Help with Stuka BK 37 tank attacking

[Mattress]

I'm trying to work out the key to destroying tanks in a Stuka with the BK 37s. I've got the convergence set at 400m and I'm usually hitting around 400m down to as little as 100m (sometimes even 50m). I'm using the blue-tip rounds (I believe they are armor-piercing) and I'm attacking from directly behind most of the time, usually anywhere from level with the tank up to maybe 30 degrees above. After 5 quick missions using all my ammo, I've had one kill. I probably hit 50% of the time, though I'm getting more accurate. I try to aim above the tracks.

 

I'm genuinely curious about how I'm supposed to kill these tanks (they look like standard T-34s). The one time I successfully killed one was with a side attack. It started smoking and eventually blew up. The last quick mission I landed 5 to 6 hits right into the back of a single T-34 (quite close range, too) and a further 4 from the side over several attacks. With the last strafing run on the same tank I was looking down maybe 20 degrees and hit with both shots right at the base of the turret into the back of the tank (saw the shots clearly hit) at extremely close range and I was certain he was done for. I flew around without ammo for 10 minutes and he just kept on going.

 

I'm sure I must be doing something wrong, but I can't figure out what. I don't want to attack from directly above because there's no airbrakes. I believe I'm hitting in all the right places to either kill the engine or the crew, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

Anyone who's successful in destroying T-34s with the BK 37s, could you please let me know what you're doing and roughly how many guaranteed hits it usually takes? 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The 37mm ap round had good penetrations chabces at 100m and less but is not very reliable above that. You should adjust your convergence to a closer range to concentrate your fire on a weakpoint (usually engine comparment or below the turret) more effectvely. Also take your time when approaching, it's better to land one good hit from 100m than 1 of 3 at higher ranges.

Always dive at a slight angle on your targeta to reduce the effectiveness of angled armour.

 

It's also not very predictable how may shots it takes to disable a tank. A T-34 should usually blow up after 2 good voleys (4 hits) into the side armour of the engine comparment. Still it might take you some more shots at times due to bullet bouncing off or not hitting critical components.

 

Don't expect too much though. I'd say 2 tanks per sorty is fine and 3 is a good result.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[[CPT]milopugdog]

The 37mm ap round had good penetrations chabces at 100m and less but is not very reliable above that. You should adjust your convergence to a closer range to concentrate your fire on a weakpoint (usually engine comparment or below the turret) more effectvely. Also take your time when approaching, it's better to land one good hit from 100m than 1 of 3 at higher ranges.

Always dive at a slight angle on your targeta to reduce the effectiveness of angled armour.

 

It's also not very predictable how may shits it takes to disable a tank. A T-34 should usually blow up after 2 good voleys (4 ahits) into the side armour of the engine comparment. Still it might take you some more shots at times due to bullet bouncing off or not hitting critical components.

 

Don't expect too much though. I'd say 2 tanks per sorty is fine and 3 is a good result.

I didn't know tanks could do that at all...

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Phone typing just isnt one of my strenghs :D

 

Edited that typo.

[Mattress]

The 37mm ap round had good penetrations chabces at 100m and less but is not very reliable above that. You should adjust your convergence to a closer range to concentrate your fire on a weakpoint (usually engine comparment or below the turret) more effectvely. Also take your time when approaching, it's better to land one good hit from 100m than 1 of 3 at higher ranges.

Always dive at a slight angle on your targeta to reduce the effectiveness of angled armour.

 

So would you say side attacks are more effective than rear attacks? If I try to angle up slightly to compensate for the sloping side armor I should do a little better? Also is it at all worth trying a straight-down vertical attack? I feel like I'd just crash trying it, but if it gets kills with fewer shots I'd try to learn.

 

I'll definitely lower my attack range then - I didn't realize I'd need to be attacking so close, but it makes sense.

 

It's also not very predictable how may shots it takes to disable a tank. A T-34 should usually blow up after 2 good voleys (4 hits) into the side armour of the engine comparment. Still it might take you some more shots at times due to bullet bouncing off or not hitting critical components.

 

Don't expect too much though. I'd say 2 tanks per sorty is fine and 3 is a good result.

 

This is really good to know as well - if I have a rough idea of how many I should be expecting to kill per sortie I have something to aim for (and can feel less ashamed when I'm struggling to kill even one!). 

 

Having said that, is there any reason to pick the BK 37s over bombs? It seems like the Stuka handles similarly with 3 250 kg bombs compared to the BK 37s, plus you get the machineguns for soft targets. If I can learn to reliably hit a tank with a bomb, it seems like I'd get more tanks per sortie, plus have the option of attacking soft targets. Is there any reason not to do this? Why did the Germans make the BK 37s? I'm guessing it might have been cheaper per shot than bombs?

 

I'd still really like to learn the BK 37s, but I'm slightly worried about being a waste of a player slot in MP if the BKs actually aren't a good choice.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Talking about the T-34 the rear armour is slightly thinner but also steeper angled and is a much smaller target to hit. If you attack from the side it's easier to hit overall and you can hit either in the engine compartment or the ammunition rack. Overall I had more sucess with attacking form the sides and closer distance.

 

Different story for the KV-1, which has very solid side armour and is better to be shot from behind or into the turret.

Having said that, is there any reason to pick the BK 37s over bombs? It seems like the Stuka handles similarly with 3 250 kg bombs compared to the BK 37s, plus you get the machineguns for soft targets. If I can learn to reliably hit a tank with a bomb, it seems like I'd get more tanks per sortie, plus have the option of attacking soft targets. Is there any reason not to do this? Why did the Germans make the BK 37s? I'm guessing it might have been cheaper per shot than bombs?

 

I'd still really like to learn the BK 37s, but I'm slightly worried about being a waste of a player slot in MP if the BKs actually aren't a good choice.

It's difficult to pick up tanks wiht single bomb drops and destroy them. The most accurate and preferrable drop technique is (obviously) dive bombing, which has the drawback of you ending up with greatly decreased altitude after each bomb drop. With 250kg you also need to land the bomb right next to the tank to damage it's inside components and thus destroying it - otherwise you'll just dig a nice big hole.

 

Cannons work better against tanks (and only tanks) from my expirience if you use them right. It takes a lot of practise and patience to get sucessfull with them though.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[F/JG300_Gruber]

For T34, as 5tuka said go for the sides and dive with a 30° angle (look at the markings on the side window for help). Now if you feel that your aim is good enough, the rear turret works fine as well but don't hit the upper body plate as it will most likely bounce off. Also look for your speed and altitude. I always climb to 500m above ground level minimum before going for the next pass. It gives you more speed in the dive and a steadier gun platform. I never go for level attack on tanks because I find it unreliable and also with the guns pointed at the target, you lose height very fast and I crashed too many times with this method.

 

I average (if I don't get bounced while working) 3 tanks per sortie with 4 for a good one (not counting light tanks)

I'm using 400m for convergence and have good results with it.

 

The KV1 is another story and I've yet to take one out with the BKs. I once landed 13 shells on a single one, aiming at the same spots as the T34 and didn't managed to get it smoking.

 

 

If you are attacking stationary tanks, SC250 are as effective and quicker to dispatch the targets. Come with a 20 to 30° dive angle and release while you are at roughly 100m above ground and with the target touching the bottom of the sight ring. Not much practice needed and guaranteed kill. It also makes you lighter and as you said you still have your MGs for soft targets or self defense. On moving targets, it's doable but not super reliable.

 

The other thing that BK are very good at is destroying small boats with HE shells. I go for a shallow dive and hit the hull just above water level near the engine compartment in the rear and you can take them out very reliably with 2 trigger pulls per boat. If you practice a bit you can take out 2 ships in a single pass. Don't go for large convoys though because the AAA on the remaining ships will most likely shred you to pieces.

Edited January 12, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[Aap]

Son't know if it works like this in the game, but from Rudel's book: 

"We have always to try to hit the tank in one of its most vulnerable places. The front is always the strongest part of every tank; therefore every tank invariably tries as far as possible to offer its front to the enemy. Its sides are less strongly protected. But the best target for us is the stem. It is there that the engine is housed, and the necessity for cooling this power centre permits of only a thin armour plating. In order to further assist the cooling this plating is perforated with large holes. This is a good spot to aim at because where the engine is there is always petrol. When its engine is running a tank is easily recognizable from the air by the blue fumes of the exhaust. On its sides the tank carries petrol and ammunition. But there the armour is stronger than at the back."

 

The other thing that BK are very good at is destroying small boats with HE shells. I go for a shallow dive and hit the hull just above water level near the engine compartment in the rear and you can take them out very reliably with 2 trigger pulls per boat. If you practice a bit you can take out 2 ships in a single pass. Don't go for large convoys though because the AAA on the remaining ships will most likely shred you to pieces.

 

That also stems with Rudel's biography. Initially, when they had trouble of actually getting to the tanks with these cannon armed Stukas, they had great success holding off Russian plans to advance over lagoons with boats on Kuban front. Again from his book:

"We are in the air every day from dawn till dusk, racing above the water and the reeds in search of boats. Ivan comes on in the most primitive craft; one rarely sees a motor boat. Besides rifles he carries with him hand grenades and machine guns. He glides across in the little boats with a load of five to seven men; as many as twenty men are packed on board the larger craft. In dealing with them we do not use our special anti-tank ammunition, for a high potency is not required here. On the other hand one must have a useful explosive effect on hitting the wood, in this way the boats are most quickly smashed. Normal flak ammunition with a suitable fuse proves the most practical. Anything trying to slip across the water is as good as lost. Ivan's losses in boats must be serious for him. I alone with my aircraft destroy seventy of these vessels in the course of a few days."

[bokepacha]

I haven't used the 37mm stuka a lot, but I remember the last time I found a poor T34 trying to use the machinegun against me while I was looking for him at 300m alt. He lasted one single volley shot on the side at around 300m and around 20 degrees dive.

AI, on the contrary, takes a few shot to kill in my experience. I guess it really depends on where the shots land. You have to have very good aiming on these things.

Edited January 12, 2016 by bokepacha

[Mattress]

Well, I tried the advice given here and...

 

 

success!

 

With 100m convergence (and shots at 0.1km and below), attacking from the side as well as a moderate-to-high angle, I was able to consistently get one-hit kills (complete explosion - no tank left!). The only problem is that I often couldn't line up properly and had to go around - or sometimes I'd just try it anyway and crash into the ground after successfully killing the tank. 

I tried 200m and 200m convergence, however this seemed far less effective. I still disabled tanks (got them smoking), which eventually killed them, but it took more shots (usually 2 trigger pulls = 4 hits) and I found that missing was much more common. I also still crashed into the ground sometimes. I'm hoping that with more practice I'll be able to not hit the ground as much with a 100m shot - if I can do that, aiming that close is easy and I could theoretically get 12 kills with one load of ammo (I'd likely be shot down by the tanks MGs, let alone any AAA in the area, long before that though).

 

So thanks everyone for all of the advice - it's been really helpful

 

 

Edited with a hopefully clearer image.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Mattress

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Glad to see that you are improving 

 

Keep practicing and you'll be also very accurate at 200-300m. Harder important thing to do is: don't focus too much on the tank (don't tunnel) and keep an eye on the surroundings to develop a "feel" of when you should pull out safely out of the attack given the surroundings (trees...). 
Given your feedback, I will try to shoot at closer distances as well. One-shotting T34 sounds sweet, it have happened to me but I thought that it was because it would have been already damaged before.

It might help for KV1 as well. 

Edited January 14, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

From what you mentioned you are attacking at way too flat of a trajectory.

 

Second, I would not heed the advice of "getting in closer" with the BK's - that is simply unrealistic, is going to teach you poor habits and isn't going to help your marksmanship.

 

40 degree dive and fire at 400m.

 

I've had plenty of success at those ranges if you can effectively place the tungsten in the right spot.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Fact is that AP bullets have way worse penetration chances at those ranges. You can either compensate for that by setting your approach at a more rectangular hit angle or shoot more often.

 

Convergence should be set to the range you want to hit your target so that you can effectuively focus fire at one area of the tank. If you shoot at the engine compartment for example 2 chances to ignite the fuel are way higher with 2 shots going in than just 1.

 

40° dive sounds to steep to me to be realistic but to each his own. And before judging other people's advices make clear to back yours up with evidence that make it more valid.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

And before judging other people's advices make clear to back yours up with evidence that make it more valid.

 

 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Quote on where you think I judged your "advice".

Edited January 14, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Gunsmith86]

From what you mentioned you are attacking at way too flat of a trajectory.

 

Second, I would not heed the advice of "getting in closer" with the BK's - that is simply unrealistic, is going to teach you poor habits and isn't going to help your marksmanship.

 

40 degree dive and fire at 400m.

 

I've had plenty of success at those ranges if you can effectively place the tungsten in the right spot.

 

Walter Krause pilot of a HS 129 with Mk101 30mm cannon started fiering only if he was 250m or closer and sometimes stoped as close as 50m from the target. He used an approach from the side in near horizontal flight he and many other favoured that approach because the target is bigger from the side, if shots faile to penetrate there is still a good chance that they immobilize the tank because of hits on the tank treads.

 

The other way was the attack from the backside where they used a 30° dive to hit the tanks sloped rear armour at 90°. This made it of course necessary to pull out at a greater distance.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

40° dive sounds to steep to me to be realistic but to each his own.

 

-snip-

 

Quote on where you think I judged your "advice".

 

Walter Krause pilot of a HS 129 with Mk101 30mm cannon started fiering only if he was 250m or closer and sometimes stoped as close as 50m from the target. He used an approach from the side in near horizontal flight he and many other favoured that approach because the target is bigger from the side, if shots faile to penetrate there is still a good chance that they immobilize the tank because of hits on the tank treads.

 

The other way was the attack from the backside where they used a 30° dive to hit the tanks sloped rear armour at 90°. This made it of course necessary to pull out at a greater distance.

 

The HS 129 and it's Mk101 didn't require convergence but you're aware of that. If I didn't need to converge two BK's I'd probably attack from spitting-distance as well... But with that being said...

 

A 30 degree dive requires a greater pull out distance... Wouldn't that mean a 40 degree dive requires a greater pullout distance..? Wouldn't that mean that it makes sense that I choose to converge my guns at a greater distance and to fire from said distance?

 

I guess I don't see how this is invalidating anything I stated. 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[Gunsmith86]

 

The HS 129 and it's Mk101 didn't require convergence but you're aware of that. If I didn't need to converge two BK's I'd probably attack from spitting-distance as well... But with that being said...

 

A 30 degree dive requires a greater pull out distance... Wouldn't that mean a 40 degree dive requires a greater pullout distance..? Wouldn't that mean that it makes sense that I choose to converge my guns at a greater distance and to fire from said distance?

 

I guess I don't see how this is invalidating anything I stated. 

 

Some how i figured this would happen its a misunderstanding.

 

I didn´t want to criticize you i just wanted to show how close you all came with your approach to the real approch in attacking tanks.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Thats called a personal opinion. I did not discredit everyone's else advice like you did in your post with no backup to make yours more trustworthy.

 

Btw this might be usefull to the discussion:

Edited January 14, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Thats called a personal opinion. I did not discredit everyone's else advice like you did in your post with no backup to make yours more trustworthy.

 

Btw this might be usefull to the discussion:

 

No, an ammunition chart doesn't have anything to do with diving at a 40 degree angle, sorry...

 

Also, like I pointed out to Gunsmith86 we are discussing BK3,7 guns and the Ju-87, not an HS129 and the Mk101... Talk about entirely irrelevant... A different gun platform, a different weapon and entirely different ammunition...

 

Also, no opinions were stated - advice was given... So no, they provide no usefulness to invalidating the suggestion I made because they are both irrelevant to the advice that I gave.  

 

EDIT:

 

Maybe if I attach pictures that are irrelevant to the suggestion it will validate my point... 

 

 

 

Am I doing it right?

 

EDIT: Corrected Veteran66 to Gunsmith86

Edited January 14, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I'm perfectly aware of that. That image looked interesting because it does not only show tank armour angles but also attack angles. The fact it's showing a Hs-129 is unimportant.

 

Anyway this is enough for the word fighting.  I don't want to continue this nonsense discussion any further.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I'm perfectly aware of that. That image looked interesting because it does not only show tank armour angles but also attack angles. The fact it's showing a Hs-129 is unimportant.

 

Anyway this is enough for the word fighting.  I don't want to continue this nonsense discussion any further.

 

Hey, I get it, you couldn't find any photographic or documentary evidence to support your point like you asked me to do so for mine - that's ok, we'll both live. 

[Aap]

No, an ammunition chart doesn't have anything to do with diving at a 40 degree angle, sorry...

 

Also, like I pointed out to Veteran66 we are discussing BK3,7 guns and the Ju-87, not an HS129 and the Mk101... Talk about entirely irrelevant... A different gun platform, a different weapon and entirely different ammunition...

 

Maybe if I attach pictures that are irrelevant to the suggestion it will validate my point... 

 

Honesty, these pictures look very relevant to me. The first picture is about ammunition for "3,7 cm Bordkanone". To me that looks like the ammunition for Stuka's BK 37 rather than 30 mm Mk101 for Hs129 like you are saying. And the last table of that ammunition chart shows you how thick armor this ammunition is supposed to penetrate from how far. So again to me it looks quite relevant in the discussion of shooting distance.

The second picture is about sloped armor and attack angles that are most effective against sloped armor. In that diagram it is irrelevant if the picture is showing Hs129, Ju87, some other plane or a stone thrown by ancient catapult, the point is about the most effective angle against sloped armor. 

Edited January 14, 2016 by II./JG77_Kemp

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Honesty, these pictures look very relevant to me. The first picture is about ammunition for "3,7 cm Bordkanone". To me that looks like the ammunition for Stuka's BK 37 rather than 30 mm Mk101 for Hs129 like you are saying. And the last table of that ammunition chart shows you how thick armor this ammunition is supposed to penetrate from how far. So again to me it looks quite relevant in the discussion of shooting distance.

The second picture is about sloped armor and attack angles that are most effective against sloped armor. In that diagram it is irrelevant if the picture is showing Hs129, Ju87, some other plane or a stone thrown by ancient catapult, the point is about the most effective angle against sloped armor. 

 

About the ammunition: that's not what I said and since I'm two sentences in and you're already misstating me I'm not going to read any further.

 

Please read again and provide your own direct sources that can quantify an argument against a method I have used to great success in this simulator. 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[Aap]

I don't intend to let myself be dragged into a pointless argument, but nevertheless I will reply to this one.

 

About the ammunition: that's not what I said and since I'm two sentences in and you're already misstating me I'm not going to read any further.

 

It actually is what you said. It was directly quoted from your post. You were quoting a message from Stab/JG26_5tuka and saying how irrelevant his pictures were and I just commented how these pictures looked very relevant to me in this discussion.

 

Please read again and provide your own direct sources that can quantify an argument against a method I have used to great success in this simulator. 

 

Now, why exactly would I need to provide some kind of sources to quantify an argument against your method? I don't care one bit what method you use in this simulator and I care even less to argue about it. I was just pointing out that what Stab/JG26_5tuka had posted looked very relevant to me in this discussion as it provided information about BK37 cannons effective shooting distances and a diagram about favorable attack angle against sloped armor of T-34. To me it looked like exactly what this original topic was about. 

[SFC_Tako]

I use flaps for "level flight with guns down"-mode and convergence at 250m. I can just barely get one T-34.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

To me that looks like the ammunition for Stuka's BK 37 rather than 30 mm Mk101 for Hs129 like you are saying.

 

-snip-

 

 

I never said that and you didn't provide a direct quote of anything because I never said that.

 

Just sayin'.

What I actually said was:

 

No, an ammunition chart doesn't have anything to do with diving at a 40 degree angle, sorry...

 

Also, like I pointed out to Veteran66 we are discussing BK3,7 guns and the Ju-87, not an HS129 and the Mk101... Talk about entirely irrelevant... A different gun platform, a different weapon and entirely different ammunition...

 

-snip-

 

 

Hope that clarifies where you misread, misrepresented or misinterpreted my statement! 

 

We should also account for the fact that the "diagram of a favorable angle of attack" is for an entirely different aircraft, an entirely different armament and an entirely different ammunition - thus, the image 5tuka provided has very little relevance to the Ju-87 with BK's, which correct me if I am wrong, is the topic of this thread judging by its title... In simpler terms - what will work for an Hs129 with Mk101 really shouldn't be quantified as a direct translation to what will work with the Ju-87 with BK's.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[Aap]

Hmm, I don't know if you are trying to be funny or if it is just a tactic to lure people into arguments for your entertainment, but I have to admit that it is working to some degree.

So okay, I will quote you one more time.

 

 

 

No, an ammunition chart doesn't have anything to do with diving at a 40 degree angle, sorry...

 

You are right. It doesn't have anything to do with diving at a 40 degree angle. Did somebody somewhere say that it must have something to do with diving at a 40 degree angle?

On the other hand, that chart gives a good indication about effective shooting distances, which was one of the main points of this thread here, showing how thick armor it can penetrate from 100 m or 600 m and at 90 degree and 60 degree angles to the armor. But you are right, it does not tell anything about 40 degree angle .... though it also never was supposed to say anything about diving at a 40 degree angle.

 

 

 

Also, like I pointed out to Veteran66 we are discussing BK3,7 guns and the Ju-87, not an HS129 and the Mk101... Talk about entirely irrelevant...

 

You are right that you are talking about something entirely irrelevant when bringing up Mk101 in your reply to Stab/JG26_5tuka, because his chart had nothing to do with Mk101. It was about BK37 .... just like this topic. 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

 

 

-snip-

 

You are right that you are talking about something entirely irrelevant when bringing up Mk101 in your reply to Stab/JG26_5tuka, because his chart had nothing to do with Mk101. It was about BK37 .... just like this topic. 

 

I don't know if you have sand in your eyes or if you're talking about something completely different but right at the top of that image it specifies "Effect of 30mm Armor-Piercing Shell on Sloping Armor Plate" and the BK37 is called BK37 because it is a 37mm Bordkanone... Not a 30mm Mk101...

 

I'm really not sure where the difficulty in understanding the image is... It's an Hs129, not a Ju-87... The Hs129 being referred to in the image was armed with a 30mm cannon and not the 37mm Bordkanone specified in the subject of this thread... With the fact that it is a 30mm cannon it couldn't even chamber the 37mm round that he posted above it...

 

I guess I will reiterate again...

 

A. Wrong plane.

B. Wrong gun.

C. Wrong ammo.

 

Thus...

 

A. What works for the Hs129 is moot.

B. What works for the Hs129 is moot.

C. What works for the Hs129 is moot.

 

[Aap]

I don't know if you have sand in your eyes or if you're talking about something completely different but right at the top of that image it specifies "Effect of 30mm Armor-Piercing Shell on Sloping Armor Plate" and the BK37 is called BK37 because it is a 37mm Bordkanone... Not a 30mm Mk101...

 

You must be kidding?

Even though it was probably obvious for most people that the point of the second image was about the angles diagram there, it was specifically pointed out to you by both Stab/JG26_5tuka and myself repeatedly. Please allow me to quote, as you seem to lose track easily.

 

That image looked interesting because it does not only show tank armour angles but also attack angles. The fact it's showing a Hs-129 is unimportant.

 

and

 

The second picture is about sloped armor and attack angles that are most effective against sloped armor. In that diagram it is irrelevant if the picture is showing Hs129, Ju87, some other plane or a stone thrown by ancient catapult, the point is about the most effective angle against sloped armor. 

 

and

 

a diagram about favorable attack angle against sloped armor of T-34.

 

And you still fail to understand that the point of the second image is to show the favorable attack angle against sloped armor? That is just amazing. 

Anyway, I think you have had enough entertainment already with me in this topic.

Edited January 14, 2016 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Gunsmith86]

 

We should also account for the fact that the "diagram of a favorable angle of attack" is for an entirely different aircraft, an entirely different armament and an entirely different ammunition - thus, the image 5tuka provided has very little relevance to the Ju-87 with BK's, which correct me if I am wrong, is the topic of this thread judging by its title... In simpler terms - what will work for an Hs129 with Mk101 really shouldn't be quantified as a direct translation to what will work with the Ju-87 with BK's.

 

You are wrong in that point that what the image and text about the Mk101 that 5tuka and I provided has definitely someting to do whit the BK 3,7 cm and the Ju87 that used it.

The HS 129 with MK 101 was used in the same way the Ju 87 with 3,7cm BK was used. The tactics used with the Ju 87 was developed first with the HS 129 in the sommer of 1942 months before the first Stuka with BK 3,7 cm was ready. The reason to equiped a Ju 87 with the 3,7cm BK was that there was a great need for more tankhunters with cannon and it was not possible to increase the production of the HS 129 and the MK 101 so they needed a other plane and another gun. The Ju 87 and the normal Flak 18 were both well known to the troop so it was decided to use them for that job.

This decision had some advantages.

1) The ammunition:

basically it is in both cases the same ammunition just in diffrent caliber in fact the 3,7cm H Panzergrantpatrone was allready tested with the 3,7cm Pak and just had to be combined with the case of the 3,7cm Flak 18.

2) Because basic rules of gunnery does apply to the 3,7cm ammunition and gun as to the 3cm ammunition and gun, with this is meant that for both guns its better to be close to the target to get the best penetration with the ammunition this makes it possible to use the same tactics with both planes and guns and because of that it was possible to teach all personal at the same training course.

 

So if 5tuka posts a image with a HS 129 showing the tactic used with the HS 129 to attack tanks this also applies to the Ju 87 because they used the same tactics because they had the same job to do.

 

Some more detailed info on the 3,7cm ammunition:

Edited January 14, 2016 by Gunsmith86

[F/JG300_Gruber]

I use flaps for "level flight with guns down"-mode and convergence at 250m. I can just barely get one T-34.

 

 

You have to be more precise than this in your aiming. 

The first pass was kind of ok and the first shot hit the side of the turret but the second hit the backplate with a very angled shot.

On the next pass you sprayed the rear track area and same on the last when the tank finally blew up. 

 

Come with a steeper angle to get the side armor with a near perpendicular shot.

Aim the weak points carefully and think of the BK as precision rifle instead of autocanons. I never pull the trigger more than twice per pass.

Forget about the flaps to fly low on the ground. The basic idea is good but you will be facing the same problem than the panzers have with the sloped armor. 

Edited January 14, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[SFC_Tako]

 You have to be more precise than this in your aiming.

Forget about the flaps to fly low on the ground. The basic idea is good but you will be facing the same problem than the panzers have with the sloped armor. 

 

OK, I practiced some on my aim and it seemed to help. I didn't read this until now so I used the flaps again. But even though it's probably not correct, those flaps give me time to settle in, get a nice approach and all that. Now as you can see in this vid I do get results. BUT if this was real life, I'd probably do it your way. I guess there's a difference between this sim and actual reality. I mean just look at my hits, they're pretty messed up if we talk angles and ballistics and what not. Maybe it doesn't matter that much, maybe you just need to fire up close. I actually aimed for the turrets, well I tried to

 

[Blitzen]

Yesterday I gave the Panzer Cracker Stuka another flight.I had no problem busting a T-34 with Blue tipped shells. I used Red tipped on shipping .Again with enough hits : success.Can you answer a simple question :  .I assume from tank missions that blue are AP but I also assumed red were high explosive , but after trying them on vehicles on the road .I'm not so sure...What's the story?

Edited January 15, 2016 by Blitzen

[Gunsmith86]

You are right, Blue is AP and Red is HE

[SFC_Tako]

Red is for shooting down LaGG-3

[F/JG300_Gruber]

A little sortie in quick mission. Convergence was set somewhere near 300m.

3 T34 dispatch in 7 shots. (could have been 6 if I had left the last one burn by itself) so I have enough ammo left to take out a couple more tanks in theory. 

It could have been better executed but at least it shows the idea. One big mistake was on the 4th pass I choosed the tank with the trees right behind it: very dangerous and stupid as the other one was clear all around... don't tunnel I said ? 

 

 

 

And this one is a quick example of the effectiveness of HE shells against ships. If you manage to do it in one single pass, they won't have the time to identify you and start shooting back. 

They all have sweet spots that you need to find out, but usually near the engine room is a good way to start.

Convergence 400m for this one. 

 

 

[SFC_Tako]

Hey Gruber, that tankbusting video was very good! Solid flying, right there! I think that's probably the way it should be done (and most likely WAS done), although nerves of steel are required. And skill. And time, all that swooping up and down.

About them boats, I've done the same thing but funny as it may seem, you come in from a high altitude (which again is correct, it's a DIVEBOMBER) whilst I just love the groundhogging approach. Maybe I should get me a Henschel 129  But to reflect on your approach on the boats, you get TWO boats in ONE approach. Ain't bad.

Edited January 16, 2016 by SFC_Tako

[F/JG300_Gruber]

The main reason why I come at altitude is that the stuka becomes very stable above 400-450kph so when diving I can make faster aiming changes without the wobbling stuff messing with my aim. 

 

But low tactical flight is a lot of fun as well and maybe with a bit more practice taking out two boats in one pass is perfectly doable I have to try. I don't know what method was used  historically for this kind of targets ?

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[SFC_Tako]

Stable at 400-450kph? Jeeesus. I haven't even been there, in those speeds I mean. Thanks for the info

Oh and about them boats, who knows? I bet the germans only let the Stukas do attacks according to their regulations