Author Topic: Stuka info (Read 810 times)

janjan · « **Reply #15 on:** October 17, 2001, 01:52:00 AM »

One thing seems to be forgotten when people talk about usefulness of aircrafts - particularly bombers - is that very often they were NOT intercepted. In that case stuka would perform great as you all know.

I think by far the most important reason was bad weather that made interception very hard. Also fighter pilots wanted rtb alive and did not push it too far - so even if they were intercepted it didn't mean fighters pursued them till their death.

That is of course all different in AH

.

Nashwan · « **Reply #16 on:** October 17, 2001, 07:29:00 AM »

Quote

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!

The Ju87s for this raid came over in one formation, splitting off to attack the individual targets. The total escort for this force, which also split up to cover each raid, was 160 Bf109s.

As to the losses of Stukas, I have only checked one date, August the 18th, but that resulted in 18 losses, not 14, if you count the aircraft that were written off because they had sustained so much damage.

Quote

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

Ventnor was damaged by Ju88s, not 87s, and Dover by Bf110s. (and long range artillery)

Wotan · « **Reply #17 on:** July 05, 2002, 07:20:45 AM »

thrila · « **Reply #18 on:** July 05, 2002, 08:04:20 AM »

Blah! tiffie is much better.

I would still like to see the stuka modeleld though.

Angus · « **Reply #19 on:** July 07, 2002, 12:30:00 PM »

Does the Stuka have a place in AH?
Absolutely, and by now especially, since we already have some slow and early divebombers anyway.
The Stuka was almost unarguably the best divebomber of WW2.
(The Dauntless being almost as good (stability, brakes, payload)).
It served throughout the war and its record was more or less excellent. Carrying a decent payload, and being a very stable platform for aiming either bombs or cannons, the Stuka was a terrific weapon. And in AH, we need it! It is just as good as many of the planes we have now, and for historical setup it is a MUST!
However, it was not the best attack plane of ww2. The Germans really got beaten at their own game there, failing to replace the Stuka with something better (well, not mentioning the Henschel), while facing very good attack planes such as the Tiffie, P39, Jug, Il-2....you name it. In 1939/1940 there was nothing of the Stukas quality in the skies. In 1944, however, things were different.
The common myth of the Stukas suffering so horrible losses in the BoB that they were withdrawn has been corrected in many books, and this thread. Never the less, they WERE withdrawn,and that is probably why they did NOT suffer so bad losses. Look at it this way: It is a SLOW and vulnerable single engined airplane, and often LOW as well (after the divebombing). The Stuka, just as any other divebomber is very very vulnerable to enemy fighters. It racked up an excellent record in the Blitzkrieg mostly because it was well escorted and not facing any concentrated fighter resistance. In the BoB, things were different. The Stuka was the slowest plane of the LW at the time. The Germans knew that, so did the British. It was the fighter pilots finest pray. Well, it did maybe not suffer so dreadful losses totally, but when it got engaged at all, the loss rate was unacceptable.
The Typhoon has somehow been drawn into this thread as a comparison issue/debate. Well, that is somewhat silly. It is an attacker like the Stuka, but that marks the end of the similarity. Hands down, it is superior at its job. It is fast enough to be able to go without escort and carries about the same payload or more.
Picture the Germans having a Typhoon-like attacker in 1940? What a punch it would have given. Picture Stukas attacking heavily defended V-1/V-2 launch sites in 1945? Do you think they would have fared well? Come on, get reasonable.

RRAM · « **Reply #20 on:** July 07, 2002, 12:41:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus

The Stuka was almost unarguably the best divebomber of WW2.
(The Dauntless being almost as good (stability, brakes, payload)).

No divebomber was remotely similar in striking power and effecitity to a Ju87D. 2000kg antiship bombs, baby

Angus · « **Reply #21 on:** July 07, 2002, 12:49:22 PM »

2000 KG?? Antiship??????????
Give it to me, NOW!!!!!!!!!

Dr Zhivago · « **Reply #22 on:** July 07, 2002, 01:29:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
2000 KG?? Antiship??????????
Give it to me, NOW!!!!!!!!!

Biggest german anti-armor bomb was PC 1600 (weight 1600kg) and Ju87 carried 1800kg bombload. Ju87 could also carry single SC 1800 "Satan" bomb under fuselage. This pick is showing PC1600 bomb...

HoHun · « **Reply #23 on:** July 07, 2002, 01:41:52 PM »

Hi Angus,

>Never the less, they WERE withdrawn,and that is probably why they did NOT suffer so bad losses.

The Stukas were designed to be employed at a level between tactical and strategical warfare called "operative level" by German military doctine. The Battle of Britain was a strategic air war, so it's not surprising that the Stuka was not up to the requirements.

>The Typhoon has somehow been drawn into this thread as a comparison issue/debate. Well, that is somewhat silly. It is an attacker like the Stuka, but that marks the end of the similarity. Hands down, it is superior at its job.

The Typhoon was much more survivable in a high-threat environment. However, the accuracy of the Stuka at dive bombing was much higher than that of fighters adopted for the Jabo role. To use a modern comparison: The Stuka was the contemporary equivalent to the laser-guided bomb. It wasn't as precise, of course, but if you wanted precision, the Stuka was the way to go in WW2.

The late-war high-threat environment seems to have made Stuka attacks impracticable. Interestingly, despite suggestions by fighter pilots, no attempts seem to have been made to employ fighter bombers against strategic targets. Despite sub-Stuka accuracy, they would have had a higher ordnance effectiveness than the level pattern-bombing approach, and enjoyed the advantages you quoted for the Typhoon.

Maybe that's a tactical gap in the history of air war? Or did formations of fighter bombers with heavy ordnance actually go for strategic targets deep in the enemy hinterland, and I'm just not aware of it? :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

illo · « **Reply #24 on:** July 07, 2002, 05:15:28 PM »

Quote

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

Not even Kursk?

Hristo · « **Reply #25 on:** July 08, 2002, 01:16:09 AM »

Belgrade 1941 a Blitzkrieg ? j/k

How can you compare Typhoon and Stuka ? They are planes whose development is split by a whole decade. A decade which saw the greatest advances in aircraft development.

Typhoon was better attack plane. In 1943. Stuka was better than Typhoon - in 1938. Because there was no Typhoon in 1938

.

Tumor · « **Reply #26 on:** July 08, 2002, 07:06:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding

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.

.... it would get used anyway

Hortlund · « **Reply #27 on:** July 08, 2002, 08:11:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
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.

Do not fall into the "the allied airforce wreaked havoc on the German Panzers"-myth.

Angus · « **Reply #28 on:** July 08, 2002, 08:21:28 AM »

"Maybe that's a tactical gap in the history of air war? Or did formations of fighter bombers with heavy ordnance actually go for strategic targets deep in the enemy hinterland, and I'm just not aware of it? :-) "
You are right Henning. Many Fighter Pilots doing escort duties noted this, - why could they not carry something as well. I just remembered a conversation I had with Tony Jonsson about this, but he spent some time escorting USAF Fortresses whilst serving in 65 SQN RAF (P51C). He said that he could have carried almost as much as the B17 with his Mustang. "The B17 has so much Iron in it, that it can't carry all that much" he said. "But they never gave me any bombs, so my only contribution in those raids was when I pissed over Berlin at 30.000 feet:D "
However, Allied Jabos roamed quite deep into enemy territory, a lot deeper than any Stukas ever did. They were planes of another generation, fast and agile enough to take care of themselves, - just a different thing alltogether.
The slow divebomber was just the child of its day, and although the bombing accuracy of Typhoons and Thunderbolts never got close to the accuracy of the Stuka, those planes were still there as a better option, - what Chance would a really slow plane have had in there.
I remember reading a report about the Stuka, I think it was a captured plane which the Allies were testing. They were thrilled by its handling and aiming quality. There was never a better Divebomber. And with those Gull wings and sirens it is a MUST in AH. BTW, how would it be if formations of divebombers were enabled, pretty cool huh? Three Stukas close together diving with sirens on full scream:D

Hristo · « **Reply #29 on:** July 08, 2002, 08:51:45 AM »

now you're talking !!!

formation of dive bombers is nice thingie, but will AI wingmen be able to keep up with hard pullouts and air combat the Stuka is surely capable of ?