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 RPS69

Anyway 30mm are easily penned by 37mm BK, on any angle in between 45° and 90° at around 300m

The difference between theoretical and practical effectiveness of small calibre anti tank weapons is demonstrated by the simple fact than all combatants went ahead producing, fielding and using with success tanks, arming them with as big guns as possible.

Originally Posted by RPS69

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.

To kill or impair the crew, you need to inflict a really severe damage. This is a kill, you’re right. But if you simply hit a tank, doing little and repairable damage, than it’s not a kill, is just a “damaged tank”. It becomes an effective tactical result only if ground troops capture the vehicle. If it doesn’t happen, because the same ground troops are retreating, it has only temporary tactical value. Counting it as kill, considering a “pilot’s job” done, is an accounting trick good for pile up victory tallies.

Originally Posted by RPS69

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

It’s true. I’m sceptical about victory claims and books written by aces of any nationality. Any book and any ace. My scepticism grows with the number of claimed kills, and in this regard Rudel is at the top.

As for irony, I’m not English speaking, and I have the feeling the same is true for you. Often irony is lost in translation.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

That's exactly what happened. Rudel was a master of his aircraft and was able to make sharp evasive maneuvers at close to ground level. His opponent either took a lucky shot from Rudel's rear gunner and/or stalled out with too little altitude to recover.

Rudel only knew that he'd won the fight when his rear gunner told him the Soviet plane had crashed, which tells you that he was utterly focused on defense.

By rights, Rudel should have been dead, but his opponent got greedy for the kill, got sucked into a low speed maneuver fight, and then screwed up (or got unlucky) doing it.

Smart tactics for the Soviet pilot would have been to get a few of his buddies together and do "Thatch weave" beam attacks by sections. Twisty, windy, slow speed evasive tricks only work well against one opponent. They don't work so well if you're bracketed by 2 or 4 fighters.

Ju87D had a wing loading of 196 kg./m2. The Yak 9t (not the lighter of Russian fighters) had a wing loading of 176 kg/m2. Why the Yak should stall at higher speed than the Dora? Or how the Dora should manoeuver better at low altitude?
In any case, if not by luck and chance, a Stuka can win only if the fighter pilot is incompetent or makes a series of bad mistakes. History demonstrated that slow and lightly armed bombers were easily shot down, regardless their pilots and gunners ability. And Rudel's memories.

[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.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by RPS69

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

Penetration even if easily achieved is not a sure kill. It is possible even for a 122mm shell to penetrate and do no harm -though unlikely.

Originally Posted by RPS69

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.

And that was just what happened. Pilots claimed kills because they believed to have destroyed a vehicle. But if not for a spectacular kill like a ammo cook-off, it is not easy for pilots to assure a kill, a hit vehicle may stop because its engine is dead, or crew killed - or it might just stop to engage a target.

Originally Posted by RPS69

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

Exactly. But this works the other way round too, e.g. many kills were claimed by pilots that were not sucessful. And also anything in camouflage is a tank, at least at 400 mph....

Originally Posted by RPS69

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

Usually I'm sceptical, but Rudel was beyond human -and I don't mean that to be a compliment, and if such someone has a lot of luck, and quite some talent as a pilot he might as well get to such feats without cheating. He made a few thousand missions, and got shot down countless times, survived every time, if nothing else he is the luckiest WWII aviator ever.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

And that was just what happened. Pilots claimed kills because they believed to have destroyed a vehicle. But if not for a spectacular kill like a ammo cook-off, it is not easy for pilots to assure a kill, a hit vehicle may stop because its engine is dead, or crew killed - or it might just stop to engage a target.

Well, a tank under enemy fire that got it´s engine dead, is a dead tank, normally it's crew will bail out as fast as possible. Stranded tanks are canon ammo magnets

Exactly. But this works the other way round too, e.g. many kills were claimed by pilots that were not sucessful. And also anything in camouflage is a tank, at least at 400 mph....

For sure!, but maybe there is another kind of confusion here, pilots may report armoured vehicles, without distinguishing a tank from an armored transport. In german that's a normal confusion, since the term "Panzer" means armoured, but not necessarily a tank.

Usually I'm sceptical, but Rudel was beyond human -and I don't mean that to be a compliment, and if such someone has a lot of luck, and quite some talent as a pilot he might as well get to such feats without cheating. He made a few thousand missions, and got shot down countless times, survived every time, if nothing else he is the luckiest WWII aviator ever.

Lol! The guy ended the war as almost a Cyborg! And then he traveled to Argentina with Kurt Tank as a test pilot during Peron's time. He surelly was a bit on the crazy side.
But the fact that he survived the whole war flying a Stuka for most of the time, must mean a lot. Even if he didn't kill everything he claims, surviving all those missions make him someone to be appraised as a pilot.

[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...

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

Ju87D had a wing loading of 196 kg./m2. The Yak 9t (not the lighter of Russian fighters) had a wing loading of 176 kg/m2. Why the Yak should stall at higher speed than the Dora? Or how the Dora should manoeuver better at low altitude?

I have no idea. Rudel didn't describe the incident in detail. He claims that the Russian pilot was either shot by his gunner or lost control due to the backwash of the Stuka's propeller. All we know is that Rudel and his gunner survived and the Russian pilot did not.

The incident is possibly historically accurate, since the Soviet ace Shestakov went missing in the same operational area where Rudel was operating. Beyond that, there's no real evidence.

But, I think that we're in agreement that the odds heavily favor a competently-flown fighter against a Stuka.

[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.

[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.