german 20mm not able to destroy small tanks intentional

[Fenris]

Even Rudel had hard time destroying T34 with two 37mm.

Of what he said, he had to aim for rear tank or low sides (not the turret) to blow them up.

Frontal attack was always uneffective...

After some while, Russian T34 found a tactic to avoid Rudel's attacks: they were often circling to hide the weak side of tank from the Stuka!

 

So i don't think a 20mm could blow up a T34. Or maybe only from rear.

Only, Rudel didn't have a hard time killing T-34's with the 37mm, he even killed the heavy IS tanks with the 37mm. And why would a frontal attack be innefective? The T-34's armour is exactly the same on the front as it is on the back. They only drove in circles to make it difficult to aim (Not that it stopped rudel much unless they were in a town he was scared of shooting civilians in). Even a quote from another Anti-tank Junka pilot that frontal attack was the preferred method.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Fenris

[Fifi]

Never readed other pilot account than Rudel one about Stuka attacks.

So you are saying what he wrote was wrong?...

Why did he take the time to explain clearly he HAD to aim for rear T34 armour (or lack of)?

Why did he explain the tanks were circling to avoid his rear attacks? It wasn't to move for making it harder for Rudel aim! He could put shots into a 20cm circle! (of what he wrote)

Sorry, i still believe what he wrote, than your point of view. Even though the book was translated, i don't think they transformed his writing...

[beepee]

 

And why would a frontal attack be innefective?

One thing It could possibly be, is that the front armour was at more of an angle than the back, so rounds might deflect rather than penetrate. But I am only guessing here.

Edited December 30, 2013 by =TFK=Beeps

[Fenris]

I finished reading stuka pilot only a couple days ago, the slope on a T-34 is the same thickness and angle all over the upper half of the tank(Except turret ofcourse)

 

Maybe Fifi misread back as the engine grills on the top rear, which were open for heating purposes and was a fairly vulnerable, and important target.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Fenris

[beepee]

I finished reading stuka pilot only a couple days ago, the slope on a T-34 is the same thickness and angle all over the upper half of the tank(Except turret ofcourse)

OK. I guess my guess was wrong then.

 

I have been meaning to read Stuka Pilot for awhile now. This thread has just reminded me.

 

Cheers.

[ATAG_Bliss]

So when I hit the passenger in the seat infront of me with a ball on the head, he has been hit by a ball travelling 850km/h + the speed I threw the ball with? I don't think physics work that way. It is rather the other way around, for example a jetfighter firing a medievil cannon would actually be hit by the cannonball as the muzzle velocity would be too low to even keep up with the speed the fighter is travelling at.

 

Yes and no.   Your passenger is traveling at 850km/h to begin with so the speed at which you throw the ball is the only speed that matters as you and the passenger are in motion at the same speed.  If your passenger was on the side of the road and you went by and didn't throw, but dropped a ball as you flew past, that ball, if striking your stationary friend, would probably kill him at that speed, even though you dropped the ball. While if stationary and dropping the ball it simply lands at your feet. 

 

It's the same logic thinking you can jump at the last second from a falling elevator and save your life.  If the elevator is falling at 80mph, you are also falling at 80 mph.  So while you may be able to jump near the end and even get yourself off the ground of the elevator, you will still be traveling at almost identical speed downward as the falling elevator in the 1st place.

[unreasonable]

Taking the facts of the ground war into account, I find it hard to believe that any T34 or JS tanks were killed outright by a 37mm round (let alone anything less) unless the tank was hit on the top deck. Or bounced the shell off the road into the belly This is not to cast any particular doubt on Rudel's record, I am sure most of his tank kills were light armour and/or top hits.

 

After all, the 37mm gun was considered completely ineffective against heavy armour types in a ground role by the german army, either as a towed AT gun or turret mounted: which is why the standard AT gun was upgraded as fast as possible to 50mm (and then again to 75mm) after heavy Russian tanks were encountered. Even the long barreled 50mm gun had trouble knocking out Russian heavy tanks.

 

Now if we could mount the 88mm in a plane, we could have some serious fun...

[JtD]

The airborne 37mm gun used special ammunition, which was expensive. For ground use, it was more economical to use a larger gun with a heavier round. A bigger gun also was more versatile and could engage at longer ranges. Additionally, ground units would usually face the front of the tank, or whichever side the tank commander chose to present, whereas air unit could chose the direction of the attack. Armour penetration of the 37mm Hartkerngeschoss was well over 100mm at normal shooting distances, at 90° impact, and in excess of 50mm at 60°. That's absolutely sufficient for penetration, even against heavier tanks.

 

I, again, recommend the German WW2 ammo bible. It contains a lot of useful info.

Edited December 30, 2013 by JtD

[unreasonable]

The airborne 37mm gun used special ammunition, which was expensive. For ground use, it was more economical to use a larger gun with a heavier round. A bigger gun also was more versatile and could engage at longer ranges. Additionally, ground units would usually face the front of the tank, or whichever side the tank commander chose to present, whereas air unit could chose the direction of the attack. Armour penetration of the 37mm Hartkerngeschoss was well over 100mm at normal shooting distances, at 90° impact, and in excess of 50mm at 60°. That's absolutely sufficient for penetration, even against heavier tanks.

 

I, again, recommend the German WW2 ammo bible. It contains a lot of useful info.

 

Tanks and ground units had APCR too, but this in no way guaranteed kills with such a small caliber round. And if ground units are shooting at the front of a tank they have probably got their tactics wrong, unless they are in something like a Tiger.  And 50mm probably will not do it against a T34 unless you hit a particular spot. After all to kill a tank with a 37mm or 50mm shell usually took more than one penetrating hit, sometimes several. But a rear attack hitting the top deck will give a good chance of a mobility kill at the least.  So even if some penetrating hits were made on front/side/rear armour the probability is that the vast majority of effective hits (see, I am not unreasonable) on heavy tank types were top deck or top of the turret.

[Fifi]

I finished reading stuka pilot only a couple days ago, the slope on a T-34 is the same thickness and angle all over the upper half of the tank(Except turret ofcourse)

 

Maybe Fifi misread back as the engine grills on the top rear, which were open for heating purposes and was a fairly vulnerable, and important target.

 

Google a little (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen9.htm) and you'll find exact same accounts i gave:

 

Rudel developed new tactics for Panzerstaffels. He found that the best way to knock out tanks was to hit them in the back (T-34's rear mounted engine and its cooling system did not permit the installation of heavier armor plating) or the side. Interesting fact is that attacking the back of the tank meant that the plane had to come from the rear flying towards friendly territory - great advantage if the plane got damaged during the attack. 

 

From first site i checked   ...plenty others.

So i didn't misreaded, and French translate was good.

And yes, he said frontal attacks vs T34  were uneffective with his 37mm.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Fifi

[Fifi]

Tanks and ground units had APCR too, but this in no way guaranteed kills with such a small caliber round. And if ground units are shooting at the front of a tank they have probably got their tactics wrong, unless they are in something like a Tiger.  And 50mm probably will not do it against a T34 unless you hit a particular spot. After all to kill a tank with a 37mm or 50mm shell usually took more than one penetrating hit, sometimes several. But a rear attack hitting the top deck will give a good chance of a mobility kill at the least.  So even if some penetrating hits were made on front/side/rear armour the probability is that the vast majority of effective hits (see, I am not unreasonable) on heavy tank types were top deck or top of the turret.

 

Yes he used APCR (tungsten hard core) 37mm heads against tanks.

They penetrate rear/ low sides armors and then exploded inside.

519 tanks blowed this way!

Edited December 30, 2013 by Fifi

[JtD]

...And if ground units are shooting at the front of a tank they have probably got their tactics wrong, unless they are in something like a Tiger...

With an AT gun, your tactics are limited to wait and see...and preferably to fire first.

 

And 50mm probably will not do it against a T34 unless you hit a particular spot. After all to kill a tank with a 37mm or 50mm shell usually took more than one penetrating hit, sometimes several.

50mm is well enough to penetrate nearly all of the T-34 armour in a normal attack run. And yes, usually it would require several hits to achieve a kill, which is why they used two guns and did several passes against the same target, conditions permitting.

Even the less sloped armour on the sides of the IS-2 could be penetrated, as could the rear and top armour, depending on attack angle, but this is a completely different, much harder target than a T-34.

Given that the vulnerable area on top of the tank was larger than the sides, and penetration was less dependent on the facing of the vehicle, you're probably right in that at least against an IS-2 most of the effective hits came from hits on the top armour from reasonably steep dives. However, given that the G-2 had no dive brakes, there were limits to that, too.

[unreasonable]

Just to clarify one point: if you look at a tank from the front at some angle, say 45%, most of what you can see (and therefore what you can hit) is the front plate or the front of the turret. You can also see the top of the turret and maybe just a little of the rear deck, say 33% of the visible aspect depending on your angle. So this is what you are going to hit.

 

If you approach from the rear at the same angle you see the top of the turret as before, the rear plate and the whole of the rear deck. So you are going to get a lot more deck hits with a rear approach. The rear plate takes up say 33% of the visible area, the rest is top.

 

Assuming that a deck hit has a considerably higher chance of causing effective damage than a hit on front or turret armour, the rear approach is going to get a much higher proportion of effective hits than a frontal attack.

 

Edit - just seen your last post which addresses the same point. Anyway off for early new year's drink - but I would love to have a hundred dead tanks lined up to see what actually killed them!

Edited December 30, 2013 by unreasonable

[Kurfurst]

20mm aircraft cannon had typically a penetration of of 20-25 mm at very ideal conditions (90 degree hit, which almost never occurs in RL and point blank range of 100 meters). Even the more powerful 20 mm, like the German 2cm FlaK cannon which I have figures for could not do better than 35mm. Special ammo, like tungsten cored AP rounds could help somewhat, but there are other factors.

 

In German guns, very rounds were actually AP, 1 in 5 for the Mauser 151/20 series, and two other which could be considered more or less as SAPI, with even less penetration. Other than the lightest of tanks, you will not even achieve penetration with these. Even the earliest German mediums like the Pz III/IV and related assault guns, sported 20 mm of side armor, which may or may not be penetrated and in any case this was beefed up later to 30 mm in response to widespread soviet use of AT rifles. 

 

Secondly, the lethality of tiny 20 mm rounds, and especially APCR rounds was not great, they just make tiny holes in the plate, and may or may not injure or kill the crew inside. There was IIRC an incident in the Finno-Soviet war, when one Soviet T-26(?) was shot up badly by "friendly" fire of AT rifles, and even with something like 50-100 penetrating hits, all they got was a p***ed off tank crew. AP rounds do not explode inside, typically they are just solid pieces of metal, and may do little once inside. They may damage or may even cause the engine to fail, or hole the tank. But apart from an immobility kill, its pretty much a waste of ammo unless you are shooting tankettes or armored cars... even the 23 mm cannon of the Il-2 was marginal for the role. It could work against side/top armor, but there were no guarantees.

 

There was a reason while dedicated tank hunters appeared. Their 30-37 mm cannons and larger were the absolute minimum for tank hunting. These were wielded however by dedicated units, at least on the German side, used an instant fire brigades to stop Soviet tanks that broke deep into the frontline. Otherwise it was just so much easier to shoot up and bomb supply trucks and depots. A tank without fuel or ammo is just a big piece of expensive metal...

[Fenris]

Google a little (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen9.htm) and you'll find exact same accounts i gave:

 

Rudel developed new tactics for Panzerstaffels. He found that the best way to knock out tanks was to hit them in the back (T-34's rear mounted engine and its cooling system did not permit the installation of heavier armor plating) or the side. Interesting fact is that attacking the back of the tank meant that the plane had to come from the rear flying towards friendly territory - great advantage if the plane got damaged during the attack. 

 

From first site i checked   ...plenty others.

So i didn't misreaded, and French translate was good.

And yes, he said frontal attacks vs T34  were uneffective with his 37mm.

Except that's exactly what I said he said, he shot the rear upper plate, which wouldn't be visable from a frontal attack. He even mentions the side, so that was Rudels preferred method of attack.

Another pilot's quote "The T-34 had sloping armor so we had to attack it from a high angle and then it was like cheesecake.  So for the T-34, from the front was best." when he flew the 37mm Junka.

[beepee]

20mm aircraft cannon had typically a penetration of of 20-25 mm at very ideal conditions (90 degree hit, which almost never occurs in RL and point blank range of 100 meters). Even the more powerful 20 mm, like the German 2cm FlaK cannon which I have figures for could not do better than 35mm. Special ammo, like tungsten cored AP rounds could help somewhat, but there are other factors.

 

In German guns, very rounds were actually AP, 1 in 5 for the Mauser 151/20 series, and two other which could be considered more or less as SAPI, with even less penetration. Other than the lightest of tanks, you will not even achieve penetration with these. Even the earliest German mediums like the Pz III/IV and related assault guns, sported 20 mm of side armor, which may or may not be penetrated and in any case this was beefed up later to 30 mm in response to widespread soviet use of AT rifles. 

 

Secondly, the lethality of tiny 20 mm rounds, and especially APCR rounds was not great, they just make tiny holes in the plate, and may or may not injure or kill the crew inside. There was IIRC an incident in the Finno-Soviet war, when one Soviet T-26(?) was shot up badly by "friendly" fire of AT rifles, and even with something like 50-100 penetrating hits, all they got was a p***ed off tank crew. AP rounds do not explode inside, typically they are just solid pieces of metal, and may do little once inside. They may damage or may even cause the engine to fail, or hole the tank. But apart from an immobility kill, its pretty much a waste of ammo unless you are shooting tankettes or armored cars... even the 23 mm cannon of the Il-2 was marginal for the role. It could work against side/top armor, but there were no guarantees.

 

There was a reason while dedicated tank hunters appeared. Their 30-37 mm cannons and larger were the absolute minimum for tank hunting. These were wielded however by dedicated units, at least on the German side, used an instant fire brigades to stop Soviet tanks that broke deep into the frontline. Otherwise it was just so much easier to shoot up and bomb supply trucks and depots. A tank without fuel or ammo is just a big piece of expensive metal...

 

Nice post Kurfurst!  It was full of information and argued the original point that:

 

german 20mm not able to destroy small tanks intentional

 

Thank you to everyone that has included references as to where they got their information (especially links to primary resources). I feel that I have learned quite a bit from reading this thread, and adding the links really does strengthen a point of view.

Edited December 30, 2013 by =TFK=Beeps

[Fenris]

Put a longer barrel on those 20mm and you're reaching up to penetrate(barely) the side of a Sherman tank

[Rama]

but it still need a track this was a towing setup, the drive wheels need the track to turn those other wheels.

In fact, Some tanks with christie suspension could run on roads or relative flat areas without tracks, by placing a chain driving the wheels (cranking between the wheels) if the proper crank was fitted. BT7 were faster on roads with the chain than with the tracks. This wasn't a towing setup.

Conversion between tracks and chain driving was done in around 30mn.

[MiloMorai]

Google a little (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen9.htm) and you'll find exact same accounts i gave:

 

Rudel developed new tactics for Panzerstaffels. He found that the best way to knock out tanks was to hit them in the back (T-34's rear mounted engine and its cooling system did not permit the installation of heavier armor plating) or the side. Interesting fact is that attacking the back of the tank meant that the plane had to come from the rear flying towards friendly territory - great advantage if the plane got damaged during the attack. 

 

From first site i checked   ...plenty others.

So i didn't misreaded, and French translate was good.

And yes, he said frontal attacks vs T34  were uneffective with his 37mm.

[ImPeRaToR]

You have to consider that tank kills in the LW only counted if the tank was on fire so attacking from the rear had the best chance of igniting it since the fuel tank and engine were there and easiest to hit. It does make sense though, disabling the engine or tracks or forcing the crew to bail out just means that it will be immobile for a day or two and will be towed/repaired over night and back in action the next day.

Edited December 30, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[Finkeren]

You have to consider that tank kills in the LW only counted if the tank was on fire so attacking from the rear had the best chance of igniting it since the fuel tank and engine were there and easiest to hit.

I have a hard time believing that only "flamers" were counted as ground kills by the LW for one simple reason: The majority of all Soviet AFVs ran on diesel which is hard to ignite and harder to keep burning.

[ImPeRaToR]

http://luftwaffe.cz/tank.html

 

Not that many pilots got a lot of tank kills though, and I read some speculations some time ago that Rudel also counted none-flamers explaining his much higher kill count.

 

Ammo will also ignite btw.

 

 

Also, many of the pilots above probably didn't fly the typical "tank buster" aircraft like the Ju87G series or the 129. Many of the lower ones with 40 and less seem to have flown regular Stukas, Bf109, Bf110 and Fw190s, so they achieved their kills with bombs and bomb-containers.

Edited December 30, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[Finkeren]

It still seems a strange criterium to use, when we know that a diesel fueled vehicle will very seldom burst into flames, even after being almost completely destroyed. It just doesn't make sense to count kills based on a type of damage result, that will only occur in a small minority of cases.

 

What I've read seems to indicate, that most airforces considered any AFV that was observed to be abandoned by the crew as a "kill". The VVS even seems to have sometimes counted even immobilisation as a kill.

[ImPeRaToR]

afaik I might be remembering it wrong, but I recall reading about LW pilots being unhappy about these criterias for the exact reasons you mention, as it would required "overkill" with cannons to claim them. They would have to make many passes putting themselves at risk from ground fire, as well as expending their valuable ammunition on tanks that are already hors de combat when they could be engaging more threatening targets. On the other hand, just immobilising a tank usually ment that it was back in action on the next day, so it was only useful for delaying actions.

 

Most of my ww2 reading was done prior to ROF so most of it has been a while

Edited December 30, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[Klaue]

Christie suspension, allowing to run on tracks or without.

S! not correct tracks run from the final drive unit sprocket rear of tank.no tracks no movement.

[MiloMorai]

S! not correct tracks run from the final drive unit sprocket rear of tank.no tracks no movement.

 

yes the original Christie could run with no tracks.

[Finkeren]

I also lifted an eyebrow over the statement "Not that many pilots got a lot of tank kills" after presenting a list showing scores of pilots with over 20 kills and half a dozen with over 100!

 

100 tanks is half a German panzer division by 1941 standards, all wiped out by a single pilot.

[Rama]

S! not correct tracks run from the final drive unit sprocket rear of tank.no tracks no movement.

 

yes the original Christie could run with no tracks.

 

With a wheel chain to drive the wheels, as explained in previous post.

[ImPeRaToR]

I also lifted an eyebrow over the statement "Not that many pilots got a lot of tank kills" after presenting a list showing scores of pilots with over 20 kills and half a dozen with over 100!

 

100 tanks is half a German panzer division by 1941 standards, all wiped out by a single pilot.

Half a dozen is only half a tank-buster squadron though, and there were four Hs129 staffeln in SG 9 and at least one dedicated Panzerjägerstaffel in each of StG 1 2 and 3 respectively - StG 77 might've had one as well.

[Finkeren]

Half a dozen is only half a tank-buster squadron though, and there were four Hs129 staffeln in SG 9 and at least one dedicated Panzerjägerstaffel in each of StG 1 2 and 3 respectively - StG 77 might've had one as well.

 

Add to that number the other 45 who were credited with over 50 tank kills and it's enough to destroy an entire Red Army front several times over.

 

Remember that the vast majority of combat pilots in WW2 (indeed in any war) never got a single kill (air or ground) for obvious reasons. Given the small number of dedicated "panzerschlachtflieger"s in the LW, I think the list you linked to is very impressive indeed, especially when we also factor in, that only a small minority of tanks destroyed were the result of air attack and the overall difficulty of knocking out tanks with airborne weapons in WW2.

 

There is no doubt a good deal of overclaiming in those numbers, but even taking that into account, the results of the Luftwaffes "panzerknäckers" is still impressive. Even more so, because it was done almost entirely with either unguided bombs, which were very hard to deliver precisely or airborne guns, which were barely adequate to penetrate the armour of contemporary AFVs.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Finkeren

[ImPeRaToR]

It is difficult to say which of these top 20-30 pilots served in dedicated Panzerjägerstaffeln though, at least not from that list of units.

 

Not sure what we are arguing about though, either way it is indeed very impressive but many of these guys also survived a lot of sorties. One of them even claimed 11 air kills flying the Ju87...

 

http://luftwaffe.cz/bauerh.html

[Finkeren]

The only point I really argued was the thing about the use of "flamers" as a criterium used by the LW to determine tank kills. I simply don't think it would have been workable in reality.

[MiloMorai]

It is difficult to say which of these top 20-30 pilots served in dedicated Panzerjägerstaffeln though, at least not from that list of units.

 

Not sure what we are arguing about though, either way it is indeed very impressive but many of these guys also survived a lot of sorties. One of them even claimed 11 air kills flying the Ju87...

 

http://luftwaffe.cz/bauerh.html

 

Wasn't Bauer.

 

Herbert Bauer was credited with 11 aerial victories, including one (1) flying the Ju 87 Stuka and 10 flying the Fw 190, in 1,071 missions.

[Georgio]

One thing to bear mind with the T34 is that the sloping armour actually helps an air attack as your angle of hit is more at 90 degrees than a ground height attack.

Just a thought.

 

One thing It could possibly be, is that the front armour was at more of an angle than the back, so rounds might deflect rather than penetrate. But I am only guessing here.

[SKG51_robtek]

Regarding Diesel fuel,

for shure it is much harder to ignite than petrol, but once burning it burns much hotter it is much harder to extinguish.

I.e. kerosene is again much harder to ignite than diesel, but look at any aircraft crash what happens once the right temperature is reached.

[bivalov]

One thing to bear mind with the T34 is that the sloping armour actually helps an air attack...

yes, i thinking something like this starting from playing in "steel fury", similar things with german vertical armor/soviet sloped armor are in ground combats, but for planes vs. tanks looks like it's much more actual...

 

Regarding Diesel fuel,

for shure it is much harder to ignite than petrol, but once burning it burns much hotter it is much harder to extinguish.

recently i had discussion with my friend about fuel tanks of t-34 vs. mk-101, well, looks like by official soviet tests/reports blow up fuel tanks was very not easy, but personally i still not understand about possibility of burning of diesel fuel ie concrete conditions...

 

theoretically, this is could be in some conditions, mainly with hits of 50-75 mm shells too, although i think what this can be and 30/37 mm shells...

[Sternjaeger]

Diesel detonates because of compression, so an explosion from an HE round penetrating a fuel tank could potentially blow it up.

[SKG51_robtek]

Diesel detonates because of compression, so an explosion from an HE round penetrating a fuel tank could potentially blow it up.

A Diesel-air mixture explodes when the temperature has risen (caused by compression) enough.

A HE round penetrating a diesel tank would shurely rupture the tank and generate a easily ignitable (by spark or hot exhaust) fuel-air mixture.

[beepee]

One thing to bear mind with the T34 is that the sloping armour actually helps an air attack as your angle of hit is more at 90 degrees than a ground height attack.

Just a thought.

S! Georgio. I had not taken that into account.  To be honest I based my guess on how I attacked armour with canon in IL2:1946, which was low and from the rear. So, yeah, considering that does not even take teh DM into account, you could say I was being unrealistic at best.

 

[Finkeren]

A Diesel-air mixture explodes when the temperature has risen (caused by compression) enough.

A HE round penetrating a diesel tank would shurely rupture the tank and generate a easily ignitable (by spark or hot exhaust) fuel-air mixture.

It could potentially do that, though it would be hard to keep the fire going once pressure and temperature falls again a moment later.

 

I have no numbers on this, but I'll bet that a good number of Soviet tanks claimed destroyed by pilots, propably just had one of their auxilluary tanks blown away. I've read accounts of Soviet tank crews having one of the diesel drums on the outside of the armour shot away. They would then simply stop the tank, wait 'till the attack was over, get out to put out any fire there might be and carry on.