Ground unit loses due to air attacks ranged from 1-2%, due to all sides effectively using terrain, camouflage, weather and the night. Although their psychological impact and impediment to movement was significant. The biggest killer of both tanks and infantry was artillery. Upwards of 70% of casualties in WW2 were caused by artillery. As Napoleon said God fights on the side with the best artillery. There was a difference in implementation for all sides. The Germans separated their batteries out and due to poor communication, low supplies and fear of air attack often fired in piecemeal. The soviets concentrated theirs in large groups to fire simultaneously, though being a tempting target this method overcame their poor communication system and lack of experienced artillerymen to dial in coordinates. The US and commonwealth forces dispersed their artillery. However they had excellent radio sets/supplies/artillerymen and could coordinate simultaneous barrages for extended periods of time. Perhaps you could do a video on the topic?
I think an overall video also on ww2 artillery like the one he did on ww1 would be cool. Everybody talks about ships, tanks and planes, but nearly every army had a somewhat efficient artillery
while writing a paper on geographical impact on warfare in the Italian campaign during WW2 i cam across interesting information about an american attack on the Rapido river. A relatively narrow river but with the german side heavily fortified, bridges destroyed, artillery dialed in (similar to the way described in the vidoe on german artillery tactics) with german observers correcting fire to make it even more accurate that one little river turned into a death zone for the 36th Texas division. And even tho allied artillery was far more numerous and fired a lot more shell due to poor fire control their effect was negligent even tho they expanded a lot more ammunition.
This was clearly not the case. Different sides suffered differently, either due to variable use of air support or variable efficiency of it. The latter is precisely the point of this video. Different armies utilised air attacks with different success. During Op. Cobra Panzerlehr lost half of tanks due to inital bomber runs. During Mortain only few German tanks were destroyed from air. The difference lies in different planes and tactics. 600 heavy bomber concentration was effective against everything, while Allied assault planes weren't against armour.
I consistently find it amusing that this long after the fact, we might be closer to the truth than reports 30 days after. Additionally, I get a kick out of the fact that cutting edge history communication is happening over youtube. Not the future I expected, but then neither did I expect to be commended for my antisocial habits by the British Prime Minister.
@@kirbyculp3449 no, Lauri Törni. There was 3 mil Finnish mark reward from his head as well offered by Russian's communist broadcaster Moskovan Tiltu (It was common for Finnish solders to listen that propaganda for good laughs since it wasn't forbidden).
I can concur that the Stuka was a terrible threat. My Grandfather was a boy sailor on an RN Reserve infantry landing ship which was in the Crete campaign. The Stukas would dive bomb with incredible accuracy, seeming to hang in the air as they came down almost vertically, making adjustments as they came to counter the vessels' manoeuvring. He saw two fast destroyers hit and sunk; after they had disembarked their troops his ship was picking up the survivors.
@chris younts The Allies were evacuating Crete and did not have local airfields to fly from. The Germans had air superiority, which is why they were able to use Stukas.
chris younts - Often times they did not fly without good fighter escort cover. In Battle of Britain they withdrew Stuka since Luftwaffe were loosing not only aircraft, but also a pilots across “the pond”, but over their own turf it was not an “easy prey”.
Roman Töppel - My family came under Stuka attack at Smolensk in 1941, it was scary and deadly. - So was Ju-87 consider by German to be a Sturmovick or just a “bomber”(be it a dive bomber)? I do know that StG-2 Immelmann was remained to SG-2 Immelmann in 1943, so what is your opinion? Dive bomber or Sturmovick?
I wonder about the effects of "spoiling attacks." That is, an attack on an enemy that is mustering for its own attack, to break up the preparations, and delay the enemy attack. Attack aircraft would be very useful, if not to destroy the tanks, but to disrupt their preparations, destroy the soft targets around them. Edit: OK, 1:40 answers that.
2 года назад+1
Wieder ein sehr interessantes Interview. Herr Töppel kennt sich wirklich aus :)
I remember watching news reports daily showing the amazing new super accurate bombs being used... I think it was during the Yugoslav war. Then reports slowly came out stating they weren't quite as effective as they thought. A huge explosion on a bridge looked great on video... until the dust settled and you see that it actually missed... and made a nice hole in the dirt near the bridge.
There is one fact of the myth. He flew over 2500 combat missions, most in an already obsolete aircraft. Ask any pilot what that many sorties actually means.
In Normandy 1944 Wehrmacht soldiers including Panzer crews called attacking Allied planes "Jabos" it' s in the book "Sie kommen" "They are coming" (German side of D-Day and afterwards in Normandie. I've learnt after that JABOS comes from German JAGDBOMBERS FLUGZEUG (l'avion chasseur - bombardier fr.)
If memory serves me correctly when John Boyd (the OODA loop guy) started on designing the next generation of american attack craft the air force analyzed alot of combat data from WW2 and determined one of the best attack craft was the p58 lightning. They found that rockets and bombs were highly ineffective BUT cannons were pretty accurate. This the A-10 was born. A plane with a huge canon, capable of lengthy loiter time, and able to take some serious damage. I'm not 100% sure what studies they used to determine this but it might be worth looking into if you're trying to determine the effectiveness of CAS in ww2. At least as far as late war on the western front it concerned.
@Jimmy De'Souza as I know the A-10 was made out of the german Hs-129 especially the B-3 model and the soviet IL-2. Because as you said correctly the american had no real ground attack aircraft and this two were the most advanced and most battle effective models during the war.
@Jimmy De'Souza oh well then it was my mind talking to me ;) And no I'm not using only Wikipedia. The skyraider looks like older fighter bomber aircrafts of US and if I read correctly was based on such an aircraft and changed to a ground attack aircraft - so not especially build from the desk for this purpose but it's close enough I give you that. But it was initially designed as dive and torpedo bomber - not as ground attack and horizontal attack aircraft - minus for that. And it got into service after the war so I'm still correct with my statement that in ww2 the USA had no real ground attack aircraft. Now the similarities between the aircrafts: look at the Hs-129 B-3, oh wow it has one really big gun under his belly! What has the A-10 in its belly? One fucking big gun. Has the skyraider a really big gun under its belly? Nope. The Henschel concept was especially made for horizontal attacks with low altitude and because of that well armored - the A-10 is made for low altitude horizontal attacks and well armored, too. The IL-2 was even better armored and late in war used in horizontal attacks. Yes, the wings look really familiar but that's because they are both loaded to the limit with rockets and straight - wait who invented rockets under the wings? Oh yes, german fighters in WW2, sry again USA. So although rockets weren't used by the Hs-129 (only maschine guns, cannons and bombs/cluster bombs) it's adopted from german design. And you can go further, the Hs-129 has two engines, the A-10 has two engines, the skyraider has one engine. The Hs-129 got into service 1942. So I can argue all day that every aircraft made for ground attack of the US was made out of the Design of the Hs-129.
well, the thing with cannons being prefered in WW2 is a bit logical. Bombs have a much higher payload, but they suffer from two problems: 1. Limited area/payload. You drop a bomb, make a crater, but that crater is negligeable compared to the length of a column for example. Even if you hit a car, you mostly just one car. Cannons might not have the same payload, but you can fire multiple bursts which is extremely effective in dealing with large enemy formations, especially if we are talking about non-armoured targets. And with a powerful enough cannon, even the top engine deck cover on tanks might be penetrated. When you are dealing with large collumns you get to fire multiple bursts and make multiple passes. This means you can destroy more targets and the effect on enemy morale increases drastically. And, as a bonus, if you get in a thight situation, you may also use the cannons against an enemy airplane. 2. Accuracy. Or, better said, ease to aim. Cannons are easier to aim flying parallel to the ground. For WW2 standard bombs, you need to have a divebomber to expect accuracy. Rockets are a bit in between, but they are relatively low payload and still not easy to aim. The thing is, by the time A-10 got into service and in modern era, those two problems have kind been solved. A-10 and Su-25 are best examples of this. More the SU-25. Having ATGMs is a great way to deal with tanks from above. And unguided munitions have also developed, allowing fragmentation ammunition to devastate a whole area with a single bombrun. The GAU is already a bit overkill and too good for itself. One has to consider that in low level flying the plane experiences a lot of vibrations, and even more so for the jets, due to the aircurrents going up and down from the heated or cool soil. GAU is so powerful you cannot fire for a long time or the plane would become uncontrollable due to the vibrations. Mind you, the ariplane is a self contained medium. Unlike a machine gun, which transfers vibrations into the ground, the structure of the airplane has to take the recoil and transfer it to itself. Any guy who wants to mount anything bigger than a GAU on an airplane is just wasting gouvernment money
Reality is none of them are replaced, in fact. German sources are also extremely unreliable...... Everything said, the Germans still unable to crush the Soviets. They keep saying how effective thier air force, tanks and infantry are supposedly vastly superior than the soviets, who are made up of peasants and workers. Look how effective the Stukas, their Tigers, Stugs, how so many Soviets raised their hands to the Germans. How unreliable the Soviet sources are, bitter irony.....
Luftwaffe: "We destroyed 100 Russian tanks!" Russian tanker: "Those poor cattle." Goebbels: "A Russian tank division was utterly destroyed!" Russian tank mechanic: "German gun put hole in tank. Blacksmith Mischa make patch so the tank crew go kill Nazis."
I went to college with a guy who's family was friends with a German veteran (he'd moved to California after the war). He said that the vet reported that being attacked by Western aircraft was much worse than by Soviets. The Russians would fly over, drop their bombs, and go. The Americans and Brits would hang around after dropping bombs & rockets and just shoot anything they could find until they ran out of ammunition.
I can believe that. The USSR barely had air superiority until relatively late in the war well the Western Allies had air supremacy by D-Day. The USAAC and RAF guys didn't worry about enemy fighters, just flak and likely light caliber flak over units in the field.
Researching Rudel's wartime record, accurately, because he was flying against orders. His sorties not documented and kill claims were assigned to the squadron. As for kills from the air, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Pilots have no way to know if tanks were recovered and repaired. Reports of destroyed tanks would reflect those not recoverable and or completely destroyed.
Despite the very likely possibility that every Kanonenvogel in the air was "Rudel" to the ground forces, weren't planes not marked with numbers and recognizable nose-art or other markings making it possible to identify a certain pilot even from the ground?
to in a museum stand 300 m away from a Stuka and tell me what you can see, now add that someone is shooting at you, that thing is moving... and yeah, 300 m is way too close.
Great topic! I always wonder about the actual interplay of forces. History shows always focus mostly on infantry vs. infantry, tanks vs. tanks, airplanes vs. airplanes, etc. Plus "anti" weapons are usually portrayed as if whatever they were made to destroy suddenly became obsolete because they are only remembered in battles where they made a huge difference.
Interesting. I remember reading on the Dupey Institute's forums about the Hs-129 attack where someone was writing up their research findings (I think this was 2006-2009 timeframe) and saying that the attack really wasn't as effective as previously thought and that the Soviet tank tank losses from that brigade were more likely to be attributed to Das Reich's panzers and panzerjaegers than the HS-129s.
I tried hitting a stationary T-34 in a Hs-129 with the MK103 in War Thunder using Joystick from the sides. I tried for half an hour and only managed to score two penetrating hits, and thats with War Thunders penetration system that gives the 30mm APCR round far too much sloped armor penetration. Obviously it's a lot easier with cannons than with rockets but then you need to hit a plate near vertical in order to score a penetration and the cannon is either overkill against lightly armored targets or less effective against soft targets.
If you want really bad overreporting of damage by pilots, look at the Pacific war. Some of the reported losses are just comical when you hear about them, particularly when more ships or aircraft are reported destroyed than were even present on site.
I think air attacks were more about reducing the operational effectiveness of a unit rather than physically destroying the tanks themselves. As Bernard has shown in other videos, the strength of effective tank formations on all sides lay in their integration of infantry, artillery and logistical elements. Air attacks, especially with cannons, will penetrate and damage lightly armoured vehicles, half-tracks and trucks of these supporting elements. Destroying, damaging, and even dispersing these units would have a serious negative effect on the combat readiness of an armoured formation. From a psychological perspective an air attack also overwhelms the capabilities of the officers and command elements. If an armoured unit is manoeuvring into a start-position for an attack, this is a serious tactical operation, coming under air attack at this moment would likely seriously disrupt this and perhaps cause officers to focus on regrouping the unit rather than preparing for an immediate attack as they had been planning.
And I'd say a tank abandoned by a panicked crew counts as a kill. We know that has happened from Poland in 1939 to this day. In many ways both tank and air attacks took over the psychological warfare task the cavalry charge had for over a thousand years. Plenty of units that on paper were fine if they kept formation with their spears or bayonets broke and ran from the mere sight and sound of a line of charging horsemen.
If you consider the basic ballistics of the 37mm gun (Stuka Kanonen) and standard roof/top armor for Soviet/German tanks (15-25mm), there should be no problem getting penetration. There are all kinds of other variables, but if you consider the Stuka with twin 37mm diving at up to 70 degrees on targets, I think it's quite reasonable to believe many tank kills were obtained.
In the frontline areas if your enemies aircraft are doing attacks on you then how long till the artillery starts ripping you apart? Consider the aircraft a early warning?
It would be good guess on the attackers side as being attacked by aircraft means you have been spotted and your location has been broadcasted to the enemy, soon artillery may follow those pesky aircraft taking potshots at your formation.
@@Salesman9001 I imagine that added to the psychological impact. Just as you recover from air attack the artillery comes in. A unit might handle one type but both on top of each other would cause a rout.
So in short, close air support was extremely important in nullifying tanks both tactically and operationally at tearing up supply lines. It seems to me everyone focuses on strategic bombing but misses the trees through the woods to reverse a saying and that actually the "tactical" close air support made a huge difference in combat strategically, talking purely as a weapon terms, was the weapon which won the war
Did you also review the Allied reports and film of aerial attacks? There is so much footage from the US and British aircraft, chiefly Thunderbolt and Typhoon. They sure look effective when they are setting trains on fire.
Bernard question to you or Roman - did Stuka considered by Luftwaffe to be a bomber or rather a “Sturmovick”? How about other ground attack aircraft. For that matter how did Luftwaffe divide on classes military aircraft. For example in US of A it was three main category - “B”(bombers) examples B-17, 24, 25, 26 and 29. Persuit(Fighters if it’s Navy F-4F, F-6F, F-8F) P-38, 39, 40, 47 and 51. “A” for attack(Sturmovicks) A-20, 24, 26 and dive bombing A-36 Apache(based on P-51). P.S. I did watched that episode where you explained Stuka tactics with “Flivo” and “Koluft”.
Can you do a video on the effectiveness of various aerial bombs on tanks (what tnt mass bombs were required to destroy what tanks, how close did various bombs have to land to have an effect, etc) .
During the Soviet summer attack against Finland in 1944 the Stukas and Focke-Wulfs of the flight section Kuhlmey proved very effective. In the dense forests and waterways of the Karelian isthmus the tanks of the Soviet Armored Guards Brigades had to pack side by side where ever they managed to find space for assembly before the attack thus providing a solid "lump" of immobile target for the Kuhlmey's dive bombers. There are several descriptions how "the 500kg bombs had thrown 30-ton tanks, AA-guns and fuel trucks all around the forest.. seemed like a giant child would have bored and scattered his toy army to smithereens.. Some of the vehicles had cut down several large tree trunks while flying through the air tens of meters from the blast.."
10:35 How should they know it was Rudel? - well Rudel in Stuka Pilot mentions several times that they dropped massage capsules and chokolate to land troops...
500 kg Stuka bombs are definitely more effective against tanks, than 23 mm cannons and 100 kg IL-2 bombs. Also diving bombers were much more precise than any russian bombers or sturmovik. Tank is a relatively small target and this is very hard to hit it precisily.
@@PeasantNo.471 yes, and support columns sometimes were totally destroyed by IL-2. Tanks cannot do much whithout fuel, food and ammo supplies. Also they need artillery and infantry support.
No, nothing like the Red Baron during WWI. Moreover, Rudel changed his plane very often, because he was frequently hit by AA guns during his missions and his plane was damaged. He then just took the next combat-ready plane for the next mission.
Interesting video and sure, it is highly plausible that claims were exaggerated. Given that though, why did both sides in the east continue to invest in these aircraft if they did not have an effect beyond the morale impact of air superiority (which can be achieved without tank destroyers)? Why bother with AP rockets and large cannons on your IL2 if they are ineffective? Equally for the 37mm armed Stuka which carried just a handful of rounds? Were mobility kills a common enough result with engine or tracks knocked out?
In respect of the Il-2 cannons etc., I suspect the cause would be that the Soviet air units (like the ground units) routinely lied about effectiveness. One old Soviet general said to Christopher Lawrence of the Dupey Institute that units would routinely exaggerate enemy losses by 65% at least as a matter of policy to avert high command displeasure.
My educated guess is that direct attacks against tanks were of negligible effect in the big picture. But if you can clear out the majority of the supply trucks and the lighter AFVs, then the wear and tear and various kinds of attrition on the properly armored tanks goes way up. So hunting *vehicles* is a great tactic. Perhaps these nominal tank hunter aircraft were not optimized, but they surely did work well enough for broad vehicle hunting. I could believe that a Stuka in the hands of a skilled pilot would be an exception to my generalization. However Stukas are slow and suffer a lot of losses when the Luftwaffe is not in control of the skies.
@@ComradeOgilvy1984You'd have to find losses of softskins and personnel in those air attacks to be sure that air attacks had decisive effects. The combat reports that I've seen from German units at Zitadelle indicate that Soviet air attacks were usually of nuisance value without hitting a lot. I would think that the value of air attacks, even if materially ineffective, was to disrupt operations and force formations to disperse.
@@Wien1938 Yes, I think the issue is dispersion, especially when it comes to larger scale movement. I suspect the airpower is more important at the operational level, where after one engagement, an entire corps may find itself in a hurry to move 100 miles through a very limited number of roads to be in position for the coming battle. In those situations, the side with air superiority can cause a lot of damage to vehicles important for maintaining supply. The formation can disperse the trucks and go slower, or they can hide during daylight hours and go slower. This, I believe, the main reason (so called) "Blitzkrieg" offensives have a track record of requiring air superiority for success. If your enemy is competent enough to reposition to counter your thrusts as fast as you can make them, then the offensive momentum peters out. Deny the defender full use of a few key roads for daylight hours, and their counterattacks slow and supply situation worsens as they are forced to react and move.
True all tanks were "tigers" on west front...but remember turret skirts gave the panzer 4 a Tiger-like profile. Which may explain this to some degree. I suspect both armies unfamiliarity with enemy weapons often lead to mis- identification. So.. what really knocked out tanks?
It's like walking in the jungle in India. If you think there is a tiger by that bush it's best to act like there is a tiger by that bush. Because if there really is a tiger...
Alright, I'm willing to cede the point that aircraft attacks on tanks were not terribly effective, at least with unguided rockets and bombs. However, I cannot comprehend the effort spent into making ground-attack aircraft and especially anti-aircraft vehicles if the main effect of aircraft on ground forces was merely 'morale'.
What is on the outside of the airplane may not truly reflect who is in the airplane. I believe in his book Erich Hartman's book The Blonde Knight, that they sometimes allowed rookie pilots to fly his plane so the Russians would run away from 'the plane'. tomorrow I'll dig out my Rudel book and see if I can find something in there about him not having any special insignia on his plane....
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPACT OF MORALE. The whole battle of France was won because the French did not have the morale to carry on. Neither them, nor the Brits. If they would have been told to stay still and fight, like the Russians at Sevastopol, Royal Airforce would have been able to provide air cover over dunkirk and they could have called in the Home Fleet to help with artillery barages and transport supplies and reinforcements. Carriers could have helped with ASW and limited air coverage of supply fleet. And mind you, that's only the British I am speaking of now. The French had a great mass of troops in North Africa. They could have brought them in. Plus, they didn't take that many losses in the Battle of France either. They just had to hold on until the lines were solidified. And the German soldiers were actually exhausted even before the Dunkirk pocket. But the two mightiest nations in the world lost morale and gave up. Again: NEVER UNDERESTIMATE MORALE.
the difference between German/Soviet tactics and Allied was that Allied had very small army, like british army was 5% of German and Soviet and was not in action until, 1944, except of little Africa campaign. So they have time to equip and train this small army, while Soviets with 11 mil.army as well as Germans did not have time for proper training and equipment
I've question about the attack aircrafts and their "importance". The germans and the russians put a lot of effort into Tank Hunter aircrafts. At the Same time the Western allies "only" used fighters in this role. As you and The Chieftain Said, those Airplanes where of "minor" effect on armored vehicles. But at the same time there where some Western allies airplanes THAT could have fullfilled this role. The Mosquitos for example. They where used with the 57mm QF 6 Pounder in a Anti Ship/Submarine role. They where also capable of really precice bombing. Or the Beaufighter with QF 2 Pounder if i remember correctly. Did the Western allies realized this or did they just thougt the existing Planes where enough?
Not at all an expert on the subject but could the vastness of the "playing field" in Russia and on the seas make an airplane cannon more versatile compared to the risk of encountering flak when in denser areas, like northern France? Just a thought.
@@sssxxxttt OK. But they used Thunderbolts, Thypoons and Lightnings for Groundstriking. And the Mosquito takes a lot more punishment than these aircrafts. I just don't understand that the Western allies, already outgunned by much heavier armed tanks, didn't came Up with a hart hitting groundstriker.
The British had the Hurricane IID with two 40mm anti-tank guns. It served in the tank buster role in North Africa, but was later relegated to bunker busting in Burma. Rockets were preferred as the aircraft returned to normal effectiveness after loosing the ordnance, so wasn't nearly as vulnerable.
The armaments available for WWII aircraft were not terribly effective against tanks of the late war. Rockets could breach armor but were notoriously inaccurate. Dive bombing was little better.
B-36 sized CAS plane sporting 8 pairs of push-pull W22 engines (16 total), 120mm thick aluminium armored fuselage and armed with pair of selfloading 37cm canons. It would have been everything Germany needed to win WW2, even if they had resources to produce just one.
Man kann sich vorstellen Sie die beide im Deutschen die Konversation zu führen, und das Video mit Englischen Subtiteln zu kommen. Sie wären ganz frei mit den Frasen, Namen, usw, und ein Gourmet vom Geschichte wie ich, bekäme eine Möglichkeit das Deutchkenniß zu polìeren. Bedanke mich.
9:50 The SS soldier "knew" this, because during the battle of Kursk Rudel had the only "official" _Kanonenvogel_ ! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87#Ju_87G _"On the opening day of the offensive, Hans-Ulrich Rudel flew the only "official" Ju 87 G, although a significant number of Ju 87D variants were fitted with the 37 mm (1.46 in) cannon, and operated as unofficial Ju 87 Gs before the battle."_
I haven't said this happened during the Battle of Kursk. The soldiers was referring to the fightings in the Siedlce area in Poland in the summer of 1944.
@@romantoppel2330 Oh, okay. My bad. Das muss ich wohl überhört haben. But I can see how this caught on, when Rudel was *officially* the only one with a _Kanonenvogel_ at one time.
@@3gunslingers he never was the only one, however during the battle of Kursk only one squadron flew ju 87 g variants (the ones fitted with 37 mm guns), with the CO being Rudel himself
Rockets are not " anti panzer" , low speed, not hollow charge, low weight... See Them as HE , not as anti panzer grenades. Bigger caliber cannons on Planes could Hurt tanks... The stuka with the cannonpacks...was the A 10 ...in that time..
So anti tank aircraft were more effective by the Germans, but mostly phycological overall. Lol Otto Carius gunner shot a Russian aircraft down with it's cannon, imagine that psychological hit.
So, I didn't actually research this, but did the Tiger get issued flak ammunition just in case, or did he hit a moving plane with a main shell? Also, wouldn't that mean the plane was flying far too low to be a safe strafing run? Tiger doesn't have a lot of gun elevation. Edit: researched it, Russian pilot, checks out for flying too low, and took 2 to hit. Incredible skill, but I suppose it did happen.
This had been my suspiction for a long time. Different air forces obviously had different tactics and different success with air attacks. It appears that, as usual, Germans likely turned out the best at it.
@@romantoppel2330 Wait until you're my age Roman, and are thinning on top. A ponytail with a bald patch is not a good look, so it had to go. That doesn't change my opinion that Motörhead are the finest band to ever grace this planet :-).
Were there any tests regarding the effectiveness of the BK 3,7cm (mounted or on the ground) against armored targets? (possibly a question for the Mil. Avi. guy)
those tests would be pointless. The purpose of mounting a gun on an aircraft was to hit the upper sides of the tank (like engine cover and turret roof) which were much easier to penetrate. In direct fire they would have stood no chance.
Please write a 'Myths of X" book. Complete with lots of source material. Having written literature that contains source info would likely be what's needed to break a lot of these myths finally.
In Normandy 1944 Allied workforces greatly exaggerated the number of German tanks they knocked out.As this video points out ,air attacks are incredibly demoralising , especially for those soldiers who don't have armour to protect them.There's an anecdote from an Allied airman flying over the Normandy battlefront; behind the Allied lines the roads were packed with vehicles,behind the German lines they were empty.
Well I didn't have sound in the video so I thought it was because of sound issues but it turns out it was on my end because my sound output was set to my TV instead of headset... ^_^
Good topic. I saw a documentary were a U.S. pilot (I believe he had been flying a P-47 Thunderbolt) was being interviewed about his action in Western Europe. He said "We learned that if you aim you machine guns just in front of a tank on a hard road, the rounds will bounce up into the tank's belly armor, injuring the crew." The Thunderbolt carried eight .50 caliber guns.
Maximum deflection of any projectile that retains ANY(workable) velocity is 15 degrees. The lost of velocity is at least 50%. In all most all cases 60 to 75 % lose of velocity. I can believe he(the U.S. Pilot) thought that. The reality, What a waste......
In that interview he said that there is a escape hatch at the bottom, that is where the bullets entered. The crew was injured by the bullets bouncing around inside.
Berhard - "Get my debating suit, We're talking about Kursk!"
You Sire, made my day. Bernhard suiting up like Barney !!
You should allways dress up before you visit the Doctor ;-)
Ground unit loses due to air attacks ranged from 1-2%, due to all sides effectively using terrain, camouflage, weather and the night. Although their psychological impact and impediment to movement was significant. The biggest killer of both tanks and infantry was artillery. Upwards of 70% of casualties in WW2 were caused by artillery. As Napoleon said God fights on the side with the best artillery. There was a difference in implementation for all sides. The Germans separated their batteries out and due to poor communication, low supplies and fear of air attack often fired in piecemeal. The soviets concentrated theirs in large groups to fire simultaneously, though being a tempting target this method overcame their poor communication system and lack of experienced artillerymen to dial in coordinates. The US and commonwealth forces dispersed their artillery. However they had excellent radio sets/supplies/artillerymen and could coordinate simultaneous barrages for extended periods of time. Perhaps you could do a video on the topic?
Great idea for an upcoming video. The use of combined arms by all armies would also make a very interesting topic maybe.
I think an overall video also on ww2 artillery like the one he did on ww1 would be cool. Everybody talks about ships, tanks and planes, but nearly every army had a somewhat efficient artillery
I thought Napoleon said God was on the side with the biggest battalions.
while writing a paper on geographical impact on warfare in the Italian campaign during WW2 i cam across interesting information about an american attack on the Rapido river. A relatively narrow river but with the german side heavily fortified, bridges destroyed, artillery dialed in (similar to the way described in the vidoe on german artillery tactics) with german observers correcting fire to make it even more accurate that one little river turned into a death zone for the 36th Texas division. And even tho allied artillery was far more numerous and fired a lot more shell due to poor fire control their effect was negligent even tho they expanded a lot more ammunition.
This was clearly not the case. Different sides suffered differently, either due to variable use of air support or variable efficiency of it. The latter is precisely the point of this video. Different armies utilised air attacks with different success.
During Op. Cobra Panzerlehr lost half of tanks due to inital bomber runs. During Mortain only few German tanks were destroyed from air. The difference lies in different planes and tactics. 600 heavy bomber concentration was effective against everything, while Allied assault planes weren't against armour.
I consistently find it amusing that this long after the fact, we might be closer to the truth than reports 30 days after.
Additionally, I get a kick out of the fact that cutting edge history communication is happening over youtube.
Not the future I expected, but then neither did I expect to be commended for my antisocial habits by the British Prime Minister.
So, does your name say it all? ;)
"A bounty on his head, the red army wants him dead, soviet enemy number one" song about someone else, but I couldn't resist
About Rudel?
@@kirbyculp3449 no, Lauri Törni. There was 3 mil Finnish mark reward from his head as well offered by Russian's communist broadcaster Moskovan Tiltu (It was common for Finnish solders to listen that propaganda for good laughs since it wasn't forbidden).
I can concur that the Stuka was a terrible threat. My Grandfather was a boy sailor on an RN Reserve infantry landing ship which was in the Crete campaign. The Stukas would dive bomb with incredible accuracy, seeming to hang in the air as they came down almost vertically, making adjustments as they came to counter the vessels' manoeuvring. He saw two fast destroyers hit and sunk; after they had disembarked their troops his ship was picking up the survivors.
@ I dance for pennies: Thank you, this is very interesting!
@chris younts The RAF was nowhere to be seen.
@chris younts The Allies were evacuating Crete and did not have local airfields to fly from. The Germans had air superiority, which is why they were able to use Stukas.
chris younts - Often times they did not fly without good fighter escort cover. In Battle of Britain they withdrew Stuka since Luftwaffe were loosing not only aircraft, but also a pilots across “the pond”, but over their own turf it was not an “easy prey”.
Roman Töppel - My family came under Stuka attack at Smolensk in 1941, it was scary and deadly.
- So was Ju-87 consider by German to be a Sturmovick or just a “bomber”(be it a dive bomber)? I do know that StG-2 Immelmann was remained to SG-2 Immelmann in 1943, so what is your opinion? Dive bomber or Sturmovick?
When will people talk about Wehrmachts Catering Corps ace, Hans-Ulrich Strudel. Man with record of handling over 500 parties.
The Chieftain also has an interesting video on the topic in general.
I wonder about the effects of "spoiling attacks." That is, an attack on an enemy that is mustering for its own attack, to break up the preparations, and delay the enemy attack. Attack aircraft would be very useful, if not to destroy the tanks, but to disrupt their preparations, destroy the soft targets around them.
Edit:
OK, 1:40 answers that.
Wieder ein sehr interessantes Interview. Herr Töppel kennt sich wirklich aus :)
I remember watching news reports daily showing the amazing new super accurate bombs being used... I think it was during the Yugoslav war. Then reports slowly came out stating they weren't quite as effective as they thought. A huge explosion on a bridge looked great on video... until the dust settled and you see that it actually missed... and made a nice hole in the dirt near the bridge.
Nice arguments, seems there is more to know. Thanks for al that research and the good interviews.
There is one fact of the myth. He flew over 2500 combat missions, most in an already obsolete aircraft. Ask any pilot what that many sorties actually means.
In Normandy 1944 Wehrmacht soldiers including Panzer crews called attacking Allied planes "Jabos" it' s in the book "Sie kommen" "They are coming" (German side of D-Day and afterwards in Normandie. I've learnt after that JABOS comes from German JAGDBOMBERS FLUGZEUG (l'avion chasseur - bombardier fr.)
If memory serves me correctly when John Boyd (the OODA loop guy) started on designing the next generation of american attack craft the air force analyzed alot of combat data from WW2 and determined one of the best attack craft was the p58 lightning. They found that rockets and bombs were highly ineffective BUT cannons were pretty accurate. This the A-10 was born. A plane with a huge canon, capable of lengthy loiter time, and able to take some serious damage. I'm not 100% sure what studies they used to determine this but it might be worth looking into if you're trying to determine the effectiveness of CAS in ww2. At least as far as late war on the western front it concerned.
@Jimmy De'Souza well damn thank you for setting me straight sir! It would seem my memory did not serve me correctly at all! Lol
@Jimmy De'Souza as I know the A-10 was made out of the german Hs-129 especially the B-3 model and the soviet IL-2. Because as you said correctly the american had no real ground attack aircraft and this two were the most advanced and most battle effective models during the war.
@Jimmy De'Souza oh well then it was my mind talking to me ;)
And no I'm not using only Wikipedia. The skyraider looks like older fighter bomber aircrafts of US and if I read correctly was based on such an aircraft and changed to a ground attack aircraft - so not especially build from the desk for this purpose but it's close enough I give you that. But it was initially designed as dive and torpedo bomber - not as ground attack and horizontal attack aircraft - minus for that. And it got into service after the war so I'm still correct with my statement that in ww2 the USA had no real ground attack aircraft.
Now the similarities between the aircrafts: look at the Hs-129 B-3, oh wow it has one really big gun under his belly! What has the A-10 in its belly? One fucking big gun. Has the skyraider a really big gun under its belly? Nope. The Henschel concept was especially made for horizontal attacks with low altitude and because of that well armored - the A-10 is made for low altitude horizontal attacks and well armored, too. The IL-2 was even better armored and late in war used in horizontal attacks.
Yes, the wings look really familiar but that's because they are both loaded to the limit with rockets and straight - wait who invented rockets under the wings? Oh yes, german fighters in WW2, sry again USA. So although rockets weren't used by the Hs-129 (only maschine guns, cannons and bombs/cluster bombs) it's adopted from german design. And you can go further, the Hs-129 has two engines, the A-10 has two engines, the skyraider has one engine.
The Hs-129 got into service 1942. So I can argue all day that every aircraft made for ground attack of the US was made out of the Design of the Hs-129.
@Jimmy De'Souza okay you got me, I don't hear voices in my head :D
well, the thing with cannons being prefered in WW2 is a bit logical. Bombs have a much higher payload, but they suffer from two problems: 1. Limited area/payload. You drop a bomb, make a crater, but that crater is negligeable compared to the length of a column for example. Even if you hit a car, you mostly just one car. Cannons might not have the same payload, but you can fire multiple bursts which is extremely effective in dealing with large enemy formations, especially if we are talking about non-armoured targets. And with a powerful enough cannon, even the top engine deck cover on tanks might be penetrated. When you are dealing with large collumns you get to fire multiple bursts and make multiple passes. This means you can destroy more targets and the effect on enemy morale increases drastically. And, as a bonus, if you get in a thight situation, you may also use the cannons against an enemy airplane. 2. Accuracy. Or, better said, ease to aim. Cannons are easier to aim flying parallel to the ground. For WW2 standard bombs, you need to have a divebomber to expect accuracy. Rockets are a bit in between, but they are relatively low payload and still not easy to aim.
The thing is, by the time A-10 got into service and in modern era, those two problems have kind been solved. A-10 and Su-25 are best examples of this. More the SU-25. Having ATGMs is a great way to deal with tanks from above. And unguided munitions have also developed, allowing fragmentation ammunition to devastate a whole area with a single bombrun. The GAU is already a bit overkill and too good for itself. One has to consider that in low level flying the plane experiences a lot of vibrations, and even more so for the jets, due to the aircurrents going up and down from the heated or cool soil. GAU is so powerful you cannot fire for a long time or the plane would become uncontrollable due to the vibrations. Mind you, the ariplane is a self contained medium. Unlike a machine gun, which transfers vibrations into the ground, the structure of the airplane has to take the recoil and transfer it to itself. Any guy who wants to mount anything bigger than a GAU on an airplane is just wasting gouvernment money
Stalin: I'm very disappointed, these (commanders) should be "replaced". 🥺
Reality is none of them are replaced, in fact. German sources are also extremely unreliable...... Everything said, the Germans still unable to crush the Soviets. They keep saying how effective thier air force, tanks and infantry are supposedly vastly superior than the soviets, who are made up of peasants and workers. Look how effective the Stukas, their Tigers, Stugs, how so many Soviets raised their hands to the Germans.
How unreliable the Soviet sources are, bitter irony.....
@@ihatecabbage7270 I was joking, can you imagine Stalin being just disappointed?
@@SirAntoniousBlock damn, I didn't catch the joke. I thought someone written it down and published as fact.
Luftwaffe: "We destroyed 100 Russian tanks!"
Russian tanker: "Those poor cattle."
Goebbels: "A Russian tank division was utterly destroyed!"
Russian tank mechanic: "German gun put hole in tank. Blacksmith Mischa make patch so the tank crew go kill Nazis."
Otokichi786 speed holes. Go kill nazis faster
"Utterly", I see what you did there 😉😁
I went to college with a guy who's family was friends with a German veteran (he'd moved to California after the war). He said that the vet reported that being attacked by Western aircraft was much worse than by Soviets. The Russians would fly over, drop their bombs, and go. The Americans and Brits would hang around after dropping bombs & rockets and just shoot anything they could find until they ran out of ammunition.
I can believe that. The USSR barely had air superiority until relatively late in the war well the Western Allies had air supremacy by D-Day. The USAAC and RAF guys didn't worry about enemy fighters, just flak and likely light caliber flak over units in the field.
@@BigWillyG1000 Was going to point that out.
Super, wie immer
Researching Rudel's wartime record, accurately, because he was flying against orders. His sorties not documented and kill claims were assigned to the squadron. As for kills from the air, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Pilots have no way to know if tanks were recovered and repaired. Reports of destroyed tanks would reflect those not recoverable and or completely destroyed.
I'd love to see a movie about Rudel. His book was great.
Despite the very likely possibility that every Kanonenvogel in the air was "Rudel" to the ground forces, weren't planes not marked with numbers and recognizable nose-art or other markings making it possible to identify a certain pilot even from the ground?
to in a museum stand 300 m away from a Stuka and tell me what you can see, now add that someone is shooting at you, that thing is moving... and yeah, 300 m is way too close.
Great topic! I always wonder about the actual interplay of forces. History shows always focus mostly on infantry vs. infantry, tanks vs. tanks, airplanes vs. airplanes, etc. Plus "anti" weapons are usually portrayed as if whatever they were made to destroy suddenly became obsolete because they are only remembered in battles where they made a huge difference.
Interesting. I remember reading on the Dupey Institute's forums about the Hs-129 attack where someone was writing up their research findings (I think this was 2006-2009 timeframe) and saying that the attack really wasn't as effective as previously thought and that the Soviet tank tank losses from that brigade were more likely to be attributed to Das Reich's panzers and panzerjaegers than the HS-129s.
I tried hitting a stationary T-34 in a Hs-129 with the MK103 in War Thunder using Joystick from the sides. I tried for half an hour and only managed to score two penetrating hits, and thats with War Thunders penetration system that gives the 30mm APCR round far too much sloped armor penetration.
Obviously it's a lot easier with cannons than with rockets but then you need to hit a plate near vertical in order to score a penetration and the cannon is either overkill against lightly armored targets or less effective against soft targets.
If you want really bad overreporting of damage by pilots, look at the Pacific war.
Some of the reported losses are just comical when you hear about them, particularly when more ships or aircraft are reported destroyed than were even present on site.
I think air attacks were more about reducing the operational effectiveness of a unit rather than physically destroying the tanks themselves. As Bernard has shown in other videos, the strength of effective tank formations on all sides lay in their integration of infantry, artillery and logistical elements. Air attacks, especially with cannons, will penetrate and damage lightly armoured vehicles, half-tracks and trucks of these supporting elements. Destroying, damaging, and even dispersing these units would have a serious negative effect on the combat readiness of an armoured formation. From a psychological perspective an air attack also overwhelms the capabilities of the officers and command elements. If an armoured unit is manoeuvring into a start-position for an attack, this is a serious tactical operation, coming under air attack at this moment would likely seriously disrupt this and perhaps cause officers to focus on regrouping the unit rather than preparing for an immediate attack as they had been planning.
And I'd say a tank abandoned by a panicked crew counts as a kill. We know that has happened from Poland in 1939 to this day. In many ways both tank and air attacks took over the psychological warfare task the cavalry charge had for over a thousand years. Plenty of units that on paper were fine if they kept formation with their spears or bayonets broke and ran from the mere sight and sound of a line of charging horsemen.
Rudel seems to have hade a similar effect to that of the iraqi sniper Juba.
If you consider the basic ballistics of the 37mm gun (Stuka Kanonen) and standard roof/top armor for Soviet/German tanks (15-25mm), there should be no problem getting penetration. There are all kinds of other variables, but if you consider the Stuka with twin 37mm diving at up to 70 degrees on targets, I think it's quite reasonable to believe many tank kills were obtained.
10:45 Those who believe in the Rudel shall receive the gifts of the Rudel.
The last time I was in first was when the Germans were still winning on the Eastern front!
you mean Tannenberg? :P
@@Weste88 😆
In the frontline areas if your enemies aircraft are doing attacks on you then how long till the artillery starts ripping you apart? Consider the aircraft a early warning?
It would be good guess on the attackers side as being attacked by aircraft means you have been spotted and your location has been broadcasted to the enemy, soon artillery may follow those pesky aircraft taking potshots at your formation.
@@Salesman9001 I imagine that added to the psychological impact. Just as you recover from air attack the artillery comes in. A unit might handle one type but both on top of each other would cause a rout.
So in short, close air support was extremely important in nullifying tanks both tactically and operationally at tearing up supply lines. It seems to me everyone focuses on strategic bombing but misses the trees through the woods to reverse a saying and that actually the "tactical" close air support made a huge difference in combat strategically, talking purely as a weapon terms, was the weapon which won the war
So how many of these videos do you have in the archives that haven't been published yet?
If he's like me with my vacation videos there is likely tons of footage that he just hasn't had time to edit
Did you also review the Allied reports and film of aerial attacks? There is so much footage from the US and British aircraft, chiefly Thunderbolt and Typhoon. They sure look effective when they are setting trains on fire.
Yes but here it's about planes vs. tanks. Of course a train is much bigger, and easier to destroy than a tank.
Is there any documentation on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the PTAB shaped charge bomblets of the Il-2?
Bernard question to you or Roman - did Stuka considered by Luftwaffe to be a bomber or rather a “Sturmovick”? How about other ground attack aircraft. For that matter how did Luftwaffe divide on classes military aircraft. For example in US of A it was three main category - “B”(bombers) examples B-17, 24, 25, 26 and 29. Persuit(Fighters if it’s Navy F-4F, F-6F, F-8F) P-38, 39, 40, 47 and 51. “A” for attack(Sturmovicks) A-20, 24, 26 and dive bombing A-36 Apache(based on P-51).
P.S. I did watched that episode where you explained Stuka tactics with “Flivo” and “Koluft”.
Let the Cannon Bird fly! Wanna get me some Stukas for my Flames of War army.
Can you do a video on the effectiveness of various aerial bombs on tanks (what tnt mass bombs were required to destroy what tanks, how close did various bombs have to land to have an effect, etc) .
During the Soviet summer attack against Finland in 1944 the Stukas and Focke-Wulfs of the flight section Kuhlmey proved very effective. In the dense forests and waterways of the Karelian isthmus the tanks of the Soviet Armored Guards Brigades had to pack side by side where ever they managed to find space for assembly before the attack thus providing a solid "lump" of immobile target for the Kuhlmey's dive bombers. There are several descriptions how "the 500kg bombs had thrown 30-ton tanks, AA-guns and fuel trucks all around the forest.. seemed like a giant child would have bored and scattered his toy army to smithereens.. Some of the vehicles had cut down several large tree trunks while flying through the air tens of meters from the blast.."
10:35 How should they know it was Rudel? - well Rudel in Stuka Pilot mentions several times that they dropped massage capsules and chokolate to land troops...
Lion tigers and bears oh my
500 kg Stuka bombs are definitely more effective against tanks, than 23 mm cannons and 100 kg IL-2 bombs. Also diving bombers were much more precise than any russian bombers or sturmovik. Tank is a relatively small target and this is very hard to hit it precisily.
Il 2 was good for strafing infantery
@@PeasantNo.471 yes, and support columns sometimes were totally destroyed by IL-2. Tanks cannot do much whithout fuel, food and ammo supplies. Also they need artillery and infantry support.
Rudel could have had a emblem or special paint job on his plane.
No, nothing like the Red Baron during WWI. Moreover, Rudel changed his plane very often, because he was frequently hit by AA guns during his missions and his plane was damaged. He then just took the next combat-ready plane for the next mission.
@@romantoppel2330 Thanks for the info. My friends father flew F4's. He would fly over our block at about 800ft and wave.
Interesting video and sure, it is highly plausible that claims were exaggerated. Given that though, why did both sides in the east continue to invest in these aircraft if they did not have an effect beyond the morale impact of air superiority (which can be achieved without tank destroyers)? Why bother with AP rockets and large cannons on your IL2 if they are ineffective? Equally for the 37mm armed Stuka which carried just a handful of rounds? Were mobility kills a common enough result with engine or tracks knocked out?
In respect of the Il-2 cannons etc., I suspect the cause would be that the Soviet air units (like the ground units) routinely lied about effectiveness. One old Soviet general said to Christopher Lawrence of the Dupey Institute that units would routinely exaggerate enemy losses by 65% at least as a matter of policy to avert high command displeasure.
IL-2s built with 37mm were quickly sent out of the frontline, since they were almost useless. But rockets and PTABs were appreciated by pilots
My educated guess is that direct attacks against tanks were of negligible effect in the big picture. But if you can clear out the majority of the supply trucks and the lighter AFVs, then the wear and tear and various kinds of attrition on the properly armored tanks goes way up.
So hunting *vehicles* is a great tactic.
Perhaps these nominal tank hunter aircraft were not optimized, but they surely did work well enough for broad vehicle hunting.
I could believe that a Stuka in the hands of a skilled pilot would be an exception to my generalization. However Stukas are slow and suffer a lot of losses when the Luftwaffe is not in control of the skies.
@@ComradeOgilvy1984You'd have to find losses of softskins and personnel in those air attacks to be sure that air attacks had decisive effects. The combat reports that I've seen from German units at Zitadelle indicate that Soviet air attacks were usually of nuisance value without hitting a lot.
I would think that the value of air attacks, even if materially ineffective, was to disrupt operations and force formations to disperse.
@@Wien1938 Yes, I think the issue is dispersion, especially when it comes to larger scale movement.
I suspect the airpower is more important at the operational level, where after one engagement, an entire corps may find itself in a hurry to move 100 miles through a very limited number of roads to be in position for the coming battle. In those situations, the side with air superiority can cause a lot of damage to vehicles important for maintaining supply. The formation can disperse the trucks and go slower, or they can hide during daylight hours and go slower.
This, I believe, the main reason (so called) "Blitzkrieg" offensives have a track record of requiring air superiority for success. If your enemy is competent enough to reposition to counter your thrusts as fast as you can make them, then the offensive momentum peters out. Deny the defender full use of a few key roads for daylight hours, and their counterattacks slow and supply situation worsens as they are forced to react and move.
True all tanks were "tigers" on west front...but remember turret skirts gave the panzer 4 a Tiger-like profile. Which may explain this to some degree. I suspect both armies unfamiliarity with enemy weapons often lead to mis- identification. So.. what really knocked out tanks?
It's like walking in the jungle in India. If you think there is a tiger by that bush it's best to act like there is a tiger by that bush. Because if there really is a tiger...
"So.. what really knocked out tanks?" Mines. Artillery. Mechanical breakdown. Anti-tank guns. It really varies from battle to battle.
@@jrd33 And quite often it was mechanical problems or they just ran out of fuel
Alright, I'm willing to cede the point that aircraft attacks on tanks were not terribly effective, at least with unguided rockets and bombs. However, I cannot comprehend the effort spent into making ground-attack aircraft and especially anti-aircraft vehicles if the main effect of aircraft on ground forces was merely 'morale'.
What is on the outside of the airplane may not truly reflect who is in the airplane. I believe in his book Erich Hartman's book The Blonde Knight, that they sometimes allowed rookie pilots to fly his plane so the Russians would run away from 'the plane'. tomorrow I'll dig out my Rudel book and see if I can find something in there about him not having any special insignia on his plane....
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPACT OF MORALE. The whole battle of France was won because the French did not have the morale to carry on. Neither them, nor the Brits. If they would have been told to stay still and fight, like the Russians at Sevastopol, Royal Airforce would have been able to provide air cover over dunkirk and they could have called in the Home Fleet to help with artillery barages and transport supplies and reinforcements. Carriers could have helped with ASW and limited air coverage of supply fleet. And mind you, that's only the British I am speaking of now. The French had a great mass of troops in North Africa. They could have brought them in. Plus, they didn't take that many losses in the Battle of France either. They just had to hold on until the lines were solidified. And the German soldiers were actually exhausted even before the Dunkirk pocket. But the two mightiest nations in the world lost morale and gave up. Again: NEVER UNDERESTIMATE MORALE.
the difference between German/Soviet tactics and Allied was that Allied had very small army, like british army was 5% of German and Soviet and was not in action until, 1944, except of little Africa campaign. So they have time to equip and train this small army, while Soviets with 11 mil.army as well as Germans did not have time for proper training and equipment
how could you not mention the Stuka sirene?
good topic
How many times did you say hi to the camera that day?
very often and it is actually quite hard to not say "here we are again".
I read Rudel's book. Can you at least independently verify the number of missions he flew. I recall it was well over 2000 missions.
I've question about the attack aircrafts and their "importance".
The germans and the russians put a lot of effort into Tank Hunter aircrafts.
At the Same time the Western allies "only" used fighters in this role.
As you and The Chieftain Said, those Airplanes where of "minor" effect on armored vehicles.
But at the same time there where some Western allies airplanes THAT could have fullfilled this role. The Mosquitos for example. They where used with the 57mm QF 6 Pounder in a Anti Ship/Submarine role. They where also capable of really precice bombing.
Or the Beaufighter with QF 2 Pounder if i remember correctly.
Did the Western allies realized this or did they just thougt the existing Planes where enough?
Not at all an expert on the subject but could the vastness of the "playing field" in Russia and on the seas make an airplane cannon more versatile compared to the risk of encountering flak when in denser areas, like northern France? Just a thought.
@@sssxxxttt OK. But they used Thunderbolts, Thypoons and Lightnings for Groundstriking. And the Mosquito takes a lot more punishment than these aircrafts.
I just don't understand that the Western allies, already outgunned by much heavier armed tanks, didn't came Up with a hart hitting groundstriker.
@@papaaaaaaa2625 Because tanks werent really a problem since infantry and AT guns can deal with them
The British had the Hurricane IID with two 40mm anti-tank guns.
It served in the tank buster role in North Africa, but was later relegated to bunker busting in Burma.
Rockets were preferred as the aircraft returned to normal effectiveness after loosing the ordnance, so wasn't nearly as vulnerable.
@@kirotheavenger60 You're right, i forgot the Hurricane.
Tank of course, air craft, just give you 10% bonus to battle efficiency, while tanks do heavy lifting.
What's this referencing?
@@ethanyeung6216 I tried to HOI 4
He would dive much lower it’s been told? Idk true?
The armaments available for WWII aircraft were not terribly effective against tanks of the late war. Rockets could breach armor but were notoriously inaccurate. Dive bombing was little better.
If ONLY the Wehrmacht had produced the "RUDEL TIGER".
B-36 sized CAS plane sporting 8 pairs of push-pull W22 engines (16 total), 120mm thick aluminium armored fuselage and armed with pair of selfloading 37cm canons. It would have been everything Germany needed to win WW2, even if they had resources to produce just one.
ooooh, the suspence... can't wait to see how WW2 ends...
You'd know if you saw Red Barron, wouldn't you?
Obviously, but Rudel did not fly an aircraft with a particular paint scheme
Man kann sich vorstellen Sie die beide im Deutschen die Konversation zu führen, und das Video mit Englischen Subtiteln zu kommen.
Sie wären ganz frei mit den Frasen, Namen, usw, und ein Gourmet vom Geschichte wie ich, bekäme eine Möglichkeit das Deutchkenniß zu polìeren.
Bedanke mich.
nein, weil wir a) keine Zeit haben Subtitles zu schreiben, sowas dauert ewig und b) mit Englisch mehr Leute erreichen.
9:50 The SS soldier "knew" this, because during the battle of Kursk Rudel had the only "official" _Kanonenvogel_ !
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87#Ju_87G
_"On the opening day of the offensive, Hans-Ulrich Rudel flew the only "official" Ju 87 G, although a significant number of Ju 87D variants were fitted with the 37 mm (1.46 in) cannon, and operated as unofficial Ju 87 Gs before the battle."_
I haven't said this happened during the Battle of Kursk. The soldiers was referring to the fightings in the Siedlce area in Poland in the summer of 1944.
@@romantoppel2330
Oh, okay. My bad.
Das muss ich wohl überhört haben.
But I can see how this caught on, when Rudel was *officially* the only one with a _Kanonenvogel_ at one time.
@@3gunslingers he never was the only one, however during the battle of Kursk only one squadron flew ju 87 g variants (the ones fitted with 37 mm guns), with the CO being Rudel himself
@@billythibaud1921
i know. That's what I wrote.
Rockets are not " anti panzer" , low speed, not hollow charge, low weight... See Them as HE , not as anti panzer grenades. Bigger caliber cannons on Planes could Hurt tanks... The stuka with the cannonpacks...was the A 10 ...in that time..
Typhoon rockets were powerful enough to knock out German tanks, if they could hit them.
Power dressing!
So anti tank aircraft were more effective by the Germans, but mostly phycological overall.
Lol Otto Carius gunner shot a Russian aircraft down with it's cannon, imagine that psychological hit.
His Gunner was, no doubt, very skilled with his job.
So, I didn't actually research this, but did the Tiger get issued flak ammunition just in case, or did he hit a moving plane with a main shell? Also, wouldn't that mean the plane was flying far too low to be a safe strafing run? Tiger doesn't have a lot of gun elevation.
Edit: researched it, Russian pilot, checks out for flying too low, and took 2 to hit. Incredible skill, but I suppose it did happen.
@@darkrage1138 it was probably just a normal HE shell
War Thunder players will know ;)
Ist immer Rudel!
This had been my suspiction for a long time. Different air forces obviously had different tactics and different success with air attacks. It appears that, as usual, Germans likely turned out the best at it.
Dr Roman Toppel. The only man alive who gets a pass for wearing his hair in a pony tail.
Yoy are forgetting gun jesus...
@@anthonyioane4438 Gun who?
@@daveybernard1056 Ian mccollum.
@ jojones jojo: Well, a metal-head with no long hair is almost like a dog without a tail. ;-)
@@romantoppel2330 Wait until you're my age Roman, and are thinning on top. A ponytail with a bald patch is not a good look, so it had to go. That doesn't change my opinion that Motörhead are the finest band to ever grace this planet :-).
Were there any tests regarding the effectiveness of the BK 3,7cm (mounted or on the ground) against armored targets?
(possibly a question for the Mil. Avi. guy)
those tests would be pointless. The purpose of mounting a gun on an aircraft was to hit the upper sides of the tank (like engine cover and turret roof) which were much easier to penetrate. In direct fire they would have stood no chance.
Aleš Doskočil - If you want to visualize how ground attack from air looked like here it is:
ruclips.net/video/yMHTzzySe84/видео.html
Aleš Doskočil - Here is more footage:
ruclips.net/video/ccOXrfBZoLE/видео.html
Please write a 'Myths of X" book. Complete with lots of source material. Having written literature that contains source info would likely be what's needed to break a lot of these myths finally.
So.. What do you think of Hans Rudel? I Have heard this from Historians lately . May be true.. but where are the stats to prove it.?
In Normandy 1944 Allied workforces greatly exaggerated the number of German tanks they knocked out.As this video points out ,air attacks are incredibly demoralising , especially for those soldiers who don't have armour to protect them.There's an anecdote from an Allied airman flying over the Normandy battlefront; behind the Allied lines the roads were packed with vehicles,behind the German lines they were empty.
Well I didn't have sound in the video so I thought it was because of sound issues but it turns out it was on my end because my sound output was set to my TV instead of headset... ^_^
Good topic. I saw a documentary were a U.S. pilot (I believe he had been flying a P-47 Thunderbolt) was being interviewed about his action in Western Europe. He said "We learned that if you aim you machine guns just in front of a tank on a hard road, the rounds will bounce up into the tank's belly armor, injuring the crew." The Thunderbolt carried eight .50 caliber guns.
lol tank armor on the bottom could prevent 50 cals, especially since half of their momentum was used when biuncing off the ground.
@@loserface3962 I too highly doubt that this was effective
50 cal rounds would not bounce off of the ground. They would break up brick and concrete. This is a myth.
Maximum deflection of any projectile that retains ANY(workable) velocity is 15 degrees.
The lost of velocity is at least 50%. In all most all cases 60 to 75 % lose of velocity.
I can believe he(the U.S. Pilot) thought that. The reality,
What a waste......
In that interview he said that there is a escape hatch at the bottom, that is where the bullets entered. The crew was injured by the bullets bouncing around inside.
Ah triplets - ok