german WW2 attacking russian T-34 with Tiger panzers and stuka JU-87G

[beowulf342000]

He wrote a great book, He flew with one leg gone and he was instrumental in the design of the A 10. What a n ace.

[TheInfidelis]

What is this documentary called?

[anisocoro]

it is true, a monoplane such as stuka could carry few ammunitions for its heavy cannons,but it could esaily rearmed in semi-prepared airbases near the front line.Given that gasoline was always sufficient for operation, a stuka could theoretically perform lots of anti-gound forces missions in a day

[tranmere789]

The truth is that neither Kursk, Africa nor Normandy was successful to any ground-attack aircraf (stukas, jabos, IL-2's, henschels, typhoons, thunderbolts). In whole Normandy campaign hardly even a hundred german tanks were destroyed by airforce. In Kursk less than hundred sovjet tanks by Luftwaffe and only few german tanks by Soviet Air Forces (IL-2, Pe-2 etc...)

About 90-98% of tanks during the WW2 were destroyed by infantry, anti-tank guns, tanks, assault guns, tankdestroyes, arthillery.

[RvenLoop]

@tranmere789 what the fuck are you talking about willis?

you may want to double check your statistics and ground attack aircraft were quite successful

[infernalzen]

@tranmere789

i read an interview from a german tank commander.

he said on the western front, they feared no allied tank, but they feared the typhoon.

[aker1993]

@infernalzen armed with 8 60lb RP-3 Rocket,20 mm Hispano Mk II cannon and a bomb load of 2 × 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs it will crack that tiger tank in one run

[infernalzen]

@aker1993 yeah, i think most tanks only had 20mm top armour

[Vollhirni]

@tranmere789 well, Rudel alone (one!!! Stuka!!!) destroyed 450 tanks (confirmed kills) on the eastern front. that's more than 2 Brigades. Think about that...

[tranmere789]

@Vollhirni

There ain't any real prove that Rudel destroyed 450 enemy tanks. As i wrote before most of the kill numbers by ground air-force of Luftawaffe, RAF, USAF and especially Soviet Air Force are very, very unrealistic. That's why i have big doubts about those numbers of Rudel.

[anisocoro]

@tranmere789 ,probably Rudel did hit "vehicles seeming tanks". We know that Soviet soldires usually made numerous fake-weapons along front line, whose name was if I well remember, "maskirovska",and from an airplane flying at 3000metres  it is quite impossible to recognize a fake, wooden tank from a real one. even in 1991 American professional A-10 pilots hitted wooden Iraqi tanks (that were recognized as real victories!)

[Weibkoln]

@tranmere789

How is it possible that some groups had more than 200kills in one day???

[Teufelsnachbar667]

@tranmere789 The famous Michael Wittman was only stopped due to an air attack. Some tanks just couldnt be taken out by ground forces and then groundattack aircraft comes in handy.

[tranmere789]

It is worth mentioning the relatively successful Ju87G-1, armed with two 37mm BK (Flak 18) AT guns. This modification provided the obsolescent Ju 87 with a new lease of life late in WWII. It is interesting to not the Hs 129B-3 carried only four 75mm rounds while the Ju87G-1 carried only 12 37mm rounds. Good examples of the very limited amount of ammunition carried for aircraft mounted weapon, discussed above.

[Toddinfantry]

@tranmere789 A quick check of references shows the B3 carried 12 rounds for the BK 7.5, which was just a redesigned autoloading Pak 40

[tranmere789]

Most aircraft mounted automatic weapons were not designed for sustained fire. Apart from ammunition considerations, these weapons quickly overheated and would likely jam if fired for more than a few seconds at a time. Most often they were fired in shorter bursts suited to air to air combat. Aircraft mounted weapons spent much less time in service (i.e. actually exerting their lethality), then ground based weapons due to overall aircraft malfunctions.

[tranmere789]

Aircraft carried very limited ammunition for their permanently mounted weapons such as cannon, and obviously carried relatively limited numbers of individual air launched weapons i.e. bombs and rockets. This meant they could only attack the target for a very limited time compared to land based weapon systems. Even late in WWII, aircraft only carried sufficient ammunition for 1-4 passes on the target.

[tranmere789]

In practical terms this meant that for an average fighter-bomber conducting a strafing attack, the tank remained in the gun sight for approximately a 10th of a second! Even if the pilot was to point his aircraft straight at the tank, a difficult and dangerous manoeuvre against a heavily protected target like a tank spearhead, he would have had at most a few seconds to aim his cannon, MGs, rockets or bombs.

[tranmere789]

During WWII, aircraft with unguided weapons were relatively inaccurate. To a lesser extent this is the case even today and there is no comparison with modern combat aircraft with guided weapons. Against soft targets this was not as critical because bombs and rockets deployed by WWII aircraft were area weapons. Even so, small soft targets such as entrenched AT guns were difficult for WWII aircraft to destroy. Small pinpoint targets, like a moving tank, were very hard to hit.

[tranmere789]

n fact total Soviet tank losses in operation Citadel amounted to 1 614 tanks totally destroyed, the vast majority to German tanks and assault guns. Further detailed research has shown air power only accounted for 2-5% of Soviet tanks destroyed in the battle of Kursk. This equates to at most around 80 tanks. Again, even if this is a low estimate, where are the hundreds of tanks destroyed by German ground attack aircraft?

[jukie1414]

vor deutschland

[metivs]

@mrsmelzbad

germans had a reason to attack USSR - Russians broke the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty and seized Latvia. To write something like you did, requires a lot of uneducation and arogance. To start with education, try the INSTITUTE OF UNLEARNING. strongly recommended.

[OzzyFan87]

@metivs You are wrong. When Hitler asked for Stalin's support in taking Poland, Stalin asked that Hitler allow him to take the Baltic States. The treaty was never broken by Russia.

[metivs]

@OzzyFan87

I dont know what is your source, but Latvia was part of German empire for hundrets of years, down to middle age (teutonic knights order). Latvia was basically Prussia. Stalin had never asked Hitler anything. If you are right, the puzzle doesnt fit. Germans were pissed because of the Russians' action in baltic states. Cherry on the top was arogant Molotov's behavior when visiting Germany in winter 1939/1940. Russians thought that Germans have had enough fighting the Brits.

[StaffanGoldschmidt]

It was built in Rechlin not Recklin!

[infernalzen]

@mrsmelzbad

you ought to see some of their women :D very nice.

[the82spartans]

Ahh.... Gun cam footage? No.

Tank vs. Tank footage? Yes.

[jakefree25]

I agree, those shots of tanks getting blasted were either by bombs or direct hits with anti-tank guns

[infernalzen]

changed the title :)