Author Topic: Stuka we have DID have siren...... (Read 2939 times)

hazed- · « **on:** December 17, 2002, 11:26:02 AM »

I noticed the stuka we have , by this i actually mean the EXACT model we have represented is the same ju87 that was flown by the RAF and was written about in 'wings of the luftwaffe' by Capt.eric brown

it is Ju87 D-3 (Werk-Nr 2491) T6+BC of stab II Gruppe Stukageschwader 2 "Immelmann" operating in stalingrad autumn/winter 1942.

this very ju87 is illustrated in the book and has the siren.There is also a cutaway diagram that shows the siren.

Maybe it was too much trouble to model it but it certainly did have it.

HTC is it possible you will add it later? or was it found to be too hard to include?

Im not complaining, just a little dissapointed we havent got it.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2002, 11:27:13 AM »

Are there any real world pictures of that plane in that book?

Or are they just illustrations and diagrams?

If it's the latter, those are commonly incorrect in many publications (even "notable" ones).
-SW

hazed- · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2002, 12:04:02 PM »

well theres no photo of this actual aircraft but there is one of a ju87-D3 of 4./St.G.77 which clearly shows the sirens.

Also theres a ju87-D1, a ju87-D2 and a ju87-D5 with the sirens.

I think this is likely to be a pilots preference in a loadout by the looks of it as there are pictures of ju87s in the same squadron with and without sirens.

btw AKSW the picture is a plan veiw with close up illustraions of the insignia and the 'barli' writing. Drawn it seems from the aircraft itself or id suspect a photo of it.In the book it calls it the 'general arrangement drawing' as if its part of the report? I cant be sure.
Also the cutaway drawing of the ju87-d3 has the siren.Surely its unlikely they have made a mistake and if they have why on earth has HTC used this particular ju87?
I would suspect its because the data that is available on this particular model from all the tests done on it by the RAF.In which case there seems to be scant reason to suppose they have the illustration wrong whilst having the other info correct does there?

I have to ask SW, where have you seen this 'commonly incorrect' illustrations you are refering to and how do you know for sure the d3 didnt have the siren? Just asking as you always seem to play devils advocate to my posts

rather than immediately dismissing my find as a common mistake how about you show me how you 'know' it is a mistake?

Turbot · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2002, 12:09:40 PM »

Shame no siren on stuka though - I don't care if it was really on there or not - it is just too cool a feature to have been left off. Frankly I may be a WWII history ignorant dolt - but I surely did expect the stuka to make noise, it would be 1/2 the fun of flying it.

hyena426 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2002, 12:26:10 PM »

ya,,even on old airwarrior 3 the stuka had a dive siren,,,was cool to dive it and hear the screem,,,my buddy said he could even hear it while he was dog fighting me,,every time i nosed it down,,he too could hear it ,,,very cool,,,i hope they add it,,sure missing thats for sure,,but its still a good plane,,and i wont complain too much,because im just happy they released it at all,,lol

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2002, 12:47:04 PM »

Because illustrations and drawings of planes tend to be incorrect, unless done by Watanabe (I think that's his name, believe he's a Japanese artists).

I never said it was incorrect, I said they tend to be.
-SW

Wotan · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2002, 12:55:39 PM »

Hazed the d5 had the dive flaps removed so why have a siren? I think your source maybe bogus is it shows the d5 with a siren.

hazed- · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2002, 01:45:48 PM »

Wotan the source is 'wings of the luftwaffe' by Capt. eric brown.

The photos shown are all labeled and have their marks so if like you said the ju87-d5 had no sirens at all then i guess they could be labeled wrong.

but does it necessarily mean the stuka had to be in a dive to use sirens? maybe this pilot liked to scare enemy troops while he straffed them?

according to the picture it is a 'ju87-D-5 of 9./St.G.77 displaying well-worn temporary white winter finish'. it shows a stuka with sirens .Is there a simple way to identify a ju87-D5 over other marks? perhaps some info on this particular gruppe which could prove its another type other than d5?

from info in another book i have it says the ju87-d5 was 'intended' for ground attack only and had the dive brakes removed.Does this mean they actually couldnt dive bomb at all?

You could be right, and the book could be wrong in its labeling of pictures but then again it may be right.Would be nice to work it out one way or another.

I'll post the pictures later when i set up my scanner again.

P.S. AKSW just out of interest the illustrator of cut away is a guy called 'weal' . know of him?

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2002, 01:54:35 PM »

Never seen his illustrations. But just for example, I have a couple of books with 3-way view drawings, diagrams, and illustrations of certain aircraft.

One depicts the 109E has having the supercharger intake (I believe that's it, the one through the spinner) as a 20mm MGFF cannon. While another book's drawing indicates the small spinner on the Ju87 is in fact not a siren, but a power generator.

Those are just 2 examples I can remember off the top of my head.

I have a couple of books at home with diagrams of the Stuka, altho I believe they are B and G models. I'll check.

Still gonna check my books at home, but while I was over at the IL2 site, this is what is listed for the Ju87:

Main modifications:
Ju-87 D-1 - The first serial variant of the "D" modification. Additional cabin armor. Strengthened landing gear.
Ju-87 D-1 trop - A version with an additional air filter and other desert equipment.
Ju-87 D-2 - Planes of the series were intended for towing landing (transport) GO 242 and DFS 230 gliders. Strengthened tail assembly. New tail leg with a towing hook for the glider.
Ju-87 D-3 - Ground attack aircraft. Strengthened armor for the crew, engine and radiator. Aerodynamic sirens were removed.
Ju-87 D-4 - Prototype of land-based torpedo-bomber. The aircraft could carry one 533mm LTF 5B torpedo.
Ju-87 D-5 - Ground attack aircraft. Increased wingspan (15m). Increased bomb load. On-board armament: 2x20 mm (MG 151/20) - in the wing; a 2x7.9 mm (MG 81) - at the rear gunner's disposal.
Ju-87 D-6 - Simplified version of Ju-87 D-5 bomber-fighter. No serial production.
Ju-87 D-7 and D-8 - Variants intended for night operations. Installation of flame extinguishers and special equipment. Both variants had Ju 211P engines with 1,500 HP. Brake bars were removed on most of the planes.
D-7 - modernized D-3; D-8 - modernized D-5.
Ju-87 E - Carrier-borne variant of land-based version created on the basis of the Ju-87 D-1 aircraft, adjusted to carry the 533mm LTF 5B torpedo. The aircraft came with sea equipment similar to the Ju-87 C. No serial production.
Ju-87 F - Modified Ju-87 D aircraft with Ju 213 engine (rated 1,700 HP). It was anticipated that the aircraft would be equipped with large-diameter wheels and wings with considerable wingspan. No serial production.
-SW

Turbot · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2002, 02:14:19 PM »

Ju-87 D-5 'Stuka'

Armament
2 x 20 mm MG 151/20
2 x 7.92mm MG 81

Propulsion
Engine: Junkers Jumo 211 J, V-12 inline
Power (combined): 1 300 HP
Specific power: 197 HP / ton
Maximum speed: 402 kph
Ceiling: 7 320 meters
Range: 1 000 km

Production
From: around June of 1943
To: N/A

http://lemairesoft.digitalrice.com/engins2/1461.html#1121

The Ju-87 D-3 had been found too slow and not enough maneuvrable by the crews. Learning from that, this new version of the Stuka had lengthened wings and more armement. The dive brakes were abandonned in the course of this series: the plane was almost never used as a dive bomber any more and only as ground support plane.

I still don't care, a siren would still be very cool. I am gettign confused as to which one we have anyway

hyena426 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2002, 02:28:03 PM »

a dive siren would be cool,,if its a dive bomb model atleast,,because the siren was suposta help slow the plane a little and scare ground troops at the same time:)<~~but they figured out the dive flaps were anuff alone and the siren was more sound than anything,,but it would still be cool:)

Wotan · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2002, 02:31:09 PM »

Quote

Is there a simple way to identify a ju87-D5 over other marks?

Yeah no dive flaps and no Siren

The Stuka was obsolete by the time of barbarossa but the lw need ground support aircraft to strike against armored spear heads in particularly against light armor and the support vehicles for the mbt. MBT were tough targets not like in ah and even the stuka couldnt achieve much against them. The stuka as it was originally designed was a battle interdiction weapon against soft targets, fixed defenses, and troop areas. In france it hit artillery and troop concentrations and broke reserves. This allowed the blitz to keep moving. The siren was added as terror tactic. Troops would give up their positions at the sound of the trumpets of jerico.

There was no use to having the siren on Schlacht aircraft as their targets were more often vehicles of some type and they attacked at low level.

With the d3 variant the lw was transforming the stuka from its original roll to a ground support aircraft. It had added armor to better take small arms ground fire. as a result it was heavier slower and manuvered worse then the d1.

The d5 was an attempt to lighten up and restore some manuverability to the aircraft. Anything that wasnt necessary was removed. The dive flaps were gone the wheel farings etc. The d5 wings were extended. Theres no logical for the siren to be on either the d3 or the d5. And the siren only worked at speeds achieved in a dive. Low level it would do nothing.

Rudel achieved most of armor kills in g model. the d3 became a g1 the d5 a g2. Rudel was an exception and a true nut who should have been dead numerous times.

The Fw 190 g and f were replacing the stukas as fast as possible.

For what its worth dont rely on pics unless you know the source even if they are reprinted in books.

Even searching the web.

It just makes no sense to keep the siren on the d3 or d5 models.

Turbot · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2002, 02:44:17 PM »

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ju87d.html

Lots of pictures but I don't know what I am looking for.

Wotan · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2002, 02:54:33 PM »

We dont need no stinkin siren

this is all we need

AtmkRstr · « **Reply #14 on:** December 17, 2002, 03:08:59 PM »

I wouldn't trust just a single source, whether it's written, TV, or Web. I've seen blatant errors in all three. Is there a second source?

It'd be nice to have several photographs of several different Ju87 D3s along with when & where the pic was taken. If we can prove that atleast one production Ju87-D3 had a siren (installed during or after production), then maybe we could convince HT to add an optional siren. For now, I'm not convinced.