Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Krusty on November 28, 2005, 08:51:58 PM
-
I was just flipping through a book and it mentioned that the F-8 could carry an 1800KG bomb on the centerline. This is the same as the Ju87, but I think the F8 would be FAR better suited to it. Just curious why we don't have this option in AH.
-
Yeah we should have that. Afterall 190F-8 was made to replace all Ju-87 fleets right?;)
btw didnt 190F-8 carried a torpedo? (ok im asking too much :))
-
Neg, it was some form of the 190A, and was only for testing if I'm right.
But still, the Ju87 was obsolete at the start of the war (that's a fact). The 109 and 110 replaced it on the front lines, but the Fw190 did the job so much better. I don't see why we should have a Ju87 with a huge egg and not on the fw190f-8
(unless there's some reason it historically wasn't used?? If not please include it!)
-
"But still, the Ju87 was obsolete at the start of the war (that's a fact)."
Oh?
-C+
-
It was used in poland to great effect but after that it was CLEARLY evident that it was obsolete, and couldn't be used anywhere unless the LW already had full air superiority.
-
Originally posted by Charge
"But still, the Ju87 was obsolete at the start of the war (that's a fact)."
Oh?
-C+
Obsolete doesn't mean "harmless". The Fairey Swordfish was much more obsolete than the Ju87 and it sank more tones of Axis shipping than any other Allied torpedo plane.
-
I would say thats overstating it somewhat, the Ju87 was as modern a type as anything else in the early part of the war.
The IJN used the D3A Val at Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea and Midway. Fixed gear, like the Ju87.
SBD was supposedly "obsolete" too, yet it won all the important victories.
Swordfish too, yes, obsolete but still did a surprisingly good job.
But after 1942, sure, the dive bomber was getting long in the tooth and was being phased out by fighter-bomber designs that were more surviveable, Fw190F, Typhoon, F6F, P-47. However, for precision attack, and attacking capital ships, its hard to beat the accuracy of a dive bomber. Torp bombers do more damage, but they are fatally vulnerable to aaa and fighters. You wouldnt have gotten me in on of those things. Damn crews must have had ice water in their veins.
-
the effectiveness of aircraft has little to do with the plane itself. it has far more to do with the pilots, and the tactics they use.
-
the swordfish was effective principally because it was so slow. on the bismarck attack the german radar targeting and ranging equipment did not have a setting to accomodate it's low airspeed and it's tube and fabric construction didn't allow cannon rounds to detonate within it's fuselage/wings. remember a spear is as old a weapon as man has and it can still be lethal today inspite of all the kevlar you could be wearing.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
It was used in poland to great effect but after that it was CLEARLY evident that it was obsolete, and couldn't be used anywhere unless the LW already had full air superiority.
well, after that was widely used (and effectively) in France/Belgium/Netherlands, Balcans, mediterranium/Africa, and the URSS... and not always with full air superiority.
And 109s replacing Stukas? that's new for me :confused:
-
Originally posted by Meyer
well, after that was widely used (and effectively) in France/Belgium/Netherlands, Balcans, mediterranium/Africa, and the URSS... and not always with full air superiority.
And 109s replacing Stukas? that's new for me :confused:
A squad of jabo 109s is far better then ju87s because after they drop thier bombs they could fight thier way out instead of flying around like siting ducks. same goes for the 110s and 190s. The Ju87 was slow and could hardly defend its self. Thats why after BoB it was hardly ever used.
-
Originally posted by Larry
Thats why after BoB it was hardly ever used.
LOL you better check that .
-
Ok then after BoB were did they use ju87s in numbers? After BoB they started to use them less and less because they were being replaced by better AC.
-
Originally posted by Meyer
well, after that was widely used (and effectively) in France/Belgium/Netherlands, Balcans, mediterranium/Africa, and the URSS... and not always with full air superiority.
:confused:
But Stuka was eficient antitank with BK 37mm , in the right hands
Hans Ulrich Rudel:
"Rudel logged 2,530 combat missions,
Rudel's personal victories as a ground-attack pilot were achieved exclusively against the Soviets, and despite the most primitive conditions imaginable, including operations solely from dirt, mud, and snow covered airfields, his confirmed victories (those witnessed by two or more fellow pilots) include:
518+ Tanks
700 Trucks
150+ Flak and Artillery positions
9 Fighter/Ground Attack Aircraft
Hundreds of bridges, railway lines, bunkers, etc.
Battleship October Revolution, Cruiser Marat, and 70 landing craft
Through direct action, he saved tens of thousands of German infantrymen from certain encirclement and annihilation during the long retreat which began in July 43 and lasted until the war's end, almost two years later.
Shot down 32 times."
Lucky he survieved the war, and died in 1980:)
-
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.
-
also I think that 37mm armed -G stuka didn't show up til, what?, late '43?
EDIT: Back on topic: Bring the 1800KG bomb to the F8!
-
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. ;)
-
"Back on topic: Bring the 1800KG bomb to the F8!"
:)
-
Originally posted by Larry
Ok then after BoB were did they use ju87s in numbers? After BoB they started to use them less and less because they were being replaced by better AC.
Let's see:
Poland: 350 Stukas
France: 360 Stukas
BOB: 350 Stukas
Balkans: 260 Stukas
Crete: 205 Stukas
URSS june 1941: 270 Stukas, july of 42 250 Stukas, and almost 400 for the Kursk battle.
BTW the most produced version was the Ju87D...
-
a 190F taking off with 1800kg bomb would be how much over gross? Around 500kg/10% I'm guessing...not too much if the runway is long or a good headwind is present
-
Originally posted by Meyer
Let's see:
Poland: 350 Stukas
France: 360 Stukas
BOB: 350 Stukas
Balkans: 260 Stukas
Crete: 205 Stukas
URSS june 1941: 270 Stukas, july of 42 250 Stukas, and almost 400 for the Kursk battle.
BTW the most produced version was the Ju87D...
How many were the 7.9 versions, and how many were the ones with 20 or 37mm?
-
But after 1942, sure, the dive bomber was getting long in the tooth and was being phased out by fighter-bomber designs that were more surviveable, Fw190F,
The F series is not the "fighter bomber" variant of the FW-190 series, btw. It is a purpose built "Schlachtflugzeug" or close support aircraft with 5 hard points. Its bombing equipment is among the most sophisticated found on a WWII close support aircraft. The aircraft also is equipped with extra armour.
The "fighter bomber" version or "Jagdbombenflugzeug" is the FW-190A with ETC501 mounted weapons and simplified bombing system. It has no extra armour and a single hard point.
The most common bomb not found in AH used by the FW-190F8 is the AB series of cluster munitions. This IMHO should replace rockets in the FW190 series for anti-tank work.
On the bomb-torpedo's, we are entering a realm of "Focke Wulf Legend". Quite a bit of conflicting information on this subject and in my opinion it seems the whole program was cancelled.
A BT carrying variant was tested at Rechlin in 1944 and 20 a month were ordered into production with additional Naval torpedo versions being produced at the rate of 5 a month. No proof exist that these variants were actually produced however at the ordered rate.
However, AFAIK, III/KG 200 was the only unit to operate FW-190F8's modified from FW-190F8/R13's to use the ETC 502 rack and the BT series of weapons. The largest BT used was a BT700 and even that is questioned.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Larry
How many were the 7.9 versions, and how many were the ones with 20 or 37mm?
Before Kursk all were armed with 7.92mm. The first version with Mg151, th D-5, just started to appear at that moment. And the JU87G was never very numerous (only 174 were produced)
-
My understanding is that the G series was capable of carrying the 1800kg centerline bomb. It was never a "Standard" option or deployed at the squadren level. Also took an exceptionally long runway.
"In an emergency, single Fw 190G planes were adapted for the transportation of high weight bombs under the fuselage (1000, 1600 and 1800 kg). In this modification, the shock absorber leg was strengthened and wheels with strengthened tires were used. Also used were special bomb racks (Schlos 1000 or 2000) in place of the ETC 501 bomb rack. The Fw 190G planes with these higher bomb loads needed as long as 1200-1300 m of runway for takeoff."
As for torpedo's
"Fw 190F-8/U2 - torpedo plane with two underwing ETC 503 racks or under-fuselage mounted ETC 504 (previously ETC 501) bomb rack. The plane was equipped with a special sight system, TSA 2A (Tiefsturzangle 2A) for precise aerial torpedo BT (Bombentorpedo) aiming. Using this torpedo it was possible to attack targets from a higher altitude and from a higher angle than in the case of an ordinary aerial torpedo LT (Lufttorpedo). It was planned to use two BT 400 or one BT 700 torpedo. Other armament was reduced to two fuselage mounted MG 131 machine guns. A small number of these planes were in service with 11./KG200."
-
Hehe, somehow I doubt that fine distinction meant anything to the troops that were being bombed and strafed. ;)
-
Hehe, somehow I doubt that fine distinction meant anything to the troops that were being bombed and strafed.
LOL,
Nope it certainly did not matter to the poor soul on the recieving end.
It is not that fine a distinction to the pilot who flew them, though. It would be like saying the A36 is the fighter bomber version of the Mustang. Reality is it has nothing to do with a fighter and is a dedicated ground attack platform.
http://www.angelfire.com/oh3/pmodels/a36.html
All the best,
Crumpp
-
We should have longer runways and shorter trees to take off with that monster bomb...
-C+
-
Just add some flaps to the Ju-87, it'll take off like a butterfly :)