Stugbit wrote: My point was more about Stukas destroying tanks.
I really don't know where do you want this discussion to turn at. Stukas destroyed tanks, ok? They had a major impact on enemy front whenever they either had aircover or the enemy had no planes to oppose them. Check the medals received by JU-87 pilots, maybe this way you'll get the facts straight.
Stugbit wrote:From sources I got here, it's stated that the early versions of the Stuka were not efficient against Russian tanks
They were efficient enough against the initial main bulk of 30k light tanks of the Soviet military. After the Soviets upgraded their armored hardware it was kinda logic that JU-87 would receive its upgrades too, in order to stay competitive.
Stugbit wrote: Bombs aren't the best weapon for that purpose. The guns and rockets with shape charges were.
You're moving goalposts again. This is in line with your previous naive assertion that "they were vulnerable". This kind of assertions are quite ridiculous. ALL weapons on earth are vulnerable on some extent or another. ALL weapons are obsolete at some point so NONE is best since they're constantly evolving. As regarding shape charges maybe I should remind there were none in military use at the beginning of the war, as they were still experimenting with.
Stugbit wrote: Anyway, Alixanther, if you're trying to sustain that there were no tank combats in the Eastern front, you're quite mistaken
This is quite an enormity and I dare you to quote me on this matter. When in hell did I say such a thing? I only said that German tanks were quite unsuitable for tank vs tank warfare against the Soviets. In special circumstances on the Eastern Blitz they performed quite well, however you should remember they almost always had air cover and support. If left alone they performed poorly: had they been suited for combat against Soviet armor, Typhoon offensive might have had a different outcome than the historical one.
Stugbit wrote: The historic development of each tank is a prove against it. Along the months the tanks were receiving several upgrades like bigger guns to face the thick armor they were facing, as well as more armor to stand against the bigger guns. Just look at the difference between the Panzer III versions ausf. H, J and L and you will see the upgrades.
That logic can't explain why a Tiger tank arrived in October 42. The Germans weren't putting a 100mm thick armor and a 88mm gun in a tank just randomly. There was a reason for that fact. The reason was the fact the Tiger was a response for the T-34 and Kv tanks.
Actually this is an argument in my favour. The Germans had 1 main battle tank (PzIII, different variants) and 1 support tank (PzIV, different variants). Both were ineffective against the Soviet armor, even after receiving several upgrades. As I said, keeping in the air a plane with AT role required a hefty quantity of oil, which wasn't Germany's strong point. That's why they constanty tried to make their armored units combat capable (which they thought they were although in the combined arms doctrine they're not supposed to work alone) and dissolve the dependency on JU-87 and other support aircraft. However during the '41 Blitz it wasn't the case to pretend that even their most "armored" and "modern" PzIII variants were able to meet toe-to-toe their Soviet counterparts. If you take into account the disparity in numbers (3k German tanks against 30k Soviet tanks) this becomes even more ludicrous a task. Please stop pretending that 3k German tanks destroyed the 30k Soviet ones. They were busy advancing and pocketing. Rinse and repeat.
Stugbit wrote:I personally don't believe that the Stuka could hold the Eastern Front until late 43
Hell, no, they couldn't do it alone. In combination with artillery, AT pieces and infantry, they had they bit of action, tough. And when is a AT-role plane supposed to "hold"? They were mainly used in offensive thrusts rather than defensive operations: during the Prokhorovka entanglement, their support was nil because they could not pick enemy targets from friendly ones (they were too close to one another).
Stugbit wrote: First because, as I already said, a huge amount of Russians tanks were not in combat conditions before the war.
Oh, come on, this thing again? Each time the Russians try to explain how they lost 30k tanks against 3k tanks they pretend they were "not in combat conditions". Let me say this: whenever German sources put up their number, does it comprise the tanks not in combat conditions? If yes, then the argument is moot (Germans also have tanks not in combat condition). If not, then why pretend that those tanks were not serviceable? Which army in this world counts the non-serviceable tanks too? I tell you, none. The disparity of numbers is that great that only combined arms warfare could be the real answer to it. This and the Soviet panic, abandoning the war materiel.
Stugbit wrote: Anyway, why would the Germans waste a Panzer III against a BT/T-26 tank if it could be easily taken out with a 37mm gun carried by hand? The PAK 36 could take care of a BT from 1km away. The Panzers III were doing a much important job: conquering enemy territory and preventing the enemy to organize himself.
That's what I said they were doing.
Stugbit wrote: I have doubts if the German could have a better performance if they had the Soviet material back then. And also if we consider the conditions the Russians had their equipment
If by performance you refer to tactics and plans then no. If however you understand results, then I could definitely say that 30k tanks would have made Germany practically invincible, no matter how shitty the tanks were.