Hans Rudel 2

[Vishnu]

 

I’ve almost finished his book, and have spent some time trying to take out tanks with the dual 3.7cm cannons.  

 

He says many times he sets multiple tanks on fire, if not actually brewing them up.    I spent several hours trying to duplicate this with unlimited ammo and the best I was able to do was make them smoke, or track them.   I tried from all angles.  Especially high and from the rear. 

 

What convergence did he use,  how hard is it to make them blow up?  Curious as to how he did it so often. 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Propably a modelling issue. The 37mm tungsten core ammo could easily penetrate T-34 armor and do serious damage to crew and internal parts. Penetration for ammo was 100mm. 

[easterling77]

I would guess the same.

Recently I finished the ICE Ring SC and in one of the last missions you are tasked with halting a german armoured assault in a town.

 

There I could take out several Panzer III's and IV's with the 23mm canons bei aiming flat at the lower hull (betwen uper and lower Tracks)

 

I know kinda blunt comparison (other tank and other canon) but experiencing this makes me thinking that the definitely higher energy of a 37mm tungsten AP shell should get a reasonable penetration at certain parts of the T34 hull by getting the correct angles.

 

But sure I have to test my speculations first for flying the 87 very seldomly.

[ROCKET_KNUT]

Quite an interesting talk on the subject of arial anti tank warfare in WW2. How much of it is considered in game? Dunno.

 

 

 

[cardboard_killer]

6 hours ago, Vishnu said:

He says many times he sets multiple tanks on fire, if not actually brewing them up.  

 

Well, he says he did.

 

3 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

Penetration for ammo was 100mm. 

 

At the perpendicular and within 100 meters. Penetration rapidly fell off with range due to the small projectile.

[easterling77]

1 hour ago, ROCKET_KNUT said:

Quite an interesting talk on the subject of arial anti tank warfare in WW2. How much of it is considered in game? Dunno.

 

 

 

very acurate and informative?

 

My guessing only based on "possibility in the sim" - The actual facts mentioned in the speech can't be ignored.

 

In the sim we all are masters?

 

[Robli]

We don't really know what kind of tanks these were that Rudel is referring to in his book. T34's also often carried external fuel tanks, so I guess these could blow up pretty impressively. In general, Rudel aimed for engine, as the armor is thinnest there and also where is engine there is fuel, so higher chance of setting it on fire. 

Here is footage of Ju-87 G1 guncam, you can see that some of the splashes are quite impressive, even when the shots miss. Don't know what kind of ammo is used in these footage.

 

Speaking of our game, I this Stuka is quite good for killing light and medium tanks. I approach from the rear and aim the engine compartment and often just two shots (4 rounds) from close range take them out. 

[Cybermat47]

It's worth remembering that the memory cheats, especially when you're zooming around at over 200km/h in a high-stress situation. A good example of this is Operation Goodwood, where Typhoon pilots claimed to have destroyed 222 tanks. Post-battle analysis could only confirm 10 of their claims.

 

It should also be remembered that Rudel is known to be a heavily biased source due to his post-war activities.

[PatrickAWlson]

As mentioned above - big difference between claims and reality.  This applies to air to air, air to ground, and everything else.  I seriously doubt that Hartman shot down 352 planes and Rudel killed over 500 tanks.  I seriously doubt that Robert Johnson shot down 28 planes or Eddie Rickenbacker shot down 26.  I am not disparaging the pilots, just stating that claims are pretty much universally optimistic.  Therefore, if the sim is accurate, you probably should not be able to recreate the claims of historical pilots, since their claims are almost certainly not accurate.

 

If Rudel was shooting out engines then odds are pretty good that most of his kills were mission kills and not destroyed.  Mission kills are very valuable and take a lot of skill to achieve, so again, not disparaging the pilot (originally typed "the man" - the man really does need to be disparaged) or his ability.  Just is what it is.  An engine fire will generally not destroy a WWII tank.

 

Finally, the damage model on the AI tanks is not all that, nor is the games evaluation of results.  A kill means 100% damage achieved in the game- all or nothing.  Back to the previous point - in real life leaving a tank smoking and halted was a kill.  The fact that it got towed to a depot an hour later and was back in action in two days doesn't mean anything.

 

That does give me a PWCG idea ... award tank kills for less than 100% damage.  Anybody know what damage level it takes to get a stopped and smoking tank?

[Calos_01]

I don't fly Stuka very often, so this may be a stupid question. Do we have this type of missions (hunting tanks with 3,7 cm guns) in in-game Stuka career?

[PatrickAWlson]

31 minutes ago, Calos_01 said:

I don't fly Stuka very often, so this may be a stupid question. Do we have this type of missions (hunting tanks with 3,7 cm guns) in in-game Stuka career?

 

The 37mm wasn't available until 1943, so if it's there then it would probably be Kuban

[PatrickAWlson]

3 minutes ago, senseispcc said:

Rudel was a convicted Nazi and a big liar how was shot down six time, if you read his full book? Lucky? Or really not believable?

 

Lucky.  I don't think he sawed off his own leg just to tell a tall tale. 

 

BTW - what did you think was so comical about the 37mm coming into use in 1943?  If that was funny then I need to be looking at a post retirement career in standup.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, Calos_01 said:

I don't fly Stuka very often, so this may be a stupid question. Do we have this type of missions (hunting tanks with 3,7 cm guns) in in-game Stuka career?

 

Not in the stock career mode, no.

[Robli]

I don't fully understand the claims that Rudel was biased or that he was lying. OP did not even ask about his war score, but about if the tank should burn with flames, like Rudel claims in his book to have happened, or just emit smoke. Sure, he was most probably over-claiming like almost every ace from every nation when it comes to air-to-ground kills, but where is the proof that he was more biased or was "lying" more than other ground attack pilots?

[MisterSmith]

Make your case/arguments without the politics, please.

 

Smith

[Legioneod]

11 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

As mentioned above - big difference between claims and reality.  This applies to air to air, air to ground, and everything else.  I seriously doubt that Hartman shot down 352 planes and Rudel killed over 500 tanks.  I seriously doubt that Robert Johnson shot down 28 planes or Eddie Rickenbacker shot down 26.  I am not disparaging the pilots, just stating that claims are pretty much universally optimistic.  Therefore, if the sim is accurate, you probably should not be able to recreate the claims of historical pilots, since their claims are almost certainly not accurate.

 

If Rudel was shooting out engines then odds are pretty good that most of his kills were mission kills and not destroyed.  Mission kills are very valuable and take a lot of skill to achieve, so again, not disparaging the pilot (originally typed "the man" - the man really does need to be disparaged) or his ability.  Just is what it is.  An engine fire will generally not destroy a WWII tank.

 

Finally, the damage model on the AI tanks is not all that, nor is the games evaluation of results.  A kill means 100% damage achieved in the game- all or nothing.  Back to the previous point - in real life leaving a tank smoking and halted was a kill.  The fact that it got towed to a depot an hour later and was back in action in two days doesn't mean anything.

 

That does give me a PWCG idea ... award tank kills for less than 100% damage.  Anybody know what damage level it takes to get a stopped and smoking tank?

I don't know about Rickenbacker but I do think Johnson did shoot down 27 aircraft. He was originally credited with 28 but post war analysis only confirmed 27.

The way Americans confirmed airkills during the war (8th AAF anyways) was through guncam and eyewitness accounts so theres not much room for error imo. Of course not all claims were accurate but I'd bet most claims were.

Hub Zemke talks about how they confirmed kills in his book after he shot at a 190. "On more sober reflection I realized I had to enter a 'probably destroyed' claim for the Fw 190 attacked and await expert evaluation of the gun camera film. Evaluation of combat film was carried out at VIIIth Fighter Command where I learned  my claim had been reduced to a 'damaged' credit. Later, during a visit to 'Ajax', the evaluation officer told me I was lucky to even get a 'damaged'

Point being is that the accuracy of the claim imo depends on how the claim was evaluated before being awarded.

Sorry if this is a bit OT.

[Vishnu]

Did more experimenting today.  Managed to blow up a T34.   As, well many armoured vehicles disabled by engine strikes or tracked.  

 

Found the convergence that seems to work best today for me was 250 m.   I’ll experiment further later in the week  Lower than that I was getting too close and ended up destroying the tank with my plane. ?

 

Definitely finding that practice is the best weapon. 

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, Robli said:

I don't fully understand the claims that Rudel was biased or that he was lying. OP did not even ask about his war score, but about if the tank should burn with flames, like Rudel claims in his book to have happened, or just emit smoke. Sure, he was most probably over-claiming like almost every ace from every nation when it comes to air-to-ground kills, but where is the proof that he was more biased or was "lying" more than other ground attack pilots?

 

There are a lot of reasons to doubt Rudel as a narrator.

 

Rudel was a major propaganda figure during the war... and we know that, with things like tank crews, kill claims were often roughly estimated for propaganda purposes but were often not actually tracked by the crews. So it is quite likely that his kill claims were partly invented by the propaganda apparatus.

 

Post-war he made use of his 'war record' and had an incentive not to correct it. Many of the claims about him (e.g. about his influence on the A-10) are also clearly inflated.

 

While avoiding politics, I will point out he was also something of an unrepentant fanatic until the end of his days - which might colour his accounts.

[PatrickAWlson]

@Legioneod There must have been a ton of room for error.  American fighter overclaims were, shall we say, non trivial.  So was overclaiming by everybody else.  Just too hard to get it right at 400 MPH where following a EA down, even just visually, could be tantamount to suicide.  I have seen plenty of gun cam footage and the vast majority is not conclusive.  Now some shows a wing being blown off or the plane going up in flames, but most of the film shows some strikes but it's impossible to determine if it was fatal.  The plane leaves the frame and who knows what happens next.  

 

The most accurate claims that I have ever seen are von Richthofens, with somewhere in the high 60s being pretty close to definite and another 10 or so ranging between probably and maybe.  4 awarded victories were incorrect.  I think Voss was wrong at least 8 times out of 48 and we won't even go anywhere near Bishop.  WWI combat was happening at half the altitude and less than half the speed.  It just wasn't an exact thing.

 

Back on topic - air kills over tanks - probably even worse.  A relatively quick pass on a tank.  AA reaching up.  You might have been able to observe some hits but final results would have been pretty rare as you are not loitering around to see the results.  Which is why it's not that shocking when people can't replicate historical claims in game.  

7 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

There are a lot of reasons to doubt Rudel as a narrator.

 

Rudel was a major propaganda figure during the war... and we know that, with things like tank crews, kill claims were often roughly estimated for propaganda purposes but were often not actually tracked by the crews. So it is quite likely that his kill claims were partly invented by the propaganda apparatus.

 

Post-war he made use of his 'war record' and had an incentive not to correct it. Many of the claims about him (e.g. about his influence on the A-10) are also clearly inflated.

 

While avoiding politics, I will point out he was also something of an unrepentant fanatic until the end of his days - which might colour his accounts.

 

I agree with the idea that almost everything about him was inflated and that his book is probably more than a little colorful.  Also agree that he was a vile example of humanity.  But he did lose a leg and get back in a plane not too long after, which is pretty remarkable.

[Avimimus]

2 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Back on topic - air kills over tanks - probably even worse.  A relatively quick pass on a tank.  AA reaching up.  You might have been able to observe some hits but final results would have been pretty rare as you are not loitering around to see the results.  Which is why it's not that shocking when people can't replicate historical claims in game.  

 

We certainly see this with the 2nd Tactical Airforce! Kill overclaiming (often unintentional and honest) in air-to-air combat is often at least 2 to one... in air-to-ground combat it might be closer to 95 to 1 in some cases (at least where tanks are concerned)...

 

 

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

'Bismark' is always down on UK stuff and remarkably sympathetic to the German narrative.

 

@PatrickAWlson - an Allied pilot with good claim verification is possibly McCudden as he brought down a lot of German recce aircraft and hence normally close to the front lines.

[Eisenfaustus]

Rudel had like any warrior an incentive to inflate his own contribution - so being as sceptical as with any claim of success makes sense. We further know that for ground attack pilots overclaiming (propably most of the time in good faith) was worse then for fighter pilots - where it already was substantial. 
 

But we on the other hand have an incentive to be more critical of Rudel then of other pilots as we see him as a despicable person. Unfortunately being an evil bastard says nothing about your competence as a warrior. Nazi Germany usually chose competent soldiers as propaganda even if they weren‘t loyal party members - like Marseilles. So Rudel propably was an extraordinary combat pilot. 
 

I think its fair to assume that his claims are as (in-)accurate as any ground attackers claims. 
 

As for national differences: For fighters western Allies and Germans seemed to overclaim roughly at the same rate inspite of guncam footage - but I have no idea how accurate soviet or Japanese claims were. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Over-claiming likely averaged as fairly standard across most forces in the 2:1 - 4:1 range. The Bergström books make it quite clear that the VVS was no different in this regard. Not sure about Japan, but common sense says that it was likely similar. The difference is also authority tolerance (or even encouragement) of over-claiming. This seems to have varied by force and time-period. Better to underestimate.

 

Most claims were likely made in optimistic good faith. Some pilots seem to have been more enthusiastic than others and some down-right fraudulent.

Edited May 17, 2022 by EAF19_Marsh

[Alexmarine]

9 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Over-claiming likely averaged as fairly standard across most forces in the 2:1 - 4:1 range. The Bergström books make it quite clear that the VVS was no different in this regard. Not sure about Japan, but common sense says that it was likely similar. The difference is also authority tolerance (or even encouragement) of over-claiming. This seems to have varied by force and time-period. Better to underestimate.

 

Most claims were likely made in optimistic good faith. Some pilots seem to have been more enthusiastic than others and some down-right fraudulent.

 

A little extract from Osprey's MS406 Aces to show that sometimes it wasn't even the pilot fault for overclaims, and more the result of decisions from above:

 

 "at the beginning of the

World War 2, to enhance l’esprit d’équipe, the Headquarters of the Armée de l’Air decided that all pilots belonging to a patrouille (whatever the

number of aircraft involved) should be awarded a full victory. That is why a Bf 109 shot down on 22 November 1939 was confirmed and attributed to

no fewer than eight pilots of two different Groupes, each one being awarded a full victory (in the USAAF each pilot would have been credited with

0.125 of a victory). Of course, each Groupe (GC I/3 and GC II/6) was awarded only one victory, but that was already one too many in the overall total."

[EAF19_Marsh]

Yep, I can imagine as good for morale. There was a Do.17 shot down on 18th August 1940 that - IIRC - was claimed about 6 times. US bomber gunners claimed a jaw-dropping number of German fighters. And there are quite a few Luftwaffe aces where their claims are seen as possibly downright lies.

 

Oddly, RAF claims over France in first half of 1941 are lower than actual German losses, which is quite the exception. Second half of the year they go way overboard. Not sure why.

Edited May 17, 2022 by EAF19_Marsh

[357th_KW]

3 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@Legioneod There must have been a ton of room for error.  American fighter overclaims were, shall we say, non trivial. 

 

 

There seems to have been a lot of variance between air forces and theaters.  There are a ton of examples of wild overclaims in the pacific from both sides.  But looking at 8th AF fighters in the ETO, we tend to see the opposite.  For instance, in November of 1944 there were four major battles fought deep in Germany between the 8th AF and the Luftwaffe, with no possibility of other Allied forces being involved. 

 

November 2nd - US escort fighter claims: 102-6-25  German interceptor losses: 133

November 21st - US escort fighter claims: 68-7-22  German interceptor losses: 86

November 26th - US escort fighter claims: 114-3-31  German interceptor losses: 122

November 27th - US escort fighter claims: 98-4-11  German interceptor losses: 110

 

US bomber gunner claims during these battles were uncharacteristically low, as the Luftwaffe was barely able to reach them, totaling claims for 53-46-39 over the four days.  Looking at earlier data for the bombers from un-escorted raids they trended towards a very high (6:1 or so) overclaim rate.  The fighter claims are shockingly good in this case, especially considering that each of these raids was a huge battle involving thousands of aircraft.

 

Data for this comes from Caldwell's work. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by VBF-12_KW

[Freycinet]

Also, Rudel flew before the latest Il-2 update which nerfed the cannons. It was much easier to rack up impressive scores back when he played the sim.

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

There seems to have been a lot of variance between air forces and theaters.  There are a ton of examples of wild overclaims in the pacific from both sides.  But looking at 8th AF fighters in the ETO, we tend to see the opposite.  For instance, in November of 1944 there were four major battles fought deep in Germany between the 8th AF and the Luftwaffe, with no possibility of other Allied forces being involved.

 

That is astonishingly accurate, though German losses I presume are losses of all kinds during the concurrent time-frame, ie not necessarily those engaged.

[Calos_01]

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Not in the stock career mode, no.

Thank you, Luke.

[Avimimus]

10 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

'Bismark' is always down on UK stuff and remarkably sympathetic to the German narrative.

 

Well, I was mainly pointing out these videos because they refer to original sources and the difficulty of interpreting them.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Interpretation is multi-faceted. Needs to start from a neutral position.

[Eisenfaustus]

12 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

'Bismark' is always down on UK stuff and remarkably sympathetic to the German narrative.

While he obviously is German I haven't noticed German bias - examples?

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

While he obviously is German I haven't noticed German bias - examples?

For some people it is already bias, if someone doesn't tell the biased stories of the victors.

The poor performance of the German aircraft weapons against tanks doesn't sound very German biased to me.

But, of course he said, that the Allied aircrafts were not very effective against German armor, too. So this definitely must be German bias.

This is like Rudel and all German asses must be lying, but of course what Allied pilots tell is purely the truth.

[ACG_Bobo]

BK's in Great Battles are effective.  Like Mr. Vishnu says, it takes practice and the right conversion for your style.  The more practice the better.  Ground level turbulence can make the job difficult, but on a smooth day you can kill a tank with each pass, with practice.
Go on Steel Skies server and shoot up the tank columns for practice.

[Avimimus]

25 minutes ago, III./SG77-K_Bobo said:

BK's in Great Battles are effective.  Like Mr. Vishnu says, it takes practice and the right conversion for your style.  The more practice the better.  Ground level turbulence can make the job difficult, but on a smooth day you can kill a tank with each pass, with practice.
Go on Steel Skies server and shoot up the tank columns for practice.

 

The advice I got on the forums was basically to fire at very close ranges, at the right angle (e.g. as close to 90 degrees as possible), aim near the engine compartment, and to get off multiple rounds. Once I had that advice I could kill medium armour with the Bk.37 and Mk-101/103. However, mobility kills were much more likely than actually causing the tank to explode. I'm actually rather glad that they decided to count mobility kills by aircraft as kills... which makes sense to me.

 

It also isn't easy. Conditions have to be perfect, the run on the tank has to be pretty close to suicidally target fixated, and there is no guarantee that even a good run will succeed in lighting the tank on fire. I suspect this is quite realistic.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Avimimus

[Yogiflight]

13 hours ago, Avimimus said:

The advice I got on the forums was basically to fire at very close ranges, at the right angle (e.g. as close to 90 degrees as possible), aim near the engine compartment, and to get off multiple rounds.

I am definitely not good with the Ju 87, but with the Hs 129, equipped with the MK101, I usually get my tank kills, by attacking T-34s from the side, aiming at the upper hull, under the turret. You have the correct angle, if you see the hull over a fortified position, which of course only works if the tank is inside of one, and, as you said, shoot at short range. Those rounds lose penetration performance very fast.

I have no idea why, but I am not good in attacking from the rear.

For the KV-1, I attack from the side, very low, aiming for the lower hull, again under the turret.

[MisterSmith]

I've changed my mind about merging as that would cause problems of it's own. I changed the title of this one and will lock it per Rule 9, rather than deleting or merging. Both Rudel threads have been moved to this sub-forum.

 

Smith