Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 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Dover destroyers withdrawn form path of invasion fleet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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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 (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]
------------------
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/rot3jv44.jpg)
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).]
-
O O Get ready for the toejamstorm....
-
Excellent info there Wotan. Damn puts a little glimmer in my rudel poster filled eyes. Serious though excellent info.
------------------
(http://members.home.net/cgoolsby6/sachs1.jpg)
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).]
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)) but it's a dead meat to any fighter who cares to look in it's direction.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Stuka would be nice in "BlitzKrieg" scenario but not in any scens later than that.
-
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.
------------------
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/rot3jv44.jpg)
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).]
-
But Wotan - very rarely does anything in war go as the commanders wish. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) 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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
i said local air superiority (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) 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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)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
------------------
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/rot3jv44.jpg)
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).]
-
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! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I kept CFS1 (crap as it is) for the opportunity to shoot down those things (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
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.
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) 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? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
again I refer the right honorable gentlemen to the comment I made some moments ago... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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.
------------------
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/rot3jv44.jpg)
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).]
-
punt
-
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)
-
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 :).
-
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.
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)
-
punt
-
Blah! tiffie is much better.:)
I would still like to see the stuka modeleld though.
-
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.:p
-
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 :D
-
2000 KG?? Antiship??????????
Give it to me, NOW!!!!!!!!!
-
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...
-
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)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Stuka would be nice in "BlitzKrieg" scenario but not in any scens later than that.
Not even Kursk? :eek:
-
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 ;).
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
"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
-
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 ?
-
No formations for the Ju-87...no F6-type bombsight.