobilized and captured tank.

I must disagree. The pilot job is done, it can't depend on the ground troops performance to be asigned as a kill.
Tank is abandoned, crew is badly injured, or temporarily out of comission, the attack is a kill.

Many kills were scored by pilots that never realized that they were that successful. Not all kills are spectacular.

The lack of sinc made bursts impossible, but how many bursts can you fire with the 12 rounds per gun of a Ju87G?

None, that weapon doesn't fire any bursts at all. It must always be a precision shot.

I agree with you. Ju87G was very slow and vulnerable, but at least it has a gunner. The Hs129 was even slower, had no rear defence and had a built-in enemy in the form of unreliable engines.

I don't know the Gnome to be unreliable, it makes it underpowered, but they weren't unreliable.

I would not take too seriously Rudel's tales. His victory tally is more than suspicious.

Propaganda inflated most probably, as some other british bomber pilots.
Anyway, my comment was supposed to be an irony.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by RPS69

I don't know the Gnome to be unreliable, it makes it underpowered, but they weren't unreliable.

Gnome-Rhone Motors made for the Germans in Occupied France were occasionally sabotaged (or, perhaps, just manufactured as shoddily as possible, with a muttered "A bas les boches" to send them on their way). Ditto for other German aircraft whose parts were made or assembled by enslaved or subjugated workers.

I don't know how common sabotage was, however, nor how easy it was for the sabotage to get past quality control inspectors. Also, I have no idea how much damage was detected and fixed during testing and delivery.

My ignorant guess is that German ferry pilots probably suffered most from sabotage, and that the mechanics at the front caught all but the most subtle sabotage attempts before the airplane went into battle.