Stukas 37 mm ammunitions

[JG300_Olrik]

Hello

 

 

Can you tell me the difference between the blue rounds and the orange rounds.

Wich ones are better for busting tanks.

I tried both with poor results : I stopped one tank with the blue. Only black smoke without fire. Nothing with the orange rounds.

Thanks for answers.

[migmadmarine]

Believe that blue is Armor Piercing, and orange is high explosive. Blue would be more useful against tanks, but a 37mm round after the early war is quite puny as anti-tank rounds go, so you should be sure to to attack the top rear of a tank for the best chance of penetration, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't kill that many tanks. 

[Yogiflight]

It can not have been that bad for Oberst Rudel destroyed with it over 500 tanks. You may not confound it with the 3.7 cm Pak, which was definitely not state of the art. The gun that was hanging under the wings of the Ju 87G was the 3.7 cm Flak, which had a longer barrel. Together with a better shotangle and a higher muzzle velocity, because you have to add the speed of the aircraft to the guns muzzle velocity ( 360 km/h are 100 m/s), it had a not to bad armourpiercing effect.

[JtD]

Also it usually fired tungsten core rounds, which were capable of penetrating more than 100mm of armour grade steel - more than enough for any WW2 tank form most angles, certainly good for T-34.

 

I don't know which colour they have in game, if they are there at all.

[Voidhunger]

blue -armor piercing

 

orange - high explosive

[Willy__]

Blue is armor piercing and Orange is high explosive as other already said.

 

Come with a shallow angle and aim for the rear part of the tank. And most important, shoot at the convergence! Two rounds is enough to destroy a tank. 

 

A little video with Mk.MrX and me blasting through tanks in a village. Only 2 stukas can completely destroy a column of tanks. 

 

[Willy__]

Damn... cant edit my post. The only reason I would take the HE rounds over the AP is if I needed to destroy a train with the cannons. Otherwise, taking bombs and normal MGs is a better all-round choice.

Edited October 29, 2015 by istruba

[Finkeren]

Damn... cant edit my post. The only reason I would take the HE rounds over the AP is if I needed to destroy a train with the cannons. Otherwise, taking bombs and normal MGs is a better all-round choice.

 

Except, as I just discovered, when you're attacking ships. I just tried out the BK-37 with HE rounds against gunboats and the similar boats with katyushas: 2 - 4 hits takes out a ship in a big explosion every single time, it's absolutely devastating.

[Wulf]

It can not have been that bad for Oberst Rudel destroyed with it over 500 tanks. You may not confound it with the 3.7 cm Pak, which was definitely not state of the art. The gun that was hanging under the wings of the Ju 87G was the 3.7 cm Flak, which had a longer barrel. Together with a better shotangle and a higher muzzle velocity, because you have to add the speed of the aircraft to the guns muzzle velocity ( 360 km/h are 100 m/s), it had a not to bad armourpiercing effect.

 

 

I do wonder about the effectiveness of the G model.  I'm sure the 37 mm rounds would have been 'okay' against light tanks etc but I think we're kidding ourselves if we imagine it was 'particularly' effective against heavy tanks.  

 

You're right that the gun used on the 'G' wasn't just a re-packaged Pak 36 but, it wasn't worlds apart either.  And it should be noted that although tungsten penetrators were indeed used, they had also been used previously with 'limited' success in the Pak 36.  It's also worth noting that the Hs 129 came equiped with a 7.5 cm Pak 40 derived weapon, not a puny 37 mm; which begs the question, why would you bother doing that, if the 37 mm did an adequate enough job.  Furthermore, we should also note that at the time, the Wehrmacht wasn't using anything less than a 50 mm AT gun and even that was being quickly replaced with 7.5 and 8.8 cm weapons.

[Gunsmith86]

Here is a list with german ammunition used with airplanes.

 

( I am not totally satisfied whit the classification i used for fragmentation, incendiary and explosive effect. Classification are: None ( meaning: the effect is so small that german and american documents largely ignor the effect as insignificant) moderate, good and very good. I tryed to do it as easy as possible because there are only a limited number of documents with information about these effects and even in them they did not always know how to get comparable facts to measure. ) 

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sX8ZB27l94Dy7DXSG6dbhXqbVKdvJ78MDlmnUMD4Q3M/edit#gid=1465002216

 

[Yogiflight]

And the mass of russian tanks were not the heavy tanks, but T34 and KV1.

[Gunsmith86]

1) I do wonder about the effectiveness of the G model.  I'm sure the 37 mm rounds would have been 'okay' against light tanks etc but I think we're kidding ourselves if we imagine it was 'particularly' effective against heavy tanks.  

 

You're right that the gun used on the 'G' wasn't just a re-packaged Pak 36 but, it wasn't worlds apart either.  And it should be noted that although tungsten penetrators were indeed used, they had also been used previously with 'limited' success in the Pak 36.  It's also worth noting that the Hs 129 came equiped with a 7.5 cm Pak 40 derived weapon, not a puny 37 mm; which begs the question, why would you bother doing that, if the 37 mm did an adequate enough job.  Furthermore, we should also note that at the time, the Wehrmacht wasn't using anything less than a 50 mm AT gun and even that was being quickly replaced with 7.5 and 8.8 cm weapons.

 

Good questions:

1)

In fact it was the most effectiv way for killing tanks much more effectiv than SD and SC 50 and 250 bombs. All guns used for tank hunting used only tungsten penetrators at this missions (MK101, MK 103 and BK3,7cm). Units equipped with these guns were used as mobile fire brigade they mostly fought behind own position and saved the troops from fighting against tanks. For example if a infantry unit spoted a tank assault they would not fight against them but get out of the way so the tanks could pass whitout a fight. The infantry unit informs the unit assignt for there sector about the tank group they let pass. Next HS 129 and Stuka with BK3,7cm would start and attack the easy prey because there were seldom antiaircraft artillery whit them. After one or two attacks the tank group was obliterated ( not seldom 30 tanks at a day!). Over the duration of there existence these units killed many thousand tanks.

 

2)

The germans would have loved to use tungsten penetrators whit every gun ( this includes 7,5cm Pak and 8,8cm Pak ) but the material was in very short supply. No country in the war could use these material for all guns simply because there was not enought of it. These was also the reason to use bigger guns on the HS 129 because with 5cm and 7,5cm on the airplane you dont need tungsten penetrators to kill heavy tanks. The problem with thses guns was they hit the aircraft performance very hard because of there high weight.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Gunsmith86

[Wulf]

Good questions:

1)

In fact it was the most effectiv way for killing tanks much more effectiv than SD and SC 50 and 250 bombs. All guns used for tank hunting used only tungsten penetrators at this missions (MK101, MK 103 and BK3,7cm). Units equipped with these guns were used as mobile fire brigade they mostly fought behind own position and saved the troops from fighting against tanks. For example if a infantry unit spoted a tank assault they would not fight against them but get out of the way so the tanks could pass whitout a fight. The infantry unit informs the unit assignt for there sector about the tank group they let pass. Next HS 129 and Stuka with BK3,7cm would start and attack the easy prey because there were seldom antiaircraft artillery whit them. After one or two attacks the tank group was obliterated ( not seldom 30 tanks at a day!). Over the duration of there existence these units killed many thousand tanks.

 

2)

The germans would have loved to use tungsten penetrators whit every gun ( this includes 7,5cm Pak and 8,8cm Pak ) but the material was in very short supply. No country in the war could use these material for all guns simply because there was not enought of it. These was also the reason to use bigger guns on the HS 129 because with 5cm and 7,5cm on the airplane you dont need tungsten penetrators to kill heavy tanks. The problem with thses guns was they hit the aircraft performance very hard because of there high weight.

 

 

Interesting response thanks.  However, it does tend to suggest that the Luftwaffe had large numbers of 'AT' Stukas and 7.5 cm equipped Hs 129s to deploy as you describe - but it didn't.  So in the main, Soviet tanks had to be stopped by Wehrmacht Pak weapons or Luftwaffe heavy Flak deployed in a Pak role .  What is more, both aircraft types (Ju 87/Hs 129) were so vulnerable to enemy fighters that they could only survive in circumstances where a significant fighter contingent could also be assigned to provide cover.

 

What is more, as I pointed out earlier, the Pak 36 used Tungsten cored projectiles but the weapon was nevertheless regarded as essentially obsolete by 1940.

[Willy__]

 

 

Except, as I just discovered, when you're attacking ships. I just tried out the BK-37 with HE rounds against gunboats and the similar boats with katyushas: 2 - 4 hits takes out a ship in a big explosion every single time, it's absolutely devastating.

 

Just flown the stuka after the summer/autumn update, tried to blow up some ships with the cannons. I was surprised with the effectiveness of the BK37s! Load up some HE rounds, and it will take out ships, even the big ones! That was a nice finding Fink! 

[Freycinet]

 

A little video with Mk.MrX and me blasting through tanks in a village. Only 2 stukas can completely destroy a column of tanks. 

 

 

Wow, it is like riding along with Rudel himself!

[Wulf]

And the mass of russian tanks were not the heavy tanks, but T34 and KV1.

 

 

KV-1 (at 45 tonnes) would be considered a heavy tank.  Not so much when compared with the late war monsters of course, but certainly for it's time. Whatever the broad designation, it was significantly bigger than the German medium PzKpfw III (at 20+ tonnes) which at the time, was the Wehrmacht's main battle tank - in a tank-on-tank sense.   The up-gunned (HV 7.5 cm)  PzKpfw IV only commenced production in mid-'42.

[johncage]

ju 87 with gun pod trly best superior character in the game. the power and roar of the gun pod. i wish it had more ammo. also, in films it feels more accurate, in game you need to get really close.

 

here see the power:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLPchQ2AbUo

 

in game feels too puny.

Edited October 30, 2015 by johncage

[LukeFF]

 

 

It can not have been that bad for Oberst Rudel destroyed with it over 500 tanks.

 

Given the strategic nature under which he attacked those tanks and the research that has been done into the anti-tank effectiveness of WWII aircraft*, I seriously doubt Rudel's score was anywhere near the amount he claimed. 

 

*For instance, the Typhoons of the RAF claimed to have destroyed 89 German tanks in one day at Mortain. An immediate post-battle analysis by the Operational Research Section, however, found that only 9 armored vehicles had been destroyed by air attack.

[JG300_Olrik]

Thank you guys for all

[JtD]

Interesting response thanks.  However, it does tend to suggest that the Luftwaffe had large numbers of 'AT' Stukas and 7.5 cm equipped Hs 129s to deploy as you describe - but it didn't.  So in the main, Soviet tanks had to be stopped by Wehrmacht Pak weapons or Luftwaffe heavy Flak deployed in a Pak role .  What is more, both aircraft types (Ju 87/Hs 129) were so vulnerable to enemy fighters that they could only survive in circumstances where a significant fighter contingent could also be assigned to provide cover.

 

What is more, as I pointed out earlier, the Pak 36 used Tungsten cored projectiles but the weapon was nevertheless regarded as essentially obsolete by 1940.

Because on the ground you

 

- had to penetrate the armour presented by the enemy, usually the front

- had to penetrate it at a fixed angle of about horizontal

- had to penetrate it at the longest range possible to avoid return fire

- could not change range quickly

- the extra weight of the bigger gun is not as important as in the air

- you'd want to use several ammunition types and even if tungsten core 37mm is good enough for killing armour, a 37mm HE shell is not very impressive by artillery standards.

 

All in all a specialized high cost tungsten core firing small calibre AT gun is not what you want on the ground. A bigger, lower cost, multiple purpose gun would be the way to go. Not so much in the air.

 

More than 800 Hs129 (dedicated) tank busters were produced, not much on the overall scale of WW2 industrialized warfare, but easily enough to take out a few thousand tanks/armoured vehicles in course of their existence.

[Wulf]

More than 800 Hs129 (dedicated) tank busters were produced, not much on the overall scale of WW2 industrialized warfare, but easily enough to take out a few thousand tanks/armoured vehicles in course of their existence.

 

 

The 30 mm armed Hs 129s  were considered to be of little use against Soviet armour post 1942 and from '44 until the cessation of hostilities, fewer than 25 Hs 129s (according to Wikipedia) armed with the 7.5 BK gun were delivered to the Front.   Production of the variant was terminated well before then however.  So realistically, if 800 anti-tank Hs129s were delivered during the course of the war, you'd have what, maybe a couple of squadrons available at any one time - maybe.   In short, if you're relying on Hs 129s and Ju 87s to stop the Soviets 'in their tracks', I think you've got a serious problem. 

Edited October 30, 2015 by Wulf

[Finkeren]

The 30 mm armed Hs 129s  were considered to be of little use against Soviet armour post 1942 and from '44 until the cessation of hostilities, fewer than 25 Hs 129s (according to Wikipedia) armed with the 7.5 BK gun were delivered to the Front.   Production of the variant was terminated well before then however.  So realistically, if 800 anti-tank Hs129s were delivered during the course of the war, you'd have what, maybe a couple of squadrons available at any one time - maybe.   In short, if you're relying on Hs 129s and Ju 87s to stop the Soviets 'in their tracks', I think you've got a serious problem. 

 

Agreed, but in the end it turned out, that the Germans did have "a serious problem" stopping the Red Armys advance

[csThor]

The 30 mm armed Hs 129s  were considered to be of little use against Soviet armour post 1942 and from '44 until the cessation of hostilities, fewer than 25 Hs 129s (according to Wikipedia) armed with the 7.5 BK gun were delivered to the Front.   Production of the variant was terminated well before then however.  So realistically, if 800 anti-tank Hs129s were delivered during the course of the war, you'd have what, maybe a couple of squadrons available at any one time - maybe.   In short, if you're relying on Hs 129s and Ju 87s to stop the Soviets 'in their tracks', I think you've got a serious problem. 

 

Pardon my french, but that's utter bollocks. The Mk 103 had serious punching power and certainly enough to deal with the ubiquitous T-34s. IS-2, yeah, that became more of a problem (which is why the Hs 129 B-3 was ever developed). The Hs 129 was very effective right until late 1944 and then only lost effectiveness because of the cecession of production, a lack of fuel and the focus on fighter production.

 

The Hs 129 were amalgamated into one Gruppe (IV.(Pz)/SG 9) in late 1943 and utilized as Schwerpunktwaffe (= weapon for the focal point of operations) and then in an entirely defensive role. Given the fact that until 1944 the VVS did not send its fighters into german territory unless they were escorting Il-2s or bombers this worked well to keep losses limited. The Stukas were concentrated in specialized anti-tank Staffeln (one per Geschwader) and used in the very same role. These aircraft were a kind of "air-mobile anti-tank reserve" which was shifted to and fro between the most endangered points of the front. They were aided in this by the peculiarities of the Red Army - a lack of organic air-defense units in the mobile formations and the "object-centered" doctrine of the VVS fighter forces (which was only opened in late 1944 and only for selected units/pilots).

[Gunsmith86]

Given the strategic nature under which he attacked those tanks and the research that has been done into the anti-tank effectiveness of WWII aircraft*, I seriously doubt Rudel's score was anywhere near the amount he claimed. 

 

*For instance, the Typhoons of the RAF claimed to have destroyed 89 German tanks in one day at Mortain. An immediate post-battle analysis by the Operational Research Section, however, found that only 9 armored vehicles had been destroyed by air attack.

 

You cant compare the typs of weapons used with the Thyphoons and other planes like it with the 30mm and 37mm guns used on german tank hunters.

reasons:

-The Allied 20mm Hispano was significantly more powerful than the MG 151/20, but little attempt seems to have been made to exploit this in terms of armour penetration. The RAF settled on a mixture of HE and API projectile which was specified to penetrate 20mm @ 200m with 90° ( the german MG 151/15 penetrats  42mm @ 300m / 90° )

-In June 1943 the RAF´s order of preference in weapons for use against tanks was given as 1st 40mm S gun used on Hurricane IID, 2nd 20mm cannon with Mk III AP ammunition, 3rd rocket projectiles (RPs) whit 25lb AP head; 4th RP with 60 lb HE head, 5th .50 Browning HMG, 6th 9lb AT bomb. Only the first three of these were considered to be serious antitank weapons. Some comment on the preferences is necessary. The 20mm AP Mk III was a tungsten cored round of considerable performance which was in the end not adopted. The RP whit 25lb AP head could penetrate 70-80mm but some post-battle analysis say that only about 2% of all fired hit close to the aimingpoint.

-One German prisoner reported the loss of six out of twelve tanks to 40mm cannon fire in one attack. The other six were also hit and penetrated but survived the experience. The crews had taken cover away from the tanks, so were not injured by the steel fragments flying around inside.

 

When the Thypoons of the RAF claimed to have destroyed 89 German tanks in one day at Mortain they were critical handicapped because they didn´t have the much better Mk III AP ammunition.

German tank hunters got special instructions and ammunition to do theirs job and had because of that more success. When the RAF used 40mm cannons they proved that they were equally successfull.

[JtD]

All in all the concept of the Hs129 was good enough that it is still used today with the A-10. While technology advanced, you still have a slow, two engined, heavily armoured aircraft using a 30mm high velocity gun using special AP ammunitions.

[Gunsmith86]

The 30 mm armed Hs 129s  were considered to be of little use against Soviet armour post 1942 and from '44 until the cessation of hostilities,

 

In late 1942 rumours circulate in the few units useing HS 129 with 30mm MK 101 that their guns were not able to penetrate the armour of T34 and KV 1 because of that they stoped useing them for a short time. The RLM did sent a ammunition specialist to look into that case. He visited all units in November and explained to them what they were doing wrong and how they could accomplish success. Test flyths were made which showed the pilots and groundcrew that their main failure was to fire much to early ( sometimes more than 400m ) after that they sarted to fire from 150m and closer. A hit rate of more than 60% could be achieved with some training. The guns were never removed again.

[LukeFF]

 

 

When the Typhoons of the RAF claimed to have destroyed 89 German tanks in one day at Mortain they were critical handicapped because they didn't have the much better Mk III AP ammunition. German tank hunters got special instructions and ammunition to do theirs job and had because of that more success. When the RAF used 40mm cannons they proved that they were equally successful.

 

My point was that pilots of all sides grossly over-claimed the number of targets they destroyed. If the RAF was overclaiming by a factor of almost ten when they were on the offensive and could spend the time to analyze their victory claims, then the Germans, what with them being on the strategic defensive and thus having much less opportunity to verify their ground victory claims, certainly were also very optimistic in what they claimed as targets destroyed on the ground.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the Luftwaffe didn't destroy large numbers of Soviet tanks, because they no doubt did - but the fact is, with the war going badly for Germany from 1943 onwards, they needed war heroes to help keep up morale, and so promoting pilots who were allegedly knocking waves of Soviet armor was one way to do that. Rudel, as such, fit that profile perfectly.  

[Matt]

Well, Rudel flew more than 2500 sorties. So on average about one destroyed tank every 5th sortie. Sure, overclaiming happened, but with 100000 enemy tanks driving during that period, that number doesn't seem too unlikely and compared to fighter pilot kills, that's a very conservative number.

[Juri_JS]

In my opinion it's best to completely ignore those official victory numbers by individual pilots. Over the years I've researched dozens of air operations and there is almost always a discrepancy when comparing the loss and victory claim reports from both sides, even when no propaganda is involved. Overclaiming is just unavoidable in war.

[csThor]

In late 1942 rumours circulate in the few units useing HS 129 with 30mm MK 101 that their guns were not able to penetrate the armour of T34 and KV 1 because of that they stoped useing them for a short time. The RLM did sent a ammunition specialist to look into that case. He visited all units in November and explained to them what they were doing wrong and how they could accomplish success. Test flyths were made which showed the pilots and groundcrew that their main failure was to fire much to early ( sometimes more than 400m ) after that they sarted to fire from 150m and closer. A hit rate of more than 60% could be achieved with some training. The guns were never removed again.

 

Actually the crisis was a crisis of trust on the part of the pilots. Nobody in the Luftwaffe leadership had bothered to consider training and instruction for both pilots and groundcrew and the guns were supposed to be slapped on the Hs 129 on what amounted to a whim of Göring (and when the RLM found out that the guns were languishing in Luftwaffe depots because the crews had refused to collect them Milch threw a tantrum). In late September 13.(Panzer)/JG 51 at Rzhev was the first unit to be trained by the RLM expert who also extensively schooled the maintenance crews.

[PatrickAWlson]

JtD has it right.  The advantage of an airplane is that they get to choose the point of attack, usually behind and above.  Tanks did not have much top armor and were easily penetrated from above.  Also, knocking out a tank does not necessarily imply brewing it up.   Destroying the engine and setting it afire counts.  The crew might escape and the tank might be recovered and repaired later, but it's still a kill.

 

As for how many Rudel got, IMHO it's the same answer as how many did Hartmann get.  A lot.  Rudel was, shall we say, dedicated to an extreme.  Anybody that gets a special artificial leg that puts pressure on the thigh because the stump is not yet healed is ... dedicated .

[Gunsmith86]

thanks csThor and Patrick A Wilson thats exactly what i wonted to say. 

Edited October 31, 2015 by Gunsmith86

[ShamrockOneFive]

JtD has it right.  The advantage of an airplane is that they get to choose the point of attack, usually behind and above.  Tanks did not have much top armor and were easily penetrated from above.  Also, knocking out a tank does not necessarily imply brewing it up.   Destroying the engine and setting it afire counts.  The crew might escape and the tank might be recovered and repaired later, but it's still a kill.

 

As for how many Rudel got, IMHO it's the same answer as how many did Hartmann get.  A lot.  Rudel was, shall we say, dedicated to an extreme.  Anybody that gets a special artificial leg that puts pressure on the thigh because the stump is not yet healed is ... dedicated .

 

I think thats the key part. A tank may be knocked out, light damaged, crew abandoned or some external part may be set ablaze without the actual tank being "destroyed" or "blown up." Overclaiming was certainly an issue but I remember reading an analysis of tanks destroyed during the Normandy operations and although Typhoons and Thunderbolts didn't actually kill a lot of tanks directly (bomb and rocket hits) but they had such a demoralizing impact that partially damaged tanks and half-tracks were sometimes abandoned simply out of the fear of being struck by another air attack.

[JtD]

Destroying tanks only to have the enemy repair them and put them back in the field was business as usual, and not limited to tank attacked by aircraft.

 

I've read an account about the BoS of a German Flak gunner, who over several days took out attacking T-34's, only to have them disappear every night, when Soviet salvage crews pulled them off the battlefield. Might not be literally true, but the basic idea is. Of course the tanks they destroyed counted as killed, because they were. You can't destroy tanks to the degree an industrial scrap yard can. There'll always be a significant part of the tank left, usually even after an ammunition explosion.

[Y-29.Silky]

My point was that pilots of all sides grossly over-claimed the number of targets they destroyed.

 

When people say this today, I really think they're over exaggerating when they say the pilots over exaggerated their kill claims back then.

Over claiming creates dangerous intelligence that can be life or death.

Germany had to confirm by a wingman or ground unit, US/UK used guncams and sometimes still had to prove their kill by recording a flyby of the downed aircraft.

 

Russia on the other hand...

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

37mm can't destroy fuel tanks at airfield objectives....kind of silly.

[LukeFF]

 

 

When people say this today, I really think they're over exaggerating when they say the pilots over exaggerated their kill claims back then. Over claiming creates dangerous intelligence that can be life or death. Germany had to confirm by a wingman or ground unit, US/UK used guncams and sometimes still had to prove their kill by recording a flyby of the downed aircraft.

 

ROFL, please. I gave one example above about they Typhoons at Normandy. Another example? The number of German planes the USAAF claimed shot down on the first Schweinfurt raid. Another? The claims of Clostermann. Fact is, overclaiming was taking place on both sides, regardless of nation. It wasn't just Russia, like you want to claim. 

[Gunsmith86]

LukeFF is right overclaiming was taking place on both sides. There is simply no way for both sides to verify what they had achieved.

[Y-29.Silky]

ROFL, please. I gave one example above about they Typhoons at Normandy. Another example? The number of German planes the USAAF claimed shot down on the first Schweinfurt raid. Another? The claims of Clostermann. Fact is, overclaiming was taking place on both sides, regardless of nation. It wasn't just Russia, like you want to claim. 

 

I'm not saying there wasn't over-claiming, I'm saying people today like to believe they over exaggerated to the point of almost discrediting the real pilots as if they weren't a good source. 

Try not to be immature and snarky next time.. 

Edited October 31, 2015 by Y-29.Silky