Tanks destroyed by air attack

[Cult Icon]

^ That figure is cited by Guards Engineer-Colonel Krupenin's report.

According to HS-129 Panzerjager, Pegg there were 68 operational HS-129 for Citadel.

Of these 4.(Pz), 8.(Pz)/Schlachtgeschwader 1 (Hs-129 B-2) was upgraded with the MK103 30mm cannon (the other 30mm/tungsten core equipped HS-129 used the MK101 with a much lower ROF).

[Cult Icon]

On July 22, 1943 (during the Orel Operation), 2nd Tank Army lost 22 T-34 and 5 T-70 (27 tanks) due to air strikes.

[EugE]

First Tank Corps suffered from air attacks in July 16th: T-34 7,T-70 7. In this day 1484 AARgt was almost annihilated.
In July 20: T-34 13, T-70 3, T-60 2, SU-122 2, SU 76 1.
9 T-34 were damaged.
In July 28: T-34 3, T-70 1, one T-34 burst by airbomb.

[Sean Oliver]

Simple answer: From the WW2 evidence it appears bombs and rockets were not likely to damage much less destroy a tank, unless a great many bombs were delivered as in carpet bombing. But aircraft with cannon were apparently more successful, i.e, the 3.7 cm cannon on the Stuka.

[Cult Icon]

First Tank Corps suffered from air attacks in July 16th: T-34 7,T-70 7. In this day 1484 AARgt was almost annihilated.

The rest of this (not tanks) is 17 BA-64, 49 armored cars, 2 halftracks, 9 motorcycles, 1 radio set.

4 artillery guns remaining.

[Cult Icon]

9th Tank Corps (August 2nd, 1943 by "840 enemy aircraft"): 23 T-34, 16 T-70

106th Tank Brigade (August 6th): 4 tanks

source: Air War over Kursk Turning Point in the East, Khazanov

[Cult Icon]

March 1943 (Anti-tank Staffeln):

4.(Pz)/Sch.G.1 (HS-129)
8.(Pz)/Sch.G.1 (HS-129)
4.(Pz)/Sch.G.2 (HS-129)
8.(Pz)/Sch.G.2 (HS-129)
Pz.Ja.Staffel JG51 (HS-129)
Pz.Ja.Staffel St.G1 (JU-87)
Pz.Ja.Staffel St.G2 (JU-87)
Erprobungskommando JU-88 (Pz.Jag)

[Cult Icon]

General der Schlachtflieger Kupfer's fall 1943 view on anti-tank airpower can be summarized into these points. As he was Stuka commander some of his views can be considered questionable. My own comments parenthesized :

- The anti-tank aircraft (HS-129 etc) must fly extremely low and actually skim the tanks.

- Attack from a height of 500 meters and open fire at 200-100 meters. As a result the aircraft must pull up over the tank (this resulted in the deaths of pilots, who even collided with their targets!)

-Desires an anti-tank aircraft that is heavily armored and can fire further away from the target. To a limited extent this was provided with the twin 37mm Stuka G. (the problem with the Stuka was that it was not as robust as the HS-129 (which was well armored like the IL-2 and could fly back with one engine knocked out))

-Anti-tank aircraft requires fighter-bombers for escort for FLAK suppression and anti-fighter duties

-Future designs for anti-tank aircraft must be very manueverable, twin engined air-cooled, effective long ranged shooting platform, equipped with the 75mm anti-tank gun (This was eventually fitted onto the HS-129).

-----

To add, the FW190 tests with double MK103 30mm cannons showed like other fighter-bombers, it was not accurate enough for efficient anti-tank action. The only reliable aircraft were the HS-129 and the Stuka G.

[Cult Icon]

HS-129 pilot accounts: Scatter infantry with opening pass of HE cannon fire. The rear approach was the more efficient one. 1-3 hits @ 30-40 degrees with the 30mm tungsten to knock out a tank. The side approach was less efficient but stood a good chance of disabling the tracks. One pilot commented that his engagement range vs tanks was sub-50 meters. One of them was an "ace" with 50 tank kills.

[Cult Icon]

Generalmajor Hitschhold 2 October 1945 on Ground attack:

(c) Vehicles:

Horse drawn and motor vehicles were bombed with 1-70kg. bombs. The same goes for lightly armored vehicles. Tanks could be destroyed with 3, 3.7, and 7.5 cm. cannon, with hollow charge RP, and with 4kg. hollow charge bombs. Bombing with 50-500kg. bombs was not successful because the tanks presented too small a target. Destruction with such bombs was only accomplished if the bomb hit within 15 feet of the tank.

[Cult Icon]

Operational Principles of Anti-Tank Ground Attack Operations.

Missions for anti-tank units were flown only on special centers of resistance on the front, and long rest periods repeatedly arose for them. Anti-tank flying units with their special weapons were used against tanks and armored vehicles which had broken through. For use against tank assembly areas they were not suitable, because these areas were usually heavily protected with A.A. In pursuit, their use against parts of split up tank units was good.

For operations of anti-tank units, ground and air defense were specially considered, but weather conditions were of less importance. Even in very bad weather with very low ceiling anti-tank units could carry out effective and successful raids.

Because of the mobility of tanks, finding them in a short space of time was often hard. Especially in fluid situations, exact reports and locations about the appearance of tanks were seldom available. The operations of antitank units therefore usually took place like a free sweep attack, in which the aircraft first had to find the tanks in a large target area. Therefore, training in recognition of tanks was especially important for the anti-tank flyers.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Operational Principles of Anti-Tank Ground Attack Operations.

Thanks for sharing these. What are your sources?

[Cult Icon]

Thanks for sharing these. What are your sources?

Unfortunately badly cited Post-war (POW) manuscripts published in "Stuka Trumpets of Jericho" by Generalmajor Hitschhold at Latimer House, England, on various days in October 1945. He was a general of ground-attack.

2 are listed here but not available:

https://sturmpanzer.com/Research/tools/fms_Index.aspx

[Cult Icon]

Anti-tank ground attack units had usually about 16-20 a/c and pilots. During 1944 there were independent anti-tank Staffeln in SG 1,2,3, and 77, being the 10th Staffel in each Geschwader. Four other Staffeln were combined into an anti-tank Gruppe. The High Command thus planned to use this one Gruppe almost together for main efforts. With the other 10th Staffeln, they planned to have at least one anti-tank Staffel available on all sectors of the Russian front.

This one anti-tank Gruppe, IV/Pz. S.G.9, was however usually committed in Staffel strength on various parts of the Eastern Front and was seldom used together. In order to score at least halfway effective victories over tank forces, it was necessary that these Staffeln had at least 16 aircraft each.

The following reorganization of anti-tank ground attack units was in process of completion at the end of the war.

With the conversion of the anti-tank units to the F.W.190, three purely anti-tank Gruppen were to be formed with three Staffeln each. In addition, the third Staffel of every regular ground attack Gruppe was to become an anti-tank Staffel. The use of one or two anti-tank Gruppen en masse in an area of main effort was expected to produce good and lasting success.

All anti-tank Staffeln were organized so that parts of the Staffel could use bombs to suppress ground defenses, so that the Staffeln were not bound down by the necessity of relying on other units to suppress air defenses. In the 10th Staffeln of the various Geschwader, outfitted with Ju.87 with 2 x 37mm cannon, one third to one fourth of the aircraft were bomb carrying (the normal version of the Ju.87). The Henschel 129 carried, in addition to its cannon, a 50kg bomb under each wing. Thus, even the Hs 129 units could combat ground defenses independently.

The FW 190 anti-tank aircraft were equipped at first with 12 Panzerschreck (Tank-terror) RP. The rockets were fired in threes from mounts fitted to a wing bomb rack. Later the FW 190 were fitted with 12 Panzerblitz (Tank lightning) RPs. Then the bomb racks had to be taken off each wing and a special rack for 6 Panzerblitz RP built under each wing. The FW 190 anti-tank aircraft could always carry along a bomb under the fuselage and instead of the Panzerschreck rack, bombs could be carried on the wing bomb racks.

[Michael Kenny]

The copied source for the extracts appears to be this:

Screenshot_106.jpg

where 28 pages are devoted to the Hitschhold accounts. The 'Latimer House, England' bit means it was obtained at the POW prison run by MI5 &MI6 and located in 'Latimer House' in Buckinghamshire:
https://www.devere.co.uk/latimer-estate/
However a fuller 48 page account can be viewed here:

Screenshot_105.jpg

it is on Google Books

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FJM ... navlinks_s