Originally posted by Larry
Like ghi said the 37mm Ju87 was great, but your the only one talking about that version. We are talking about the one that had bombs and only 7.9mms.
Ju 87D-5 had 20mm cannons. It also carry a good payload up to 4000 lbs with deadly accuracy. Not to mention the type of bombs it often carried were basically the forerunners of modern cluster-bomb containers, loaded with hundreds of bomblets either against infantry or tanks. Large amount of effective weapons delivered with great accuracy, that sounds effective to me.
It's quite common that people underestimate the Stuka - as was noted they were used until the end of the war by both Japan and the US in the Pacific. I wonder why if they were obsolate - they were not especially vulnerable during approach when flying in formation, their defensive fire was rather serious and made single fighter attacks somewhat suicidal, as was proven in many cases in the East. Their 'extreme vulnerability' - myth comes from something that was common trait of all dive bombers, namely that it was impossible to keep the protective formation during the dive and it took some time after that to reform it, leaving dive bombers alone for some minutes against fighters, which of course meant attacking fighters could fight them on conditions they excelled. Of course only the Luftwaffe employed (and only one type, the Ju87) dive bombers to any serious extent in Europe, hence why the vulnerability of the dive bomber become the attributed to the Stuka only. Which in fact was a very good dive bomber design that the crews loved, having very docile handling and being rock-steady in the dive, good and extensive armor for and it also could handle the greatest payload of all WW2 dive bombers, afaik. True, they weren't deployed in the West during the daylight anymore, but that reasoning generously ignores the fact that neither other Luftwaffe bombers were employed in the daylight either en masse, for the same reasons as the Stuka. By the time the Allies had landed in Europe their numbers in the air made such missions simply impossible, or just too costly to be sustained. It also conviniently ignores the fact the most of the German bombers were deployed on the East where the big ground battles occured and where they were needed.
The 'JaBo/fighter-bombers made dive bombers' idea is just lacking the factual basis. They forget that the fighter-bombers were nowhere near the effectiveness of true dive bombers (and I should add true close support a/c like the Il-2) when pounding the ground. The reasons are many.
First and most importantly, the fighter pilots didn't receive any serious training for ground attack or bombing, it was rudimentary at best as opposed to trained Stuka/Il2 pilot who practiced just for that task. They didn't have proper bombing sights; they simply couldn't hit their targets with any reliability, it was more about luck and some experience gained on the field.
The second is the lack of effective weapons on fighter bombers. Their payload were more limited, and the weapons themselves were either smaller bombs which were not dropped with enough preciosion to be effective. It also ruled out a lot of mission against anything hard-skinned. Bombs and rockets are too inaccurate against tanks, especially if dropped/fired by guys who have only rudimentary training for that. Powerful cannons were the other way to fight tanks, but most fighters simply couldn't handle that without become just another slow-ass Sturmovik. Without the armor protection of true attack aircraft of course, making Jabos rather vulnerable to operate in areas with serious AA.
Warships, and ship in general are difficult targets, and in any case need a bigger payload against them - the only exception I know, ie. successfull Jabo sortie against warships is a single case of a 109E sinking some Brit cruiser with a bomb off Crete. And that's it.
That's leaves occasional strafing and firing at trucks, infantry columns, or trains. it's useful, but this can be done by just about any armed aircraft, and still not an answer to the need of close-air support.
The third and imho biggest disadvantage vs. dive bombers was an operational one. Fighter-bombers, if intercepted, can hardly proceed with their mission without jettisoning the payload; they have to their defense only their manouveribilty, which is severaly hampered with bombload or rockets. A fighter bomber with bombs and rockets is even more sitting duck than a dive bomber, it can't evade the enemy fighter, nor can it fire at it. It can drop the bomb - but then it's mission failed. The usual arguement against this is that there's the fighter escort, but wait a minute, if there's a fighter escort, and if it can prevent the enemy from getting close to the fighter-bombers, or Stukas, or Il-2, what's the point about having Jabos instead of the latter?
OH, that was a long one.
