Ju-87G Stuka

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Furio

Returning to facts and numbers, let’s consider the 2,500 combat missions flown by Rudel. If I remember correctly, USAAF Eight Air Force retired crews after 25 missions, to afford them fair survival chances. Certainly USAAF was conservative, but Rudel claimed to have flown 100 times these 25 missions. Even quadrupling the American limit to 100 missions, Rudel claimed 25 times that number. Just think about how risky Eight Air Force missions were, multiply that risk 25 times and you end up with Rudel’s career.

The USAAF had replacement pilots which put them in the comfortable position to come up with the tour of duty system.
The Germans on the other hand did not - their tour of duty was over with their death/capture.
Most Germans aces had flown a ridiculous amount of missions till they were shot down and killed.
Most German aces actually were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nd_attack_aces

or most of his missions had very low risk, or no risk at all.

In "Stuka Pilot" he never claimed his missions were super risky iirc.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by swiss

The USAAF had replacement pilots which put them in the comfortable position to come up with the tour of duty system.
The Germans on the other hand did not - their tour of duty was over with their death/capture.
Most Germans aces had flown a ridiculous amount of missions till they were shot down and killed.
Most German aces actually were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nd_attack_aces



In "Stuka Pilot" he never claimed his missions were super risky iirc.

This is a well-known fact. It should be considered that USAAF calculated the risk for a loss rate of around 5%, considering 10% a prohibitive limit, and the 25 missions mark was not easy to reach.
The only explanation I can think of is different duration of missions. Fortresses and Liberators flew for hours over enemy held territory, while a Stuka based near frontline could possibly complete a mission in a matter of minutes, facing, however, a much more dangerous anti-aircraft fire at low level.
Be it as it may, the Wikipedia list is interesting. There is one pilot that possibly reached half Rudel’s missions (approximately 1,300), a small group under the half limit and the rest down to a third or less. Claimed tank kills are much lower, around one-sixth on average, with just one approaching one quarter. It would be interesting to see the rest of the list, going down to less successful pilots.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

This is a well-known fact. It should be considered that USAAF calculated the risk for a loss rate of around 5%, considering 10% a prohibitive limit, and the 25 missions mark was not easy to reach.
The only explanation I can think of is different duration of missions. Fortresses and Liberators flew for hours over enemy held territory, while a Stuka based near frontline could possibly complete a mission in a matter of minutes, facing, however, a much more dangerous anti-aircraft fire at low level.

I seriously doubt AAA fire at low level was more dangerous than what initially the level bombers faced. Targets were well defended by AA, and the straight and level flying masses of bombers made even the low hit probabilities of high alt FlaK a real serious threat. Anti tank planes usually do not hunt for tanks far behind the frontlines, most of the time when used against enemy advances there is not that much FlaK to be expected -on the march forward it is either too slow or lacks protection. And unlike Germany the Soviets were not too keen on FlaKpanzers, so I'd bet the biggest threat to a Stuka pilot was enemy fighters - which made it a pretty risky job - but maybe not on par with USAAF bombers crews.

Originally Posted by swiss

The USAAF had replacement pilots which put them in the comfortable position to come up with the tour of duty system.
The Germans on the other hand did not - their tour of duty was over with their death/capture.
Most Germans aces had flown a ridiculous amount of missions till they were shot down and killed.
Most German aces actually were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nd_attack_aces

Now I'm getting doubts, more missions than everyone else, okay. More victories, okay. But significantly more kills/mission than everyone else on top -and that by a large margin -around double. Either they let him have a lot of easy kills -or he made them easier.

[RPS69]

Rudell's claims could be easilly asumed as over the line.
But even on 10% they are impressive.

On the number of missions flown, you really got a spot when you differentiated the mission duration beteween the german and the allied sides.
There was an example of this on the osprey book about the Hs123.
Through the battle of France, they report this plane as being the first type to stop a tank charge using only air power.
There was a french column heading for the airbase where they were stationed, and they proceeded to harass and attack this column of french tanks until they retreated. I don't remember if there were any kind of tank losses there, but the point is that the planes landed and take off more than once in a single day. Something not unussual on the german side.
Why the French quited the attack, the book asumes it was because of the 123's. But only God knows what really happened over there.

[gaunt1]

Its quite easy to stop tanks. A near miss can easily cause significant damage to tracks, especially with larger bombs. Hs-123s were slow planes, where the pilot had more time to aim than in a Ju-87, so they could aim their bombs more precisely. This way, even SC 50 can be effective in stopping tanks (not destroying, thats enitrely out of question)

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

Its quite easy to stop tanks. A near miss can easily cause significant damage to tracks, especially with larger bombs. Hs-123s were slow planes, where the pilot had more time to aim than in a Ju-87, so they could aim their bombs more precisely. This way, even SC 50 can be effective in stopping tanks (not destroying, thats enitrely out of question)

I share this point of view, but it was disregarded by fellow forum posters upward in the thread.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by RPS69

I share this point of view, but it was disregarded by fellow forum posters upward in the thread.

You’re right. There are a lot of things we didn’t consider, and a lot more we simply don’t know. Then there are all the things we can only make educated guess about. My guess is that a tank moving on the battlefield is a small and difficult target, even for a near-missing bomb, and slow speed never helped any plane to survive.
I think we are talking too much about weapons effectiveness. On paper, Russian PTAB hollow charge bombs were a fearsome weapon, being dropped by the hundreds. However, not enough German tanks were destroyed by air attack to prove this lethality (or so available numbers suggest).
My educated guess is that, regardless of weapons, WWII era attack airplanes were largely inadequate for anti-tank warfare.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Rudell's claims could be easilly asumed as over the line.
But even on 10% they are impressive.

I agree with you.

Originally Posted by RPS69

On the number of missions flown, you really got a spot when you differentiated the mission duration beteween the german and the allied sides.
There was an example of this on the osprey book about the Hs123.
Through the battle of France, they report this plane as being the first type to stop a tank charge using only air power.
There was a french column heading for the airbase where they were stationed, and they proceeded to harass and attack this column of french tanks until they retreated. I don't remember if there were any kind of tank losses there, but the point is that the planes landed and take off more than once in a single day. Something not unussual on the german side.
Why the French quited the attack, the book asumes it was because of the 123's. But only God knows what really happened over there.

At Peleliu, Corsairs probably flew the shortest bombing missions ever. The target was less than two miles away from airfield, and pilots hadn’t even time to retract landing gear. So what we would need is not missions number, but mission duration, hard to get, I think. Then enemy opposition should be factored, even harder to do reliably.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

At Peleliu, Corsairs probably flew the shortest bombing missions ever. The target was less than two miles away from airfield, and pilots hadn’t even time to retract landing gear. So what we would need is not missions number, but mission duration, hard to get, I think. Then enemy opposition should be factored, even harder to do reliably.

You can sort of figure out mission duration by number of sorties in a day, and, of course, distance from home airfield to the front lines.

Pilot logs contain all that information, but we almost never get to see them.

Degree of opposition could be inferred from maintenance logs - which record damaged and missing aircraft. But, I'm not sure that such data exists anymore.

[RPS69]

There was another point that may have helped Mr Rudell while flying the 87G.

When your side is deffending, you get a target rich environment, and... early warning!

This same early warning isn't available to the attacking side, unless they deploy a ridiculous amount of fighters all along the front line, like on the western side. With also a far stretch front line than on the eastern front.
He should be very unlucky just to pick the few freie jagds missions developed by the russians before 1944, on the wider front of the war.

He stopped flying the 87G after this wasn't healthy anymore.

Also, tanks damaged on an aborted penetration, may end being destroyed by their own crews.
Say, He got extremely lucky, killed the column commander, and the rest just fled from combat, putting their vehicles on fire. Rudell destroyed a whole tank column... who knows!

War isn't just some simple hell, it is a very bureaucratic, and chaotic hell!