New Stuka

[Greebo]

To be fair to the Swordfish, for the last half of the war it was mainly used for anti-U boat patrols. The bulk of its shipping tonnage was scored in 1940-42.

[SmokinLoon]

As a purpose-built ground attack plane, yeah. But I feel the Allied aircraft were better in the ground attack role due to their better ord carrying capacity.

I mean speed was their defense, where as armor was the Il-2's

a lone Il-2's guns weren't that effective against more heavily armored vehicles, and .50's or 20mm's will chew up soft skinned vehicles and light armor just as nicely.

And the ablity to haul around larger (although less efficient at anti-armor work) bombs, and rockets gave them greater flexiblity.

I'd be wary of comparing apples to oranges.  Also, your analysis of "speed vs armor" inadvertently classifies weaknesses and attributes in to a positive/negative.  If you would have asked the Soviets if they would have rather had the Il-2 for the role that it performed, or instead modified the Pe-2 for the direct support role (as a sub for the US P38, P47, etc), they would have stayed with the Il-2 without a doubt.

The Il-2 was a "direct support" aircraft, it could hang around and directly attack a specific enemy target vs coming in screaming with ordnance for an "area" effect like the US and RAF dive bombers usually did. 

[PR3D4TOR]

Well, to be fair the Ju 87 owes its outstanding success to the same fact as many other German aircraft; it served from the very beginning of the war to the very end, on all fronts and against numerically superior, (but often technologically or tactically inferior,) enemy forces. Despite the numbers it was clearly inferior in the anti-shipping role to purpose built naval dive bombers like the Dauntless and Helldiver. It particularly suffered in the range department as it was designed as a tactical Blitz weapon. Even the Ju 87R with its two 300L droptanks couldn't match the Dauntless in range, and they both typically carried much the same useful load in the anti-shipping role. The Stuka might have been more accurate in a dive being a true 90 degree dive bomber, but that's the only good thing I can say about the Stuka in this regard.

In the anti-tank role the Stuka excelled with its accurate and heavy bomb load. The D-5 version with 20 mm cannon and bombs (1,488 produced) was the main tank-buster in '42-'43. It was very successful and prompted the development of the "Cannonbird" Ju 87G.

[Rich52]

Actually in the first years it served against numerically inferior enemy air forces as well. During the Polish and French campaigns the Luftwaffe always held superior numbers. Even during the BOB they did, tho they did go up against an enemy as good or better then they and without a long range fighter to protect the stukas. Had they stuck to their war against the RAF and coastal shipping who knows what would have happened.

On the eastern front after the first few days there really wasnt much Soviet air force left period. Even into '43 I'd bet the Luftwaffe held numerical advantage on the eastern front. By then however the Soviet and western aerospace Industries overwhelmed them in production. The Bomber war drained them from the tactical front as well. Still they didnt die quickly. That German industry was STILL able to produce so many Luftwaffe airframes/assets, and the Huns were able to fight so well for so long, is really a remarkable achievement.

[PR3D4TOR]

True, but I was specifically thinking of the Ju 87's enemies/targets. The French Army and British expeditionary force in France had more tanks than the Wehrmacht during the Battle of France, and Churchill sacrificed the Channel convoys to preserve the RAF for the real battle. Again in 1941-'42 the Soviets had an astounding number of tanks (five times that of the invading German army), but most were outdated and lightly armored and easily destroyed by the Stuka.

[Karnak]

I recall that the D3A had a hit rate on ships of more than twice what the Ju87 had.

[PR3D4TOR]

Perhaps due to the excellence of Japanese pilot training early in the war. I don't think the Stukas got much anti-shipping training. That said, the Val was a very good dive bomber and has the record for most allied warships sunk.

[Tank-Ace]

Or maybe it had something to do with the fact that it served in the PTO where there was a vast expanse of water, plentiful shipping, and many warships to bomb  .

[PR3D4TOR]

How would that affect hit rate? (Bombs dropped/bombs hit.)

[Tank-Ace]

Because their training would have centered around anti-ship work, and they would have had more chances to practice their skills.


Just saying, its not that Japanese training was better, just that focuses were on two different things.

[Karnak]

Dunno.  Ostensibly if you've been trained to hit tanks, as the Germans were, you ought to be able to hit ships as well.

As I understand it the Japanese training was better as far as producing the best pilots, but it was substantially inferior in producing lots of pilots. They had a huge washout rate because of the standards they had.

[Tank-Ace]

Like I said, different focus. Germany focused on getting good numbers of competent pilots trained, Japan focused on getting a smaller number of highly skilled experts trained.

I mean when number of aircraft is severely limted (such as on a carrier), it would make sense to only accept the best. At least initially.

[PR3D4TOR]

Japanese training was extreme before, and during the early years of the war. It was brutal beyond belief and only a very small % of cadets graduated. At the start of the Pacific War most Japanese active pilots had two years of training plus up to five years of active combat service in China with thousands of flight hours logged.

[PR3D4TOR]

Just saying, its not that Japanese training was better...

Like I said, different focus. Germany focused on getting good numbers of competent pilots trained, Japan focused on getting a smaller number of highly skilled experts trained.

You are contradicting yourself.

[PR3D4TOR]

Dunno.  Ostensibly if you've been trained to hit tanks, as the Germans were, you ought to be able to hit ships as well.

It's very different apparently (I wouldn't know from personal experience). Diving against a ship on the sea makes judging distance, angle and relative motion difficult compared to land targets where you usually have plenty of fixed visual references. Tanks were also often unaware of being attacked (noisy environment and poor optics for spotting planes) and caught stationary, or moving slower than a ship at flank speed trying to evade.