Ju-87G Stuka

[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.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

Gnome Rhone engines, as far as I know, were small engines, powerful for their size and for this very reason unreliable, as it happens for any hot rod engine. They also lacked effective filters and suffered badly for dust and sand ingestion, both common occurrence in North Africa and Eastern Front. Lastly, they were not famous for their toughness, being usually put out of service by the slightest damage. With such an engine, having two of them cancels any safety advantage, actually doubling the chances of trouble.

Engines aside, the HS129 was very slow, had bad handling and limited manoeuvrability, and had no rear defence. Therefore, it could be reasonably employed only against lightly defended targets. When it entered service, Luftwaffe had increasing difficulty in attaining air superiority and ultimately was unable to attain it even locally, and this ended HS129 career. In my opinion, as good as it were its cannons, the HS129 cannot be considered an effective weapon system.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Furio

They also lacked effective filters and suffered badly for dust and sand ingestion, both common occurrence in North Africa and Eastern Front.

Sorry, but this did happened in the first attempt on being delivered to North Africa. Later it was corrected, and the aircraft achieved some success, until allied air superiority was too much even for axis fighters...

Lastly, they were not famous for their toughness, being usually put out of service by the slightest damage. With such an engine, having two of them cancels any safety advantage, actually doubling the chances of trouble.

Sorry again... but... this aircraft got it's engines protected from ground fire, and it wasn't described as an issue, at least after 1942.

Engines aside, the HS129 was very slow, had bad handling and limited manoeuvrability, and had no rear defence. Therefore, it could be reasonably employed only against lightly defended targets. When it entered service, Luftwaffe had increasing difficulty in attaining air superiority and ultimately was unable to attain it even locally, and this ended HS129 career. In my opinion, as good as it were its cannons, the HS129 cannot be considered an effective weapon system.

You state a lot of true concepts, with a questionable conclusion. No airforce without air superiority would have had a successfull anti tank aircraft!
Those aircraft were all vulnerable to fighter attacks, since their armour was intended to protect them against hand held weapons, not canons.
They performed well at slow speeds, and low altitude, and that was it's job.
This same platform with better engines, would have been better, but the concept as it was, it was good.
It actually has a kind of a modern sibling on the A10. It is almost the same concept, with jets...

[Furio]

Originally Posted by RPS69

You state a lot of true concepts, with a questionable conclusion. No airforce without air superiority would have had a successfull anti tank aircraft!
Those aircraft were all vulnerable to fighter attacks, since their armour was intended to protect them against hand held weapons, not canons.
They performed well at slow speeds, and low altitude, and that was it's job.
This same platform with better engines, would have been better, but the concept as it was, it was good.
It actually has a kind of a modern sibling on the A10. It is almost the same concept, with jets...

You’re right, leaving aside different information about the Gnome Rhone, we draw different conclusions. In the end, my opinion is that all specialized anti-tank aircraft of WWII, of all nations, were a failure, and the Hs129 was the worst one simply because it was the most specialized.

As I see it, if a type can operate only with complete air superiority, it has no true tactical value. It’s a weapon you can use only when you’re already winning the battle.

The A10 is totally incomparable, being technologically in a different world. However, its real value in a symmetrical battle, with real air opposition, was never demonstrated.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

As I see it, if a type can operate only with complete air superiority, it has no true tactical value. It’s a weapon you can use only when you’re already winning the battle.

Anit-tank planes can also operate in an environment with local air superiority -so you do not need the total air control.
But the whole concept is questionable, though - as the western allies somewhat proved in WW2, using fighter-bombers to do the ground work.

Originally Posted by Furio

The A10 is totally incomparable, being technologically in a different world. However, its real value in a symmetrical battle, with real air opposition, was never demonstrated.

Technologically different, yes, but same concept. In a symmetrical battle it would fare as well as Shturmoviks in 43 - okay, not brilliant. Without any form of control in the air that thing would have been about as useless as the Hs129 in 44.

Originally Posted by Furio

Overall, Rudel’s memories defy all the rules of probability and his victory tally makes one wonder how Germany lost the war.

There were quite a lot of soldiers fighting in all WW2. So I would not say it defies the rules of probability. Say among all these million soldiers there were a few thousand as talented as Rudel, that could be right couldn't it?. And then just say that among ten thousand soldiers there was one that was as lucky not getting killed as he was -could be right? -Then just because you have that many soldiers fighting, you will have a reasonable probability to get one to a few Rudel.
And Germany would have lost the war with ten thousand Rudels. Biting off more than you can chew is always a bad idea, and they tried to bite with the mouth still full.

[Furio]

Original topic’s thread has been largely stolen, with my contribution, so some apologize are needed. However, I’ve read many interesting posts, including those I disagree with, and I must thank everyone for sharing their thoughts, and ask for everyone’s patience, as I’m going for another round.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

There were quite a lot of soldiers fighting in all WW2. So I would not say it defies the rules of probability. Say among all these million soldiers there were a few thousand as talented as Rudel, that could be right couldn't it?. And then just say that among ten thousand soldiers there was one that was as lucky not getting killed as he was -could be right? -Then just because you have that many soldiers fighting, you will have a reasonable probability to get one to a few Rudel.

As I understand it, probability doesn’t work this way, but in the opposite direction. There’s not any law requiring Rudel as the final outcome. In other words, it’s not like a National Lottery where, as thin as the winning chances are, a number is ultimately drawn. A war can be – and most probably is – fought without any single soldier reaching such mythical results.
We are talking of people that risked their life with each sortie, and each time faced no small probability of being killed. Regardless of your magic evasive manoeuvres, how many times you can evade anti-aircraft fire and enemy fighters? If your plane is hit, how many times bullets and shells can pierce wings, fuel tanks and fuselage, leaving you alive? If your plane is shot down, how many times can you bail out or land in the field without crashing with fatal result, or without being captured?
2.500 missions and 30 times shot down are the numbers declared by Rudel. To put it simply, I consider them unbelievable, period. Logbooks and documents are falsifiable for propaganda purpose.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

And Germany would have lost the war with ten thousand Rudels. Biting off more than you can chew is always a bad idea, and they tried to bite with the mouth still full.

Here I disagree, and I think numbers disagree also. If we take for good Rudel’s victory tally, just 240 of Rudel-type men would have destroyed 124,560 tanks, more that the total built in Russia during the whole war. Now, let’s divide Rudel’s efficiency by a factor of ten, for a victory tally of 50 destroyed tanks each. Just 2.491 pilots would have been enough to obtain the same result. If we consider that Russian tanks faced also many other dangers, mainly German panzers, jagdpanzers and 88 mm. guns, a much lower kill number was needed to win the war. It’s just a guess, but 25,000 destroyed tanks could have been more than enough to change history. And to obtain that result just 500 pilots, each one with one tenth of Rudel’s victory tally, are needed.
Play a little with different numbers, if you like, but the picture doesn’t change that much and, Rudel apart, says something about anti-tank weapons efficiency.

[RPS69]

Furio, what you are doing is very similar to some religious man, that was very upset with some enlightnend frenchman that demonstrated God's non-existance.
In revenge, he demonstrated Napoleon non-existance while he was still alive. To the point that he confirmed the truth of his thesis after knowing Napoleon's death, stating that before demonstrating his thesis was wrong, they preferred to kill Napoleon, so to not have the need to counter demonstrate nothing...

Statistics could always be arranged on a convenient way, to afirm whatever you want.

But while Majorfailure stement was on the uniqueness side, you tried the reciprocate, and that is always a false condition, at least using the same simplification.

Nazi Germany never build so many Ju87, and Hs129 to generate so many Rudells. So if you want to extrapolate for the number built, there was only one Rudell, so to have 2500 Rudell's, you need to multiply the actual number of each type flown by Rudell, for the number of aircraft and attack pilots available. This number would be higher than the whole availability of aircraft on aviation history!

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

There’s not any law requiring Rudel as the final outcome. In other words, it’s not like a National Lottery where, as thin as the winning chances are, a number is ultimately drawn. A war can be – and most probably is – fought without any single soldier reaching such mythical results.

Never said "require", just said allows. And how ever improbable it may be, not impossible.

Originally Posted by Furio

2.500 missions and 30 times shot down are the numbers declared by Rudel. To put it simply, I consider them unbelievable, period. Logbooks and documents are falsifiable for propaganda purpose.

In a state so focused to document everything correctly, even their own war crimes? And at least for missions flown, there would have been witnesses to every take-off and every landing. Not impossible to do, but I'd bet some witness would have come forward after the war and tried to debunk the myth then. The shotdowns should even today be verifyable by comparing documents.

Originally Posted by Furio

Here I disagree, and I think numbers disagree also. If we take for good Rudel’s victory tally, just 240 of Rudel-type men would have destroyed 124,560 tanks, more that the total built in Russia during the whole war. Now, let’s divide Rudel’s efficiency by a factor of ten, for a victory tally of 50 destroyed tanks each. Just 2.491 pilots would have been enough to obtain the same result. If we consider that Russian tanks faced also many other dangers, mainly German panzers, jagdpanzers and 88 mm. guns, a much lower kill number was needed to win the war. It’s just a guess, but 25,000 destroyed tanks could have been more than enough to change history. And to obtain that result just 500 pilots, each one with one tenth of Rudel’s victory tally, are needed.
Play a little with different numbers, if you like, but the picture doesn’t change that much and, Rudel apart, says something about anti-tank weapons efficiency.

You know i was deliberately overexaggerating, do you?

But let's just extend this a little further. It is just too much fun.
Ten thousand Rudels would not have been able to kill as many tanks each as Rudel did, even given no shortage on planes and fuel and so on.
Rudel was operating in a target rich environment - he usually should have found more targets than he was able to shoot at. But if there were more Rudels around it gets increasingly difficult to find targets to the point where more than one Rudel is hunting the last available enemy vehicle - and they need to find it first.
So 10000 Rudels may be able to largely kill any AFVs the Red Army could throw at the Germans - still the Wehrmacht needs to occupy Russia with lots of ground to cover and infantry, artillery, airforce still defending. Already overextended supply lines getting even more extended, making any partisan warfare more effective - impossible to occupy all of Russia in time. And after total occupation the war is not won, there are still enemies, one you just gave a big breathing space(Britain), and one who is still powering up, and by that time - maybe unknowingly - has degraded your ally Japan from a vital to a medium threat (Midway).
So i do think even with the help of ten thousand Rudels the Germans would not have been able to conquer Russia, Great Britain and North Africa in time to make it impossible for the US to get seriously involved in the ETO, which in the end should highly likely lead to defeat - even if it may prolong the war for a few years - in the end your leadership errors kill you -and attacking any and all powers around you except a few allies at the same time is even beyond dumb.

Originally Posted by Furio

30 times shot down. I know that Rudel was severely wounded and lost a leg, but just think a little at this number. Try to hit an airplane for 30 times with bullets and shells, always leaving the pilot alive. Pilots apart, for 30 times the plane receive fatal damage: one time the engine is stopped, another the fuel tank sets on fire or explode, control linkages are severed, wings or tail are shot away, and each time the pilot bail out or crashland successfully, and always comes out alive and is never captured.
There’s no need for statistical analysis here.

As I said he must have been one of the luckiest pilots in that war.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

Gnome Rhone engines, as far as I know, were small engines, powerful for their size and for this very reason unreliable, as it happens for any hot rod engine. They also lacked effective filters and suffered badly for dust and sand ingestion, both common occurrence in North Africa and Eastern Front. Lastly, they were not famous for their toughness, being usually put out of service by the slightest damage. With such an engine, having two of them cancels any safety advantage, actually doubling the chances of trouble.

Good summary. The problems you describe could easily be interpreted as sabotage, even if there actually was none.

Originally Posted by Furio

Engines aside, the HS129 was very slow, had bad handling and limited manoeuvrability, and had no rear defence.

This is my impression of the plane. It's only good points were good pilot armor and a reasonably robust airframe.