How reliable is Rudel's record?

[Art]

Well, as an example of the general reliability of Rudel's record, in these links you will find an argument about the effectiveness of the Hs 129 B-2s and Ju 87 G-1s in tank busting and the accuracy of the German claims of tanks destroyed by aircraft, including an specific claim by Rudel himself:
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00016.html
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 016-2.html

Actually in the episode on 8 July 1943 the unit most heavily attacked by German AT planes was 2nd Tank Corps not 2nd Guards Tank Corps. Chris Lawrence was wrong about this unit: It did see action on 8 July and apparently lost a certain number of tanks to aircraft. How much is a difficult question, which most likely could not be completely answered. Anyway ground-attack aircraft undoubtedly contributed to the fact that attacks launched by 2 TC were repulsed.
Regarding Rudel: virtually all records of pilots were subject to a systematic overclaim, especially when it comes to losses inflicted on ground troops. I don't see why Rudel must be an exception.

[Sid Guttridge]

Given that all Rudel's "kills" occurred behind the enemy's lines, where accurate confirmation is problematical, there must be some doubt about the precision of his score.

However, there can be little doubt that his score in "kills" was impressive. Even if the reality was that he only knocked out a tenth of his total claim, that would still be an entire tank battalion!

Rudel was undoubtedly a highly political Nazi, and much in his character is not very appealing, but I don't think a severe audit of his claims would much reduce his reputation as a flyer.

[Imad]

In the only official study done of the kill-comformation of aircraft against tanks during WW2, it was found that the claims were incorrect by a factor of ten, ie; if they claimed 50, they actually destroyed nearer to 5.

.

Any links for that Redcoat?

[Urmel]

That is what he said, true, but the link, http://admiral.centro.ru/memor06.htm he posted mentions nothing of two other bomb hits. IIRC, I have usually seen two bomb hits on the Marat.

Still, this photo http://navsource.narod.ru/photos/01/035/01035029.jpg says "sunk" to me.

I think the point here is that even if he sank her, he did not destroy her.

In this instance, this is a critical distinction. The threat posed by Marat was not that she would sail out of Kronstadt and wreak havoc on the German Baltic trade, but that she would use her heavy guns on the German troops encircling Leningrad. The Luftwaffe's task was to prevent this.

She continued to use some of her heavy guns within a very short time of Rudel's attack. Mission partially accomplished/failed, depending on how you want to look at it.

But of course, it makes for much worse copy than saying she sank thanks to the efforts by Hitler's posterboy Stukapilot.

[TEN]

http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/41-09.htm

21.– 24.9.1941
Ostsee
Angriffe der I. und III./StG.2 (OberstLt. Dinort) auf Schiffe der sowj. »Baltflot«. Am 21.9. trifft eine Ju 87 (Oblt. Rudel) der III./StG.2 das Schlachtschiff Marat mit einer 1000-kg-Bombe, mit zerstörtem Vorschiff sackt Marat vor der Hafenmole von Kronstadt auf Grund. Die 30,5-cm-Türme C und D, später auch B werden jedoch wieder einsatzbereit gemacht. Beim Sturzangriff auf den im Hafen liegenden Kreuzer Kirov wird die Ju 87 des Kdr. III./StG.2 (Hptm. Steen) von der Flak getroffen und stürzt neben dem Schiff ins Wasser, welches durch die Detonation beschädigt wird. Im Gebiet des Seekanals weicht die Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya zahlreichen Angriffen aus, wird jedoch von 6 mittleren Bomben getroffen. Der Zerstörer Steregushchi kentert nach Volltreffer (später gehoben), die Zerstörer Gordy, Grozyashchi, Silny, das U-Boot-Mutterschiff Smolny und U-Boot Shch-306 werden beschädigt. Am 23.9. werden in Leningrad der Kreuzer Maksim Gorki, vor Kronstadt Kirov und Grozyashchi erneut beschädigt, die U-Boote P-2 und M-74 werden in der Werft zerstört, im Hafen kentert nach einem Treffer Flottillenführer Minsk (später gehoben). Wachschiff Taifun wird zerstört, die U-Boot Shch-302, Shch-322 und Shch-318 beschädigt.

[nebelwerferXXX]

Any English translation to the above post?

[Polar bear]

hi

September 21– 24, 1941
Baltic Sea
Attacks by I. and III./StG.2 (OT Dinort) sowj. »Baltflot« ships. On September, 21, a Ju 87 (Oblt. Rudel) of III./StG.2 hits battleship MARAT with a 1000-kg-Bomb, MARAT is grounded in shallow water off the Kronstadt harbour quay. The 12"-turrets C and D, later B as well, are made operational again. During a dive attack on cruiser KIROV which lies in the harbour, too, the Ju 87 of III./StG.2 group commander (Hptm. Steen) is hit by AA and tumbles into the water near to the ship which is damaged by the detonation. In the Seekanal area OKTYABRSKAYA REVOLUTSIYA avoids several attacks, but is hit by 6 medium bombs. The destroyer STEREGUSHCHI capsizes after a bulls-eye hit (salvaged later), destroyers GORDY, GROZYASHCHI, SILNY, the submarine tender SMOLNY und submarine SHCH-306 are damaged. On September, 23, cruiser MAKSIM GORKI at Leningrad and, off Kronstadt, KIROV und GROZYASHCHI are damaged again. The submarines P-2 and M-74 are destroyed in the shipyard, in the harbour, flottilla leader MINSK capsizes after a hit (salvaged later). Guard ship TAIFUN is destroyed, submarines SHCH-302, SHCH-322 and SHCH-318 are damaged.

greetings, the pb

[nebelwerferXXX]

Thanks for the translation Polar bear...

[mescal]

I'd like to know more about his claimed soviet cruiser and destroyer. [...] I found mention of his sinking a Soviet cruiser, this happened shortly before "his" sinking of the Marat. Oddly enough, this mention, is only a single sentence. Now, compared to Rudel's lengthy description of the attack on the Marat, his single sentence description of the cruiser seems out of place. Thus, I have my doubts that it had occurred.

Hello Takao,

There were only three Soviet cruisers hulls sunk during the war :
- Komintern, scuttled at Poti by the Soviet themselves as breakwater - scuttling not related to enemy action
- Chervona Ukrainia, sunk at Sevastopol by German Stukas. But these Stukas were of StG 77, not StG2, and it was in November, not before the Marat sinking.
- Aurora, sunk at her moorings in Kronstadt on 30 september 1941 - that is, one week after the Marat. And anyway, she hardly counts as a cruiser - she was an old relic (she fought at Tsushima !) and was demilitarized.

So the claim of one cruiser seriously looks like an unsubstantiated claim.

It may thus either be a damaging hit on a cruiser which was claimed as a sinking, or the sinking of a smaller warship 'upgraded' to cruiser status either for propaganda value or because of mere misidentification - as for example the Soviet Destroyer Leaders (Tashkent class) were quite larger than 'common' DDs.

[Polar bear]

hello, mescal,

...the Soviet Destroyer Leaders (Tashkent class) were quite larger than 'common' DDs.

the operational Soviet destroyer leader class was the LENINGRAD class (in this case, the MINSK).

TASHKENT was the only one of its class that became operational.

greetings,the pb

[mescal]

Damn, you're right, it looks like I mixed things a bit

Thank you for correcting me, polar bear.

[AVV]

Hello!

Komintern, scuttled at Poti by the Soviet themselves as breakwater - scuttling not related to enemy action

Well, technically she was a minelayer.

Aurora, sunk at her moorings in Kronstadt on 30 september 1941 - that is, one week after the Marat. And anyway, she hardly counts as a cruiser - she was an old relic (she fought at Tsushima !) and was demilitarized.

Yes, that's right - she was a training ship.

Best regards, Aleks

[Urmel]

My guess is they counted Aurora.

In any case, the Luftwaffe was quite liberal with its claims of sinking enemy ships. Just witness how they sank HMS Ark Royal in 1940.



http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/first_blood.htm

[ReichDefender]

The Luftwaffe was extremely strick about claimed kills and Rudel was in action a long time!Know matter any doubts Rudels record of over 2,000 ,missions is true,his decorations real,and that is remarkable enough.If it were all lies,why werent other pilots lieing and getting away with it?Plus the German high command took kill claims into account when caculating combat intelligence.So it is serious business.

[Tim Smith]

If it were all lies,why werent other pilots lieing and getting away with it?Plus the German high command took kill claims into account when caculating combat intelligence.So it is serious business.

Pilots weren't lying. However they were very frequently mistaken. Hitting a target doesn't always mean the target is totally destroyed - very often it was only damaged and makes it to friendly territory to be repaired later and put back into action.

The Luftwaffe intelligence branch was the least competent of any arm of the Wehrmacht. Precisely because they took claims into account when calculating intelligence, without waiting for any verification of the claims, or applying any modifier to the statistics, e.g. assuming that only a certain percentage of claims were likely to be accurate, based on previous experience. As a result, the Luftwaffe intelligence branch thought that the Luftwaffe was winning the Battle of Britain in 1940, when in fact they were losing.