Is this footage of the legendary Hans Ulrich Rudel, the greatest ground attack pilot in history, in action? Rudel was consulted in the design phase of the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog), arguably the premier ground attack aircraft in the world today.
"And the germans realized that if you point those anti-air-craft-guns forward and attach them to a plane's wings, they would melt down any tank's armor down to fullest...."
@FRforcing: Hard to tell if some of the T-34s and other Soviet tanks were knocked out, or simply damaged. Most Soviet tanks carried an auxillary gas tank mounted above the exhaust, on the rear deck. Some of the cannon shots seem to be setting those alight. Is that enough to destroy a tank, or simply disable the engine? Hard to tell without seeing more footage. Thinner top armor is definitely what you are after in air-to-ground attack, though.
@GeorgiaBoy1961 you're right but you can't tell me that I'm wrong, actually they had destroy them in point that shells penetrate in armor and exploded inside with killing crew and thats what I read from historical sources...the tactic was to have mixed magazine, one pair of HE shells and after them AP shells...HE would make armor softer, but not make hole, and if APs hit the near place they would penetrate in tank, those 37mm had more filling than classic one used on ground ;)
@FRforcing: If they used a mixture of HE and AP shells, ground attack Stukas probably destroyed plenty of tanks.... no argument there. That's proven correct. My comment concerned the specific vehicles in the film footage; it is not apparent that all of them were destroyed... it's tough to make out at times, the images are't always clear.
You tell 'em there noli. Guess the Germans could have used your Einstein input back then. Seems those Stukas sure took their toll on Ruskie tanks anyway.
@DarkPrinceNH5570 They should develop the valveless pulse engine now that we know it will be much more economic and lighter for an aeroplane, that would be a first. A nice change from all the turbojet engines. The V-1 proved it was efficient, by now it's also more economic.. But of course we need to give as much money as possible to the oil corporations. watever.
i dont understand , 1 gun weigth: 295 kg thats some 520 pounds. 1 chell weight some 650 grams, they only har 6-7 rounds pr canon, can some help me out here, why not only use 1 kanon and save 300 kg and use it on chells instead, why did they only use 6-7 round clips. what is that somehow nonsens thinking. place the gun under the belly instead and elevate it up and down.
@nolifemerc the gun need to clear the prop, which means it must be mounted under the middle of the wing. The plane will suffer stability problems from imbalance weight distribution. Even if you managed to overcome it, the recoil from the first shot will knock you plane 30-40 degrees sideways. Which means you can only fire one shot befor you have to turn around and rerun the attack.
He told us the cannon of Hans-Ulrich Rudel were mounted between the undercarriage legs to replace bomb. Very easy to train new pilots if the Rata did not get there.
I know that is a HS 129 not just because the MGs, but because Stukas fire two projectiles each shot from the wing, not from the middle and I watched a documentary about HS 129 showing this guncam here in youtube. So, please, correct the description.
Correction to grammar: STUKA G's did not shoot at Brit Cruiser A9's & A10's because Britain didn't send them to the USSR & there weren't any STUKA G's used in N. Africa. STUKA G's were used on the Russian Front in mid 1943 at Kursk, which was their first large scale use. The Brit tank in this vid is a Churchill.
STUKA G's did not shoot at Brit Cruiser A9's & A10's because Britain didn't send them to the USSR & there weren't any used in N. Africa & they wee used on the Russian Front in mid 1943 at Kursk, which was their first large scale use. The Brit tank in this vid is a Churchill.
@Toddinfantry, T-28s, what few were produced, did see plenty of combat. You make remarks continually that prove you know little. Infantry my butt. I bet you were never in the USMC Infantry or any other Infantry period.
For OPs: The "Unknown Tank" in the video may very well have been a Churchill given to the Soviets by the Brits. I have a 40" TV & it certainly looks like a Churchill. Soviets had ~ 30-35 at Kursk in 1943.
@christof139 And you're perfect we all know. I can show you my DD-214 if you like. I wasn't paying attention and jumped right to a T-28/95, which is my fault. Glad to see you're still a dick.
@Toddinfantry, I could care less. Yes, I have a very large number of generally excellent & detailed books on military history, a library more or less. You tried to argue with me & come off as an 'expert' in the Tarawa thread & flopped. It was funny.
However, at Tarawa, the USMC landing occurred at more or less high tide, not as low tide as I stated, & I should have stated that the tide was lower than what was calculated.
@christof139 Look what crawled out again. Oh really?? Like the DUKWs at Tarawa? Funny? Where are your references? Mine came directly from the Museum of the Marines...I kinda think they know what they are doing. What is funny, DICK, is that you sit and read a book about something without ever having done it, and now you know everything. DUKWs at Tarawa...you are the joke here. Show one picture of a DUKW at Tarawa, just one. Can't do it can you? Dick. Try again.
@Toddinfantry, To show you know little: 1) DUKWS were used at Tarawa to bring in supplies but not in the assault. 2) you said you were 1/2 way through to USMC retirement, yet you have a DD214 discharge, & that means you either left than rejoined the USMC or are full of it. 3) Anyone that would post a private & govnt. document on Boobtube or email a copy of it to a stranger is a fool.
'Show a picture...' blah bhah blah'. I have seen boths pics & references Mr. DH. Find them yourself.
@christof139 Well it seems as tho your brain cancer is really affecting you. There were NO DUKWs at Tarawa. Period. Show me one f..n picture of a DUKW at Tarawa. You seem to think you have a grasp of this, you do not. I NEVER said I was 1/2 way to retirement in the Corps, I have been off active duty for many yrs. I truly believe you are getting a little senile. I have my DD-214 and don't mind showing it. There is nothing there to hide.
So back to the DUKW. The USMC requested that con't...
@christof139 con't... the DUKW (along with the LVT-A) be used for future landings. The official DUKW sites all say the same thing, you are wrong. Try reading "the Quack Corps" by Arthur Wells. He helped develope the DUKW for the Marines in the Pacific. First use of the DUKW in the pacific was Saipan, but I have already told you this. So again, just one picture of a DUKW at Tarawa, you can't. Yet you con't to argue a losing battle, with ZERO evidence. Are you that much a fool? Why do you con't..
@christof139 con't... continually come back with obvious BS? You make yourself look like an idiot. Anyone that reads this can do the search for themselves and see who is correct, and you are not. First use of the DUKW in the PTO was Saipan, first use in the ETO was Salerno. You may blah, blah all you want, the tactics of a losing battle. Show me proof or shut up. You have shown to make stuff up and to argue for no other reason than to argue, even when wrong. DUKWs at Tarawa...WOW!
@Toddinfantry, Say DH & bigmouth, here is the source for the use of DUKWs by the USMC at Betio & Makin islands in the Tarawa Atoll: History of the U.S. Marine Corps in WWII, Vol. III, page 109, etc., 2 companies of DUKWs were used. DUKWs were first used during the invasion of Sicily (largest ever amphib. assault to date) & at Noumea in ealier 1943 (Tarawa (Op. Galvanic) was 20NOV43). Your statement that the USA supplied Russia instead of the USSR is also very funny.
@christof139 Now I see that I am correct again. Your brain cancer is really affecting your reading ability. Pg 109 CLEARLY states that the LVT-A and the DUKW are requested in FUTURE landings. Come on Christof...you can't be this stupid. You reference something that supports my argument and kills yours. Where is your mind? Really guy you need some help. Again, try reading the Quack Corps, even tho I think your reading skills are lacking.
@christof139 Suit yourself. There is ZERO info on DUKWs at Tarawa / Betio / Makin. ZERO!! But you are just going to argue til there's no end. You are wrong, I have shown you wrong, and you think you know sooooo much about WW2 that you will argue points already proven wrong. There were NO DUKWs at Betio or Makin only LVT and Higgins boats. You are a sad case of ignorance. You argue for nothing, one picture of a DUKW at Tarawa would end this, but there are none. Prove me wrong...dick.
@Toddinfantry, The 'future' mentioned in the article indicates that more LVT's & DUKWs would be needed in the future, & it certailnly dosen't state that LVT's or DUKW's weren't used at Tarawa. There were DUKWs at Beitio & 2 DUKWs were used at Makin.
Sorry that you can't understand & do more research.
You're name calling is assinine & immature Mr. Genius.
@Toddinfantry, You're right ab out the LVT-A's but not the DUKWs. Here is the source that states DUKWS were used at Tarawa & Makin: History of the U.S. Marine Corps in WWII, Vol. III, page 109, footnote 16 tahta states "Two of the DUKWS were used at Makin Atoll." Thus the other available DUKWs were used at Betio. Footnotes need to be read. You migt find a vid showing DUKWs at Betio but I can't remember if it is on Boobtube. There are more refs. on the inet etc. Seems you re the ignorant one.
@christof139 Yes, I see the footnote. Please reference CMH pub 100-2. This is the US Army's historical account of the "Capture of Makin". There is no mention in the recounting of the battle or the T.O.E. of the 27 Inf. Div. of DUKWs either there or used. I will ask my friend at the Museum of the Marines if he can find out about that footnote. I find no pictures of DUKWs at Makin or Betio.
@Toddinfantry You're right ab out the LVT-A's but not the DUKWs. Here is the source that states DUKWS were used at Tarawa & Makin: History of the U.S. Marine Corps in WWII, Vol. III, page 109, footnote 16 states that "Two of the DUKWS were used at Makin Atoll." Thus the other available DUKWs were used at Betio. Footnotes need to be read. You migt find a vid showing DUKWs at Betio but I can't remember if it is on Boobtube. There are more refs. on the inet etc. Seems you re the ignorant one.
@christof139 Oh you think you are perfect, but really just a dick. I can at least admit my error, but you just jump in with the personal attacks...dick. I will compare my service record with yours any day you wish.
somit kann man verstehen, warum die sowjetischen Streitkräfte ihre Panzer, im Anfang der 50er, wie z.B. T55 ,mit "Antiaircraftbewaffnung" ausstatteten.
@darkmossie633: True, Hartmann scored some kills against the Russians when they were flying inferior aircraft and against poorly trained pilots, but by the time of Kursk, the Soviets were fielding much better fighters and better pilots. Hartmann would have been an elite ace no matter where he flew. German fighters were very close to the lines in the USSR, hence could fly many more missions/period of time than their counterparts in the west. They also fought at lower altitudes.
@darkmossie633 Yeah, yeah, and the American SBD Dauntless got the shit kicked out of it by the Japanese Zero. Comparing ground attack aircraft and fighters proves absolutely nothing except that they are two totally different aircraft used for two totally different purposes.
@DeutscheRitter1: The Stukas, even on the wide-open eastern front, usually flew ground attack missions with top cover provided by fighters, if possible.
@Inw4lid Check again. Warplanes of WW2, German Aircraft of WW2, JU-87 Stukageschwader 1937- 1941, The website Fighter-planes .c , the site Vectorsite.n all reference the G series retaining the 7.9mm. Also Hans Rudel scored 9 aerial victories. He was attacked while conducting ground attack and his rear gunner scored 3 kills and Hans scored 6 kills with forward firing MG. I can check my library for more references and post if you wish, I did these books from memory and looked up the sites.
@Toddinfantry Well, now i found one of my books and...i must admit it says that Ju-87 G had machine guns in wings :D Is it possible that there were two different versions? I know they made G-1 and G-2, but dont think they differed in armament.
@Inw4lid The G-1 and the G-2 maintained the forward 7.9mm. The G-1 was based on the D-3 and the G-2 was based on the D-5. The D-5 had 20mm cannon in wings but they were changed back to the 7.9mm for weight. The D-5 had a different wing also, can't remember. Both versions of G had the bomb crutch removed for weight. The variants of the Stuka are very confusing as they built them one way, modified them and then modified back to original (D-3). They were just trying to find a way to make it work.
@santobr The Ju-87 still retained two 7.9mm in the wings. Some earlier variants, I think it was the A-1 that was planned for two per wing but that proved too heavy. There was a variant that had a 20mm in each wing. The G series retained the two forward firing MG17, one in each wing. You may be correct in that this may be a Hs 129.
@nolifemerc nope, I think it's a British designed Cromwell, of which over 5,000 were operated by the USSR. The Soviets preferred not to use any Tigers or Panthers they captured, as they disliked their unreliable engines and lack of spare parts.
on average the strike angle of cannon shells on the top of AFVs was usually in the region of 30 to 60 degrees, because aircraft could not attack vertically downwards. Ju 87 Stuka came closest to this ideal attack angle, which also dramatically increases the accuracy of any air launched ordnance.In general 20mm cannon only inflicted superficial damage on even light tanks, with the most severe damage being penetrations through the top engine grill covers and damage to the engines.
In 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?
@infernalzen I haven't been able to see one of those in a long time. I've been looking myself and they're hard to find. Fingers crossed for you finding a clip of one though.
In July 1943 the German Citadel Offensive (battle of Kursk) was supported by several types of apparently highly effective ground attack aircraft: Stuka, FW-190, Henschel 129 B/1-2.They are credited with ‘wreaking havoc amongst Soviet armour’ and the destruction of hundreds of Soviet tanks in this battle. On 8th July 1941, Hs 129s are credited with destroying 50 T-34s in the 2nd Guards Tank Corps in less than an hour.
These claims were almost never ratified by corresponding after action ground reports from either the defending or attacking side’s ground forces. The following examples illustrate this occurrence, and are classic examples of how WWII stories and claims have found there way into the history books.
WWII was an age where there were very few guided weapons and aircraft had great difficulty hitting small targets, especially if they were well protected.(1) In fact all the so called ‘tank-busters’ proved relatively ineffective against armoured ground targets (AFVs) or even small, defensively deployed, ground targets. This is despite the very exaggerated claims made by aircrew and much immediate post-war aircraft literature on the effects of air attacks on hard ground targets.
@kyokogodai I think that you are true I've seen some pictures of soviet valentimes and it could be a mk II or a mk III. Sure that's not a panzer the main gun is longer and this video is probably from the last years of war the germans upgrade their panzer 3 with new barrels that were longer than the chasis
i would say a Cromwell or Churchill and yeah the brits had to get their hand into it as well, thats why they didnt declare war on the soviet union when they took the other half of Poland but the did on Germany because they figured they wouldn't make any money supplying the Germans because they had everything they needed, Russians however we as one might say"back assward"
The unknown tank at 0:34 is definitely a Russian T-28, and not a Cromwell. The Cromwell's front end was dominated by the tracks, where the middle would be impossible to see from that angle. But, the T-28 has a large rectangular box on the back end, just like this "unknown" tank has. wiki has some great black and white photos for comparison.
I was actually thinking about a Churchill when I made the above comparison to the Cromwell, but the identifying features of the T-28 are unmistakable.
As far as I know the Russians were getting the stuff on credit since October 1941. Under the UN treaty (Atlantic Charta from August 1941). Only a very small percentage of the supplies from the US were paid for later. It may have been different with the UK. On the other hand, Stalin wasn't the guy who handed out presents to the West - he got the supplies anyway.
@KrautGoesWild: Your Commment might be old, but the facts are even older: In iniative of the USA large amounts of material were sent to the Sovjet Union. USA, Britain (even if it´s economy was weak) and Canada were giving tanks, planes, ships, trains, jeeps, etc to them - practically for free. Look for the "Lend-Lease Act". In fact the famous Katyusha was often mounted on a Studebaker truck made in US.
@Heinzaer Hi! When WW2 came up in history lessons at school, I was living in Germany and facts were hard to come by. I learned a little about the Lend-Lease Act but always thought that only the USA were shipping hardware to the Soviets.
Guess it´s hightime to spend some time on Wiki and other history sites again.
@BajonettM1 - I looked closer at vid. yep,, looks like that is what it is. Cromwell ,one that did not end on the sea floor on the way to Russia. Or similar brit tank.
I can understand the lack of clear identification,, could even be a really old t-100 tank ,a super heavy ,that was multi turreted. and used poorly by the Soviets in the war against the Finns.. Sirens of Jericho were not fitted to all Stuka.. The wolfram 3.7 Pak shells fired did have a flare in ammo end -so gunner could see fall of shot - that is probably what this vid. shows - not often noticed on gun film.. The 3.7 cm cannon was introduced after Stalingrad and just before Kursk- Rudel
Relative to the times, the Stuka dive bombers were hardcore. The Germans had some superbly-designed weaponry and vehicles. They were no match for Soviet industry, however. With the Tiger, for example, fewer than 2,000 were made. From 1944 on, it seems there were less and less Stukas and panzers, and more infantry anti-tank combat. Once the Soviet war machine began mass-producing weapons like the T-34, and Hitler issued his disastrous "hold at all cost" orders, the Reich was doomed.
@infernalzen: I'm glad they failed. If they had succeeded, the holocaust of the Slavs would have made the Holocaust of the Jews pale in comparison. The more racially-motivated Germans of that time would have unleashed torrents of blood and carnage on the peoples of the USSR, or more so than they were able to during their brief occupations.
@infernalzen Soviet tank industries were relocated to the Urals after war start. So it was unlikely any focus on it. The german mistake was to focus Stalingrad instead pushing forward Moscow - had Moscow fallen, the URSS would had fall apart into regional conflicts.
@MicheasTheMighty2 " From 1944 on, it seems there were less and less Stukas and panzers"
first because Stuka was too slow for Russian attacks,and second the factory's where under constant attack from the allied airforce.
but you are right"Hitler issued his disastrous "hold at all cost" orders, the Reich was doomed. ",and wrong, as soon as he attacked Russia he began a war his Reich simply could not win,the Germans had no,or as good as no natural ,human resources to fall back on.
Definitely not a Churchill looks like Kliment Voroshilov (KV) Mk1. The arid country side suggests Russia at the height of Unternehmen Barbarossa June 1941.....
Definitely not a Churchill looks like Kliment Voroshilov (KV) Mk1. The arid country side suggests Russia at the height of Unternehmen Barbarossa June 1941.....
Definitely not a Churchill looks like Kliment Voroshilov (KV) Mk1. The arid country side suggests Russia at the height of Unternehmen Barbarossa June 1941.....
Definitely not a Churchill looks like Kliment Voroshilov (KV) Mk1. The arid country side suggests Russia at the height of Unternehmen Barbarossa June 1941.....
Could be other russian tanks OR POSSIBLE FRIENDLY FIRE.. its possible that they were German tanks and that the pilot could not discern the two and killed his buddies
Here you can see a classic example of Stuka attack with 37mm cannon against enemy tanks. The smaller tracer bullets hitting the tank serve two purposes. To help aim the main 37mm cannons on target and to pin down the tank crew so they cannot return fire from their outboard mounted machine guns.
It´s very difficult to see what type of tank. I can´t see something like a main gun. Perhaps it´s the T34/76. But more probably it´s a british Valentine infantry tank with the small 40 mm gun or a russian built 76 mm howitzer The tank also moves very slow, typical for a valentine with a top speed of 24 km/h.
Que lindo es ver volar es pedazos los tanques de los malditos sovieticos ..
plastitano 6 hours ago
Is it weird to have a boner?
PanzerAngriff 12 hours ago
0.05 - Valentine
0.11 - KV-1
0.17 - Unknown tank
foxheartmargo 1 day ago
Its for sure not t34. Looks like churchill. UdSSR got churchils, matildas, m3 lee and some other tanks as military-help from UK.
1WHSS1 3 days ago
Is this footage of the legendary Hans Ulrich Rudel, the greatest ground attack pilot in history, in action? Rudel was consulted in the design phase of the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog), arguably the premier ground attack aircraft in the world today.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 week ago
Helps if you dont stretch the video, this is most likley Hans Ulrich Rudel attacking T34's.
1982rf 2 weeks ago
0:34 looks like a churchill to me. Judging by the turrent and body.
militariacollector1 2 weeks ago
"And the germans realized that if you point those anti-air-craft-guns forward and attach them to a plane's wings, they would melt down any tank's armor down to fullest...."
Rottwhaler82 2 weeks ago
I think it's a SU-76.
mark82101 2 weeks ago
@mark82101 I don't think that it's a russian tank. It looks like a british Crusader, or Valentine
tanzbaer2go 2 weeks ago
@tanzbaer2go The Soviets used the Valentine and many other Allied tanks under Lend-Lease.
rotorbob88 2 weeks ago
here you can see the fucking power of aircraft 37mm shells, you can take out medium tank with only two shells...
FRforcing 3 weeks ago
@FRforcing: Hard to tell if some of the T-34s and other Soviet tanks were knocked out, or simply damaged. Most Soviet tanks carried an auxillary gas tank mounted above the exhaust, on the rear deck. Some of the cannon shots seem to be setting those alight. Is that enough to destroy a tank, or simply disable the engine? Hard to tell without seeing more footage. Thinner top armor is definitely what you are after in air-to-ground attack, though.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 week ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961 you're right but you can't tell me that I'm wrong, actually they had destroy them in point that shells penetrate in armor and exploded inside with killing crew and thats what I read from historical sources...the tactic was to have mixed magazine, one pair of HE shells and after them AP shells...HE would make armor softer, but not make hole, and if APs hit the near place they would penetrate in tank, those 37mm had more filling than classic one used on ground ;)
FRforcing 1 week ago
@FRforcing: If they used a mixture of HE and AP shells, ground attack Stukas probably destroyed plenty of tanks.... no argument there. That's proven correct. My comment concerned the specific vehicles in the film footage; it is not apparent that all of them were destroyed... it's tough to make out at times, the images are't always clear.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 week ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961 yup ;)
FRforcing 1 week ago
все , почти все т35 потеряны не в боевой обстановке , поломки и отсутствие топлива при массовом отступлении 41 го года
pensioner08 4 weeks ago
Черчиль ! ленд лиз !
pensioner08 4 weeks ago
You tell 'em there noli. Guess the Germans could have used your Einstein input back then. Seems those Stukas sure took their toll on Ruskie tanks anyway.
TheMuffdivr 1 month ago
A-10 Anyone? The A-10 is the American JU-87 :D
fable2omg 1 month ago
@fable2omg In fact the A-10 was developed by the Allies after the war with help from the best of the best.....Oberst Hans Ulrich Rudel.
Panzertruppen1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fable2omg In fact the A-10 was developed by the Allies after the war with help from the best of the best.....Oberst Hans Ulrich Rudel.
Panzertruppen1 1 month ago
@fable2omg Yes it is. New style actually.
So what do you think the new AXIS WARMACHINE?
You like the F-117 (haha)? Does that design look familiar from any WW2 German jet bomber? 117 infiltrator
DarkPrinceNH5570 1 month ago
@DarkPrinceNH5570 They should develop the valveless pulse engine now that we know it will be much more economic and lighter for an aeroplane, that would be a first. A nice change from all the turbojet engines. The V-1 proved it was efficient, by now it's also more economic.. But of course we need to give as much money as possible to the oil corporations. watever.
fable2omg 1 month ago
The plane must be balanced, that's why they had two guns. And two guns make more damage than one.
svobobo 1 month ago
i dont understand , 1 gun weigth: 295 kg thats some 520 pounds. 1 chell weight some 650 grams, they only har 6-7 rounds pr canon, can some help me out here, why not only use 1 kanon and save 300 kg and use it on chells instead, why did they only use 6-7 round clips. what is that somehow nonsens thinking. place the gun under the belly instead and elevate it up and down.
nolifemerc 1 month ago
@nolifemerc the gun need to clear the prop, which means it must be mounted under the middle of the wing. The plane will suffer stability problems from imbalance weight distribution. Even if you managed to overcome it, the recoil from the first shot will knock you plane 30-40 degrees sideways. Which means you can only fire one shot befor you have to turn around and rerun the attack.
phadil 1 month ago
@phadil it can be centerd and elevated up and down for use?
nolifemerc 1 month ago
I don't know; the second one makes me think Church Hill. The last is almost certainly a KV-1 though.
peyo001 1 month ago
He told us the cannon of Hans-Ulrich Rudel were mounted between the undercarriage legs to replace bomb. Very easy to train new pilots if the Rata did not get there.
Wordsmith37 1 month ago
yeh, I was going to say a KV
PJ3love 1 month ago
der Flieger ab 0:38 ist ein hervorragender Schütze!
Falke40lg 3 months ago
@Falke40lg wahrscheinlich Rudel ........ ^^
EmperorofTerra 2 months ago
watch?v=iNYemXJ7jmE&feature=related
santobr 3 months ago
I know that is a HS 129 not just because the MGs, but because Stukas fire two projectiles each shot from the wing, not from the middle and I watched a documentary about HS 129 showing this guncam here in youtube. So, please, correct the description.
santobr 3 months ago
Correction to grammar: STUKA G's did not shoot at Brit Cruiser A9's & A10's because Britain didn't send them to the USSR & there weren't any STUKA G's used in N. Africa. STUKA G's were used on the Russian Front in mid 1943 at Kursk, which was their first large scale use. The Brit tank in this vid is a Churchill.
christof139 5 months ago
STUKA G's did not shoot at Brit Cruiser A9's & A10's because Britain didn't send them to the USSR & there weren't any used in N. Africa & they wee used on the Russian Front in mid 1943 at Kursk, which was their first large scale use. The Brit tank in this vid is a Churchill.
christof139 5 months ago
precise shooting
VoelligHarmlos 5 months ago
I'd say the unknown tank is a lend lease Valentine.
mazzarellisteve 5 months ago
got give it to the nazis the fuckers came up with a cool plane gun combo
ncktbs 6 months ago
direct hit on the fuel tank/engine there, good shot! Poor buggers inside though.
ivangrozny27 6 months ago
@ivangrozny27 Your right about that. Is that tank diesel or a gas burner?
phillippatterson1 6 months ago
the unknown tank is soviet t-35
jvarosani777 6 months ago
wow good shootin!
AKcharger 6 months ago
japan tank?
DimISTrus 7 months ago
@DimISTrus
no?
DieKampfgurke94 7 months ago
This is not a T-34 maybe a Churchill?
MarinesInternational 7 months ago
i think the unknown tank is a t 28 but i could be wrong
puppetmaster532 7 months ago
@puppetmaster532 T-28s never made it to war.
Toddinfantry 7 months ago
@Toddinfantry, T-28s, what few were produced, did see plenty of combat. You make remarks continually that prove you know little. Infantry my butt. I bet you were never in the USMC Infantry or any other Infantry period.
For OPs: The "Unknown Tank" in the video may very well have been a Churchill given to the Soviets by the Brits. I have a 40" TV & it certainly looks like a Churchill. Soviets had ~ 30-35 at Kursk in 1943.
christof139 6 months ago
@christof139 And you're perfect we all know. I can show you my DD-214 if you like. I wasn't paying attention and jumped right to a T-28/95, which is my fault. Glad to see you're still a dick.
Toddinfantry 6 months ago
@Toddinfantry, I could care less. Yes, I have a very large number of generally excellent & detailed books on military history, a library more or less. You tried to argue with me & come off as an 'expert' in the Tarawa thread & flopped. It was funny.
However, at Tarawa, the USMC landing occurred at more or less high tide, not as low tide as I stated, & I should have stated that the tide was lower than what was calculated.
See you later DH. Don't let Boob Tube bother you.
christof139 5 months ago
@christof139 Look what crawled out again. Oh really?? Like the DUKWs at Tarawa? Funny? Where are your references? Mine came directly from the Museum of the Marines...I kinda think they know what they are doing. What is funny, DICK, is that you sit and read a book about something without ever having done it, and now you know everything. DUKWs at Tarawa...you are the joke here. Show one picture of a DUKW at Tarawa, just one. Can't do it can you? Dick. Try again.
Toddinfantry 5 months ago
@Toddinfantry, To show you know little: 1) DUKWS were used at Tarawa to bring in supplies but not in the assault. 2) you said you were 1/2 way through to USMC retirement, yet you have a DD214 discharge, & that means you either left than rejoined the USMC or are full of it. 3) Anyone that would post a private & govnt. document on Boobtube or email a copy of it to a stranger is a fool.
'Show a picture...' blah bhah blah'. I have seen boths pics & references Mr. DH. Find them yourself.
christof139 5 months ago
@christof139 Well it seems as tho your brain cancer is really affecting you. There were NO DUKWs at Tarawa. Period. Show me one f..n picture of a DUKW at Tarawa. You seem to think you have a grasp of this, you do not. I NEVER said I was 1/2 way to retirement in the Corps, I have been off active duty for many yrs. I truly believe you are getting a little senile. I have my DD-214 and don't mind showing it. There is nothing there to hide.
So back to the DUKW. The USMC requested that con't...
Toddinfantry 5 months ago
@christof139 con't... the DUKW (along with the LVT-A) be used for future landings. The official DUKW sites all say the same thing, you are wrong. Try reading "the Quack Corps" by Arthur Wells. He helped develope the DUKW for the Marines in the Pacific. First use of the DUKW in the pacific was Saipan, but I have already told you this. So again, just one picture of a DUKW at Tarawa, you can't. Yet you con't to argue a losing battle, with ZERO evidence. Are you that much a fool? Why do you con't..
Toddinfantry 5 months ago
@christof139 con't... continually come back with obvious BS? You make yourself look like an idiot. Anyone that reads this can do the search for themselves and see who is correct, and you are not. First use of the DUKW in the PTO was Saipan, first use in the ETO was Salerno. You may blah, blah all you want, the tactics of a losing battle. Show me proof or shut up. You have shown to make stuff up and to argue for no other reason than to argue, even when wrong. DUKWs at Tarawa...WOW!
Toddinfantry 5 months ago
@Toddinfantry, Say DH & bigmouth, here is the source for the use of DUKWs by the USMC at Betio & Makin islands in the Tarawa Atoll: History of the U.S. Marine Corps in WWII, Vol. III, page 109, etc., 2 companies of DUKWs were used. DUKWs were first used during the invasion of Sicily (largest ever amphib. assault to date) & at Noumea in ealier 1943 (Tarawa (Op. Galvanic) was 20NOV43). Your statement that the USA supplied Russia instead of the USSR is also very funny.
christof139 5 months ago
@christof139 Now I see that I am correct again. Your brain cancer is really affecting your reading ability. Pg 109 CLEARLY states that the LVT-A and the DUKW are requested in FUTURE landings. Come on Christof...you can't be this stupid. You reference something that supports my argument and kills yours. Where is your mind? Really guy you need some help. Again, try reading the Quack Corps, even tho I think your reading skills are lacking.
Toddinfantry 5 months ago
@Toddinfantry, Keep reading & you will find that they were at Betio & 2 were also detached & used at Makin. You are an idiot.
christof139 5 months ago
@christof139 Suit yourself. There is ZERO info on DUKWs at Tarawa / Betio / Makin. ZERO!! But you are just going to argue til there's no end. You are wrong, I have shown you wrong, and you think you know sooooo much about WW2 that you will argue points already proven wrong. There were NO DUKWs at Betio or Makin only LVT and Higgins boats. You are a sad case of ignorance. You argue for nothing, one picture of a DUKW at Tarawa would end this, but there are none. Prove me wrong...dick.
Toddinfantry 5 months ago
@Toddinfantry, The 'future' mentioned in the article indicates that more LVT's & DUKWs would be needed in the future, & it certailnly dosen't state that LVT's or DUKW's weren't used at Tarawa. There were DUKWs at Beitio & 2 DUKWs were used at Makin.
Sorry that you can't understand & do more research.
You're name calling is assinine & immature Mr. Genius.
christof139 5 months ago
@Toddinfantry, You're right ab out the LVT-A's but not the DUKWs. Here is the source that states DUKWS were used at Tarawa & Makin: History of the U.S. Marine Corps in WWII, Vol. III, page 109, footnote 16 tahta states "Two of the DUKWS were used at Makin Atoll." Thus the other available DUKWs were used at Betio. Footnotes need to be read. You migt find a vid showing DUKWs at Betio but I can't remember if it is on Boobtube. There are more refs. on the inet etc. Seems you re the ignorant one.
christof139 5 months ago
@christof139 Yes, I see the footnote. Please reference CMH pub 100-2. This is the US Army's historical account of the "Capture of Makin". There is no mention in the recounting of the battle or the T.O.E. of the 27 Inf. Div. of DUKWs either there or used. I will ask my friend at the Museum of the Marines if he can find out about that footnote. I find no pictures of DUKWs at Makin or Betio.
Toddinfantry 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Toddinfantry You're right ab out the LVT-A's but not the DUKWs. Here is the source that states DUKWS were used at Tarawa & Makin: History of the U.S. Marine Corps in WWII, Vol. III, page 109, footnote 16 states that "Two of the DUKWS were used at Makin Atoll." Thus the other available DUKWs were used at Betio. Footnotes need to be read. You migt find a vid showing DUKWs at Betio but I can't remember if it is on Boobtube. There are more refs. on the inet etc. Seems you re the ignorant one.
christof139 5 months ago
Respond to this video... I will stand corrected..... first use in ETO was Sicily, not Salerno as I mis-stated.
Toddinfantry 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Respond to this video... I will stand corrected..... first use in ETO was Sicily, not Salerno as I mis-stated.
Toddinfantry 5 months ago
@Toddinfantry, BTW, I'm glad you think I'm perfect. Funny thing, I never said nor implied that. You muct have an inferiority complex or somethin'.
Have a good life.
christof139 5 months ago
@christof139 Oh you think you are perfect, but really just a dick. I can at least admit my error, but you just jump in with the personal attacks...dick. I will compare my service record with yours any day you wish.
Toddinfantry 5 months ago
@Toddinfantry, ~500 T-28s were made, & the Germans used some captured ones as did the Finns etc.
christof139 6 months ago
@christof139 Yeah, my bad. I jumped the gun and instantly thought T-28/95. Duh.
Toddinfantry 6 months ago
somit kann man verstehen, warum die sowjetischen Streitkräfte ihre Panzer, im Anfang der 50er, wie z.B. T55 ,mit "Antiaircraftbewaffnung" ausstatteten.
MrPyjamarama 7 months ago
Kinda look like one of the kv's
Mistafixa101 8 months ago
t-35? what is a t-35
nolifemerc 8 months ago
Deutsche luftwaffe! noch fragen?
freeharddrive 8 months ago
Cool video, thanks!
Aktof 9 months ago
that unknown tank is definitely a valentine
MrCasterton 9 months ago
@MrCasterton
that's right
norek3663 9 months ago in playlist Militaria
Tank at the 0:07 is most likely a Valentine tank ( judging by turret shape and size)
ArtypNk 11 months ago
@ArtypNk I agree it looks like a Valentine. The last cannon round seems to have also done quite a number on the engine compartment.
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
and Hartmann too, as he never flew against the best on Eastern front-bad planes,
poorly trained pilots-turkey shoot for him
-Galland was the best German ace by far
darkmossie633 11 months ago
@darkmossie633: True, Hartmann scored some kills against the Russians when they were flying inferior aircraft and against poorly trained pilots, but by the time of Kursk, the Soviets were fielding much better fighters and better pilots. Hartmann would have been an elite ace no matter where he flew. German fighters were very close to the lines in the USSR, hence could fly many more missions/period of time than their counterparts in the west. They also fought at lower altitudes.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 week ago
stukas got the crap knocked out of them in Battle of Britain, by Hurricanes and Spits
Rudel would have suffered no better-dead stuka ace he would have been
darkmossie633 11 months ago
@darkmossie633 Yeah, yeah, and the American SBD Dauntless got the shit kicked out of it by the Japanese Zero. Comparing ground attack aircraft and fighters proves absolutely nothing except that they are two totally different aircraft used for two totally different purposes.
DeutscheRitter1 10 months ago
@DeutscheRitter1: The Stukas, even on the wide-open eastern front, usually flew ground attack missions with top cover provided by fighters, if possible.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 week ago
stukas got the crap knocked out of then in Battle of Britain, by Hurricanes and Spits
darkmossie633 11 months ago
@darkmossie633
Well, they should, seing how stuka is strictly a ground atack aircraft.
ArtypNk 11 months ago
These guncams are not from Stukas, JU 87Gs fires two shells each shot and they don't have MGs.
These guncams are from HS-129. ;)
santobr 11 months ago 2
@santobr
im pretty sure the 87-G still had the mg inside the wings.
~shoot at them, so they dont fire back in anti-aircraft fire?
infernalzen 10 months ago
@infernalzen nope, 87-G had only these two 37mm cannons in wings
Inw4lid 10 months ago
@Inw4lid
the 37mm cannons are so massive they are mounted in pods under wing
infernalzen 10 months ago
@infernalzen Alright, under wings. The point is that there are no MG's in wings :)
Inw4lid 10 months ago
@Inw4lid Nope, the G continued to carry two MG 17 in the wings.
Toddinfantry 8 months ago
@Toddinfantry I looked into some sources to clarify it for myself, and wing MG's or cannons were really removed with G version.
Inw4lid 8 months ago
@Inw4lid Check again. Warplanes of WW2, German Aircraft of WW2, JU-87 Stukageschwader 1937- 1941, The website Fighter-planes .c , the site Vectorsite.n all reference the G series retaining the 7.9mm. Also Hans Rudel scored 9 aerial victories. He was attacked while conducting ground attack and his rear gunner scored 3 kills and Hans scored 6 kills with forward firing MG. I can check my library for more references and post if you wish, I did these books from memory and looked up the sites.
Toddinfantry 8 months ago
@Toddinfantry Well, now i found one of my books and...i must admit it says that Ju-87 G had machine guns in wings :D Is it possible that there were two different versions? I know they made G-1 and G-2, but dont think they differed in armament.
Inw4lid 8 months ago
@Inw4lid The G-1 and the G-2 maintained the forward 7.9mm. The G-1 was based on the D-3 and the G-2 was based on the D-5. The D-5 had 20mm cannon in wings but they were changed back to the 7.9mm for weight. The D-5 had a different wing also, can't remember. Both versions of G had the bomb crutch removed for weight. The variants of the Stuka are very confusing as they built them one way, modified them and then modified back to original (D-3). They were just trying to find a way to make it work.
Toddinfantry 8 months ago
@Toddinfantry superb info :)
infernalzen 8 months ago
@infernalzen Thanks!
Toddinfantry 8 months ago
Comment removed
santobr 9 months ago
Comment removed
santobr 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@infernalzen
No, they don't have MGs.
And they fire two shells each shot as we can see here: watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg
Take a look at this video: watch?v=iNYemXJ7jmE&feature=related
santobr 9 months ago
Comment removed
santobr 9 months ago
@santobr The Ju-87 still retained two 7.9mm in the wings. Some earlier variants, I think it was the A-1 that was planned for two per wing but that proved too heavy. There was a variant that had a 20mm in each wing. The G series retained the two forward firing MG17, one in each wing. You may be correct in that this may be a Hs 129.
Toddinfantry 8 months ago
@nolifemerc nope, I think it's a British designed Cromwell, of which over 5,000 were operated by the USSR. The Soviets preferred not to use any Tigers or Panthers they captured, as they disliked their unreliable engines and lack of spare parts.
DRAC250 1 year ago
on average the strike angle of cannon shells on the top of AFVs was usually in the region of 30 to 60 degrees, because aircraft could not attack vertically downwards. Ju 87 Stuka came closest to this ideal attack angle, which also dramatically increases the accuracy of any air launched ordnance.In general 20mm cannon only inflicted superficial damage on even light tanks, with the most severe damage being penetrations through the top engine grill covers and damage to the engines.
tranmere789 1 year ago
In 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?
tranmere789 1 year ago
@tranmere789 lack of air kills when the fighting was in close quarters?
i thought rudel got 14 tanks in one day? @kursk
infernalzen 1 year ago
@infernalzen Thanks for posting this video mate, I've watched it over and over about 30 times. Keep them coming!!
DeutscheRitter1 10 months ago
@DeutscheRitter1
:D im trying to make a compilation of stuka camouflage vids.
i wish i had a clip of the desert stuka, with the snake painted down its side.
infernalzen 10 months ago
@infernalzen I haven't been able to see one of those in a long time. I've been looking myself and they're hard to find. Fingers crossed for you finding a clip of one though.
DeutscheRitter1 10 months ago
In July 1943 the German Citadel Offensive (battle of Kursk) was supported by several types of apparently highly effective ground attack aircraft: Stuka, FW-190, Henschel 129 B/1-2.They are credited with ‘wreaking havoc amongst Soviet armour’ and the destruction of hundreds of Soviet tanks in this battle. On 8th July 1941, Hs 129s are credited with destroying 50 T-34s in the 2nd Guards Tank Corps in less than an hour.
tranmere789 1 year ago
These claims were almost never ratified by corresponding after action ground reports from either the defending or attacking side’s ground forces. The following examples illustrate this occurrence, and are classic examples of how WWII stories and claims have found there way into the history books.
tranmere789 1 year ago
WWII was an age where there were very few guided weapons and aircraft had great difficulty hitting small targets, especially if they were well protected.(1) In fact all the so called ‘tank-busters’ proved relatively ineffective against armoured ground targets (AFVs) or even small, defensively deployed, ground targets. This is despite the very exaggerated claims made by aircrew and much immediate post-war aircraft literature on the effects of air attacks on hard ground targets.
tranmere789 1 year ago
0:30 looks to a KV1 heavy tank to me
JSLegoMaster 1 year ago
Is that british valentine? because it moves so slow
joesacp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kyokogodai I think that you are true I've seen some pictures of soviet valentimes and it could be a mk II or a mk III. Sure that's not a panzer the main gun is longer and this video is probably from the last years of war the germans upgrade their panzer 3 with new barrels that were longer than the chasis
letnor16ll 1 year ago
i would say a Cromwell or Churchill and yeah the brits had to get their hand into it as well, thats why they didnt declare war on the soviet union when they took the other half of Poland but the did on Germany because they figured they wouldn't make any money supplying the Germans because they had everything they needed, Russians however we as one might say"back assward"
88KRUZE 1 year ago
The second tank (0:05) looks like a Valentine tank (Brittish gave Russia some early in the war, I think). I can't tell what the other 2 tanks are.
rredhawk 1 year ago
Look's like a Panzer 3 to me.
cornholio435 1 year ago
my guess on the "unknown tank" is a KV85 with smoke cannisters at the back, those looked like barrels but with an opening on top.
hardcoremedic 1 year ago
The unknown tank at 0:34 is definitely a Russian T-28, and not a Cromwell. The Cromwell's front end was dominated by the tracks, where the middle would be impossible to see from that angle. But, the T-28 has a large rectangular box on the back end, just like this "unknown" tank has. wiki has some great black and white photos for comparison.
XEMONOSIS 1 year ago
@XEMONOSIS
I was actually thinking about a Churchill when I made the above comparison to the Cromwell, but the identifying features of the T-28 are unmistakable.
XEMONOSIS 1 year ago
@XEMONOSIS Wasn't the T-28 the "multi-turreted tank? The unknown tank certainly only has one. I believe it to be a British Valentime, on lend-lease.
kyokogodai 1 year ago
@kyokogodai
the T35 was a russian multi-turreted tank (see attached video)
the germans used czech t28s? with various conversions...
infernalzen 1 year ago
@infernalzen yes, you are correct. sorry for my misinformation.
kyokogodai 1 year ago
@kyokogodai
we are all friends here :)
infernalzen 1 year ago
09.05.1945
BaranovV 1 year ago
the second tank can be an T-S2
TheGermanHonor 1 year ago
Half track and a mark 3 tank. Thr russians did use captured German vechicals.
alanbain62 1 year ago
Half track and a mark 3 tank. Thr russians did use captured German vechicals
alanbain62 1 year ago
Did the British send supplies to the Soviet Union, too? Or how does a Cromwell (IF it is one) end up there?
Or could it be produced under license?
KrautGoesWild 1 year ago
@KrautGoesWild
the russians bought alot of supplies.
spitfire, tanks, even boots.
they paid for it with gold +the ships brought the gold back to the uk
+the gold went to help pay for keeping the uk going
infernalzen 1 year ago
@infernalzen
As far as I know the Russians were getting the stuff on credit since October 1941. Under the UN treaty (Atlantic Charta from August 1941). Only a very small percentage of the supplies from the US were paid for later. It may have been different with the UK. On the other hand, Stalin wasn't the guy who handed out presents to the West - he got the supplies anyway.
McMotorrad 1 year ago
@KrautGoesWild: Your Commment might be old, but the facts are even older: In iniative of the USA large amounts of material were sent to the Sovjet Union. USA, Britain (even if it´s economy was weak) and Canada were giving tanks, planes, ships, trains, jeeps, etc to them - practically for free. Look for the "Lend-Lease Act". In fact the famous Katyusha was often mounted on a Studebaker truck made in US.
Heinzaer 1 year ago
@Heinzaer Hi! When WW2 came up in history lessons at school, I was living in Germany and facts were hard to come by. I learned a little about the Lend-Lease Act but always thought that only the USA were shipping hardware to the Soviets.
Guess it´s hightime to spend some time on Wiki and other history sites again.
Thanks!
KrautGoesWild 1 year ago
@KrautGoesWild
There were Churchill tanks in service in the soviet union sent as part of the lend lease program, along with Grants, Shermans and Stuarts.
cthulhudreamsable 1 year ago
@KrautGoesWild it kind of looks like the kv-1 or 2 with the add on armor
billy3rdkill0311 1 year ago
looks like a russian cromwell......
BajonettM1 1 year ago
@BajonettM1 - I looked closer at vid. yep,, looks like that is what it is. Cromwell ,one that did not end on the sea floor on the way to Russia. Or similar brit tank.
hogiesanKenobi 1 year ago
I can understand the lack of clear identification,, could even be a really old t-100 tank ,a super heavy ,that was multi turreted. and used poorly by the Soviets in the war against the Finns.. Sirens of Jericho were not fitted to all Stuka.. The wolfram 3.7 Pak shells fired did have a flare in ammo end -so gunner could see fall of shot - that is probably what this vid. shows - not often noticed on gun film.. The 3.7 cm cannon was introduced after Stalingrad and just before Kursk- Rudel
hogiesanKenobi 1 year ago
Relative to the times, the Stuka dive bombers were hardcore. The Germans had some superbly-designed weaponry and vehicles. They were no match for Soviet industry, however. With the Tiger, for example, fewer than 2,000 were made. From 1944 on, it seems there were less and less Stukas and panzers, and more infantry anti-tank combat. Once the Soviet war machine began mass-producing weapons like the T-34, and Hitler issued his disastrous "hold at all cost" orders, the Reich was doomed.
MicheasTheMighty2 1 year ago
@MicheasTheMighty2
yeah, if they'd concentrated on one task +taken stalingrad +taken the tank factories...
then moved on to take other places.
infernalzen 1 year ago
@infernalzen: I'm glad they failed. If they had succeeded, the holocaust of the Slavs would have made the Holocaust of the Jews pale in comparison. The more racially-motivated Germans of that time would have unleashed torrents of blood and carnage on the peoples of the USSR, or more so than they were able to during their brief occupations.
MicheasTheMighty2 1 year ago
@infernalzen Soviet tank industries were relocated to the Urals after war start. So it was unlikely any focus on it. The german mistake was to focus Stalingrad instead pushing forward Moscow - had Moscow fallen, the URSS would had fall apart into regional conflicts.
himmelsfaust 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MicheasTheMighty2 " From 1944 on, it seems there were less and less Stukas and panzers"
first because Stuka was too slow for Russian attacks,and second the factory's where under constant attack from the allied airforce.
but you are right"Hitler issued his disastrous "hold at all cost" orders, the Reich was doomed. ",and wrong, as soon as he attacked Russia he began a war his Reich simply could not win,the Germans had no,or as good as no natural ,human resources to fall back on.
hardcoremedic 1 year ago
Definitely not a Churchill looks like Kliment Voroshilov (KV) Mk1. The arid country side suggests Russia at the height of Unternehmen Barbarossa June 1941.....
barbenH 1 year ago
Definitely not a Churchill looks like Kliment Voroshilov (KV) Mk1. The arid country side suggests Russia at the height of Unternehmen Barbarossa June 1941.....
barbenH 1 year ago
könnte auch der kv-85 sein. die Weiterentwicklung des KV1
MrNurbuchstaben 1 year ago
Definitely not a Churchill looks like Kliment Voroshilov (KV) Mk1. The arid country side suggests Russia at the height of Unternehmen Barbarossa June 1941.....
barbenH 1 year ago
Definitely not a Churchill looks like Kliment Voroshilov (KV) Mk1. The arid country side suggests Russia at the height of Unternehmen Barbarossa June 1941.....
barbenH 1 year ago
they are either t-28 medium tanks or prototype SMK multi-turreted vehicles
616702 1 year ago
kV1 maybe
sortabli 1 year ago
Could be other russian tanks OR POSSIBLE FRIENDLY FIRE.. its possible that they were German tanks and that the pilot could not discern the two and killed his buddies
KrGsMrNKusinagi0 1 year ago
I am pretty positive the unknown tank is a Churchill. The Soviet Army had them.
shvaky 1 year ago 2
Here you can see a classic example of Stuka attack with 37mm cannon against enemy tanks. The smaller tracer bullets hitting the tank serve two purposes. To help aim the main 37mm cannons on target and to pin down the tank crew so they cannot return fire from their outboard mounted machine guns.
gomle3 1 year ago
It´s very difficult to see what type of tank. I can´t see something like a main gun. Perhaps it´s the T34/76. But more probably it´s a british Valentine infantry tank with the small 40 mm gun or a russian built 76 mm howitzer The tank also moves very slow, typical for a valentine with a top speed of 24 km/h.
Monsieurschmuetz 1 year ago
I think we can rule out the Valentine, notice the exterior rear fuel tanks, that seems kind of a russian trademark.
Ralroost 1 year ago
@Monsieurschmuetz Could it be a T-35? It's long enough to be one(crew of nine, two 45mm secondary guns, one 76mm short barrel)and slow enough(10kph).
ThatsMrMoronToYou 1 year ago
Those shots are rockets?
did those Ju87 usee rockets as tank destroyers?
bayyagg 1 year ago
not rockets, just great big single shot 37mm cannons, under the left +right wing.
infernalzen 1 year ago
Hey!
Read ur past reply from mah comments!
U said the tank was hit by a "ROCKETS"!
THat was 2 months ago!
LOL!
bayyagg 1 year ago
the other comment has gone.
i was talking about rockets hitting tank armour in general.
not just this video :)
infernalzen 1 year ago
it is still here!
Browse down!
We are talking about this video and the use of Ju87!
Just tell me u have made a mistake!
LOL!
bayyagg 1 year ago
i saw a Mander 2, a panzer 4 and a panzer 3.
88pie88 1 year ago
Видно что это не советские танки
скорее всего это американские или английские
Voldful 2 years ago
Hope u could translate that in ENGLISH!
I like the side of Russians in this video!
LOL!
bayyagg 1 year ago
First one looked like a Valentine. Second looked like a KV1
supertsarr 2 years ago
unknown tank same as 00:5=KV-1 /earlier model with 85mm gun not 152mm howitzer
killercrabman 2 years ago