Author Topic: Stuka info (Read 687 times)

Wotan · « **on:** May 15, 2001, 06:58:00 PM »

I stole this from a thread in wwiiol aircraft forum

originally posted by Hemlock

That the Battle of Britain was the Stukas' biggest defeat is not to be disputed. What is worth a more careful examination is just how big a defeat was it, how accurately was it presented at the time and since, and how does it match other air losses in WWII? A look at the true picture presents a somewhat different view from that presented to the House of Commons by Winston Churchill at the time and repeated there two years later during the motion of censure debate. Politicians sometimes present information in a selective manner and Churchill was neither the first nor the last to do so. Not all members of Parliment accepted the account they were given. One of these was Aneurin Bevan, who told the Prime Minister that the priem reason for the Stukas being whipped over Britain was because they were used incorrectly. The Stuka, he stated, was a tactical weapon and it had wrongly been used as a strategic weapon on that occasion. This misuse should not mean that its true tactical value should be ignored.

The Prime Minister was fighting for his political life and, ignoring the soundness of Bevan's statement, rounde on him. 'What difference dones that make?', he replied. The only fact that mattered was that the RAF had 'destroyed do many hundreds of dive-bombers in the Battle of Britain'. This is how it has been presented since. What are the facts?

July through August

July 11: 2
14: 1
20: 2
25: 1
27: 1
29: 4

August 8: 8
11: 1
12: 5
14: 4
15: 7
16: 9
18: 14

So the 'hundreds' becomes fifty-nine Stukas destroyed in two months of aerial fighting. What did the Germans achieve for the loss of those aircraft:

anti-aircraft ship sunk: 1 (Foylebank)

destoryer sunk: 1 (Brazen)

destroyers damaged: 5 (Beagle, Boadicea, Bulldog, Boreas, Brillant)

Dover destroyers withdrawn form path of invasion fleet

smaller warships sunk: 4 (WarriorII, Kingston Galen, Tofing, Gulzar)

merchant ships sunk: 14 (Hemlock: too many names to type out)

merchant ships damaged: 29 (Hemlock: too many names to type out)

through Channel convoys halted for a period

airfields hit and damaged: 7 (Detling, Hawkinge, Lympne, Tangmere, Lee-on-Solent, Ford, Thorney Island)

British aircraft destroyed on the ground: 49 (22 at Detling; 15 at Tangmere; 12 at Lee-on-Solent)

radar stations damaged and put out of action for a period: 3 (Ventnor, Poling, Dover)

The above was quoted by a great book called Junkers Ju 87 Stuka by Peter C. Smith. Extreamly conscise. If your a Stuka lover its a deffinate must have.

So in the end my point is this, it seems the stuka has a an underserved bad rep. This rep came from its greatest defeat, the Battle of Britain. Now the battle can be viewed in hind sight and taken in context. The Stuka is a great plane. Flown properly it will wreak havoc on the Allies. It has limitations (speed, plane vs plane armament) and if not accounted for it will most likely end up another score on the side of a spit. These limitations can be easily worked around if flown in Sauhaufen formation and escorted moderately. Take into consideration (if modeled correctly) you will be caring the most explosive punch in the Blitzkrieg. Various bomb combinations up to 2,205lb, nothing will compare to it. You will be the artillery called upon when the panzers can't punch a hole into Dinant.

The Stukas a great plane. But even more difficult to stay alive in and use effectively(not necessarily in that order), than any other plane in the early Luftwaffe. There was reason they were thought of as an elite branch of the service.

not gonna go through and fix spelling

just a cut paste job.........

read whole thread here.......
http://www.playnet.com/bv/wwiiol/dg_message.jsp?forumOID=8644&forum=Air+Combat&msgID=101349&BV_SessionID=@@@@2143137582.0989971349@@@@&BV_EngineID=calkllfmfjlbefbnkcfkfcfkf.0" TARGET=_blank> http://www.playnet.com/bv/wwiiol/dg_message.jsp?forumOID=8644&forum=Air+Combat&msgID=101349&BV_SessionID=@@@@2143137582.0989971349@@@@&BV_EngineID=calkllfmfjlbefbnkcfkfcfkf.0[/url]

------------------

Im Auftrage der Reichsbahn
(By order of the State Railway)

Pray not for an end to the slaughter...but for VICTORY!!!

[This message has been edited by Wotan (edited 05-15-2001).]

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #1 on:** May 15, 2001, 07:08:00 PM »

O O Get ready for the toejamstorm....

AG Sachsenberg · « **Reply #2 on:** May 15, 2001, 10:04:00 PM »

Excellent info there Wotan. Damn puts a little glimmer in my rudel poster filled eyes. Serious though excellent info.

------------------

Verkaaft's mei Gwand `I foahr in himmel!
Sell my clothes I am going to Heaven!

[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 05-15-2001).]

-lynx- · « **Reply #3 on:** May 16, 2001, 07:21:00 AM »

As far as I remember (books/Discovery Wings documentaries) Germans withdrew Stukas from all theaters where they could due to unacceptable combat losses. I don't think they were considering whether this formation or that escort should have increased Stuka's survivability to a passing Spitfire/La5. They just counted the difference between planes leaving the airfield and coming back.

Ju87 surely has got tons of character attached to it (Rudel's got to be blaimed for it, surely

) but it's a dead meat to any fighter who cares to look in it's direction.

Bodhi · « **Reply #4 on:** May 16, 2001, 08:40:00 AM »

Nice research Wotan. That is a really interesting fact, that many "so-called" historians manage to over-look. Stukas were never mauled in numbers that many of the books claimed in the BoB. True, they were hit hard, and proven to be unable to survive against fighters unescorted. But the fact remains, that the Stuka was a phenomenal success against armored vehicles in the east where the Soviet Fighters could barely exchange blows with the German Fighter Arm.
Hell, the only thing that was wrong with the Stuka, was that it was becoming obsolete by the end of the war. It had a 10 year history, not bad in my book, better than most other airplanes out there!

Dowding · « **Reply #5 on:** May 16, 2001, 09:38:00 AM »

The fact that the Stuka was such a sitting duck if unescorted is a major weakness - the best ground-attack planes could hit hard on the ground and still fight back against oponents in the air. The Typhoon is good example of this - although it couldn't carry the same bombload, it was still devastating to enemy armour and supply lines - and was fast enough to get home to fight another day.

As for the success on the eastern front - I've always thought that it did well early on, but once the VVS were equipped with decent fighters, it faired poorly. Also, the Il-2 eclipsed it in terms of anti-armour ability. Maybe I'm wrong.

Still, I'd like to see a stuka in AH much more than any other LW plane. It would be a great addition scenario wise, and if used in the MA with cover, it would get used.

Staga · « **Reply #6 on:** May 16, 2001, 09:59:00 AM »

Stuka would be nice in "BlitzKrieg" scenario but not in any scens later than that.

Wotan · « **Reply #7 on:** May 16, 2001, 04:13:00 PM »

Lynx u missed the point the stka was not with drawn because of its heavy losses during the BoB. click on the link to read the entire thread.

There's no doudt the a lone stuka roaming the skies in AH would be dead meat that would be true in real life.

Ground attack planes are most sucessful when they are used in conjunction with fighter sweeps and by establishing local air superiority at the target as well as to and from target. Heck thats how most bombers should be utilized.

This post wasn't so much about making a case for getting the stuka into AH I'd rather see an me-410 or atleast more loadout options for the f8. It was however to set the record straight as too why the stuka was withdrawn from BoB.

again stolen from same thread as above posted by Hemlock

On the 18th of Aug a total of sixty Ju 87 were used on Thorney Island and Ford airfields while the others struck at Poling radar station. 15 stuck Ford with 2 losses. 27 struck Thorney Island with no losses. 28 struck Poling with losses at 12. When they pulled out of their dives they were caught by the combined forces of Spits and Hurris of Nos.43,152 601, and 602 Squadrons before they reformed. Actually not bad considering they had no fighter escort!

A total of 332 Ju 87 were used in the operations over England.

and more

According to an Air Ministry Pamphlet the stukas were taken to Pas de Calais because of their failure in damage shipping ect. The germans didnt feel this was true. They were taken there to prepare for Operation Sea Lion. At this point the Luftwaffe were widdling the RAF to nothing. They felt the Do 17s, He 111s and Ju 88s would handle the rest as the fighting moved further inland. Ju 87 didnt have this range of these bombers. The switch in bombing priorities was made and the rest is history.

the fact the raf overclaimed their kills in reference to ju-87's and the lack there of of ju-88's following the change in tactics by the luftwaffe may have lead them to believe the stuka was withdrawn due to hvy losses but 59 while high is not devasting.

Overclaims indeed. On November 14 40' the RAF claimed to have shot down no fewer than 16 when in reality only 2 JU 87s were downed.

none of this was researched by me i just did cut and paste job but i felt it may have been of interest to some in AH.

------------------

Im Auftrage der Reichsbahn
(By order of the State Railway)

Pray not for an end to the slaughter...but for VICTORY!!!

[This message has been edited by Wotan (edited 05-16-2001).]

Dowding · « **Reply #8 on:** May 16, 2001, 04:45:00 PM »

But Wotan - very rarely does anything in war go as the commanders wish.

The fact is the Stuka could only work effectively in ideal conditions - i.e. complete air superiority. But these conditions were not forth-coming.

Contrastingly, the Typhoon was used in an arena where the enemy was not only active, but not really contested while the attack was under-way.

Therefore, the Typhoon is a far more versatile attack aircraft and this is proven by its war record.

Thanks for the info on the Stuka though - very interesting reading.

Wotan · « **Reply #9 on:** May 16, 2001, 09:28:00 PM »

i said local air superiority

its not necessary to own every section of sky just at key points and not for an extended period of time.

which is useful if your force is smaller therefore you concentrate your attack at a specific point. this isn't "wishfull thinking" but fact.

the stuka was attacked as a matter of tactics as it pulled out of its dive before they could regroup. Again the point of the post is to demonstrate with facts that the stuka during BoB was effective even given its misuse. Certainly compared to damage inflicted against losses.

As for the typhoon I could careless more Allied crap

the brits were planning to replace the typhoon almost as it was deployed as for war records I'd put the stuka up against the typhoon anyday.

What the statics show is that during the BoB (where the defender had the advantage) their losses were high but they were nothing like the raf claimed. A change of tactics by the LW is what ended the stukas role in BoB.

This alone proves the value of the stuka. But of course the Stuka went on the western front. There's no evidence to support the claim that the stuka was sent west because it was obsolete. Quite the contrary the stuka was sent where it was needed. At wars end the stuka was 10 years old way way past its prime... were there aircraft more capable in 1945 ....certainly, but with all its percieved short comings it produced results.

Its reputation during since BoB is not justified Given the facts. That's the topi

------------------

Im Auftrage der Reichsbahn
(By order of the State Railway)

Pray not for an end to the slaughter...but for VICTORY!!!

[This message has been edited by Wotan (edited 05-16-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Wotan (edited 05-16-2001).]

-lynx- · « **Reply #10 on:** May 17, 2001, 05:14:00 AM »

Quote

This post wasn't so much about making a case for getting the stuka into AH I'd rather see an me-410 or atleast more loadout options for the f8. It was however to set the record straight as too why the stuka was withdrawn from BoB.

Uh-oh - no Sir, let's get Stukas in AH as well as some early war planes! Can you imagine a scenario with tanks and Stukas or convoys (British shipping in the Channel) and Stukas - yum!

I kept CFS1 (crap as it is) for the opportunity to shoot down those things

.

The differnce between Stukas, Tyffies and Il2s was in their intended roles - all three excelled in ground attack role but approached it from different "angles". Stukas were unsurpassed at precision bombers, Tyffies (and P47!!!) could deliver a lot of ordnance quickly and get out of harms way and Il2s just hovered over German trenches as a close infantry support.

Il2s btw were not armoured against a2a engagements - they were protected (exceptionally well too) against ground fire. I don't think they faired any better than Stukas when unescorted.

Dowding · « **Reply #11 on:** May 17, 2001, 06:42:00 AM »

Quote

As for the typhoon I could careless more Allied crap the brits were planning to replace the typhoon almost as it was deployed as for war records I'd put the stuka up against the typhoon anyday.

I suggest you do some more reading about the tiffie.

It was almost dropped as a fighter, but once it showed its jabo capability it was snapped up very quickly.

To get a Stuka from a rear base to the frontline, give it time to attack before returning to base would take *alot* of cover - and that it is why it is not a particularly versatile aircraft. Unopposed and in clear skies it is a great aircraft, no doubt.

The Tiffie vs the Stuka? Air to air there is no contest, air to ground the Stuka wins because of its bomb-load. But that bomb-load has to get to target first, and once delivered the plane has to have a chance to get back to base. The tiffie could do that, how about the Stuka?

Wotan · « **Reply #12 on:** May 17, 2001, 03:38:00 PM »

again I refer the right honorable gentlemen to the comment I made some moments ago...

again stolen from same thread as above posted byHemlock

On the 18th of Aug a total of sixty Ju 87 were used on Thorney Island and Ford airfields while the others struck at Poling radar station. 15 stuck Ford with 2 losses. 27 struck Thorney Island with no losses. 28 struck Poling with losses at 12. When they pulled out of their dives they were caught by the combined forces of Spits and Hurris of Nos.43,152 601, and 602 Squadrons before they reformed. Actually not bad considering they had no fighter escort!

A total of 332 Ju 87 were used in the operations over England.

------------------

Im Auftrage der Reichsbahn
(By order of the State Railway)

Pray not for an end to the slaughter...but for VICTORY!!!

[This message has been edited by Wotan (edited 05-17-2001).]

Wotan · « **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2001, 06:42:00 PM »

HoHun · « **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2001, 07:19:00 AM »

Hi,

for an accurate assessment of the Stuka's performance, it's important to remember its role: It was designed as medium bomber with precision attack capability.

It was neither intended as tactical ground attack aircraft nor as strategic bomber. Instead, it was intended for an intermediate level - the operational level -, a term that was absent from the allied terminology of the time but well-established in German military doctrine.

Unlike tactical attack aircraft that were employed against frontline targets, the Stuka was seen as a weapon to strike at targets behind the front, destroying communications and decimating units on the march before they could reach the front (or before they could reform on the retreat). In modern terms, it was not meant for Close Air Support but for Battlefield Area Interdiction - a very effective concept that's part of modern NATO doctrine as well.

The decline of German military strength during WW2 saw a general trend towards tactical air support at the cost of operational or even strategic level missions. As a result, the Stuka saw combat as tactical attack aircraft, but this change was due to the pressing superiority of the Red Army on the ground, and it was an aberration from the Luftwaffe's original doctrine. (In fact, a post-war analysis conducted for the benefit of the western allies considered the switch to tactical targets to have been a major mistake of the WW2 Luftwaffe.)

What made the Stuka obsolete? In the Battle of Britain, which was fought for strategic goals, the short-ranged Stuka was out of its element anyway, and the availability of longer-ranged, heavier carrying twin-engined bombers made its use unnecessary.

However, these twins - Do 17, He 111 and Ju 88 - proved to be just as difficult to protect from the RAF fighters as the Stuka had been, and in fact, not even the "Flying Fortress" of the USAAF could survive without heavy fighter escorts later.

The new fighter bomber concept (pioneered by the Luftwaffe - fighters couldn't carry any worthwhile bomb load when the Ju 87 was designed) didn't make the Stuka obsolete, either - as long as it was possible to adequately protect the Stukas, they were the better aircraft for the job. Only when the numerical superiority or the Red Air Force became overwhelming, the Ju 87 was abandoned in favour of Fw 190 Jabos.

The Ju 87 actually carried the same bombload as the Fairey Battle (or the Bristol Blenheim), and it proved both a more survivable aircraft and a more effective weapon.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)