PDA

View Full Version : The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka topic.



Panzerknacker
01-07-2007, 02:40 PM
What about this attack aircraft ? Opinions here please.

http://www.ouka.fi/ppm/laukka/kuvat/8/7992.jpg

Panzerknacker
01-07-2007, 02:49 PM
Interesting video, antitank variant Ju-87g using his guns in Hungary.

Clik on the link and then download it.

http://www.rogepost.com/n/7246912881



http://www.europa1939.com/luftwaffe/apoyo/ju87g.jpg

VonWeyer
01-07-2007, 03:04 PM
A good clip. First time that i have seen one using its cannon in that roll.
In the air against fighters it was useless.
As a ground attack aircraft it was efficient especially when their was no returning fire.
On the other hand it definately had a reputation that people speak about to this day, so i suppose that also needs to stand for something.

Panzerknacker
01-07-2007, 03:13 PM
As you might have read is commonly accepted that the Ju-87 was complete retired from the operations inn the western front after 1941, however it played a important role as later 1943 when the attacking Stukas D were vital to the german recapture of the Rodas and Leros islands.

VonWeyer
01-07-2007, 03:29 PM
Stuka in a dive.

VonWeyer
01-07-2007, 03:34 PM
Ju87g Cannon.

Panzerknacker
01-07-2007, 03:41 PM
Nice pictures, I am wondering if the first was actually in a dive...or simply going down.

VonWeyer
01-07-2007, 03:46 PM
Yeah. Good question.

Panzerknacker
01-07-2007, 03:51 PM
Probably it was shoot down...but i cannot see real damage to the aircraft:

another video Stukas atacking the Kuban russian brigdehead.

http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/kontrollklfenster.php?&PHPSESSID=&dmguid=08E92C0055BA58DF030103009D21A8C03009000000&inf=1120840&outf=1225960&funktion=play250k

Gen. Sandworm
01-07-2007, 04:38 PM
Nice pictures, I am wondering if the first was actually in a dive...or simply going down.

Im sure you could take the size of the plane and compare it to the size of what im assuming is a 2-story house..maybe 3 ..... and determine its going down.

BTW I think Hans Rudel proved in the right hands this was an awesome plane. Even when outdated.

VonWeyer
01-07-2007, 05:05 PM
Im sure you could take the size of the plane and compare it to the size of what im assuming is a 2-story house..maybe 3 ..... and determine its going down.

BTW I think Hans Rudel proved in the right hands this was an awesome plane. Even when outdated.

Good point General.

ww2admin
01-07-2007, 05:13 PM
I can't remember, but I thought I read somewhere that the Stuka automatically pulled the pilot out of a dive if he blacked out. True?

Btw, love the Stuka. Just looks like an evil plane. There are no full scale versions flying today, right?

Gen. Sandworm
01-07-2007, 05:14 PM
I can't remember, but I thought I read somewhere that the Stuka automatically pulled the pilot out of a dive if he blacked out. True?

Btw, love the Stuka. Just looks like an evil plane. There are no full scale versions flying today, right?

Both good questions I myself would like to know the answer to!

VonWeyer
01-08-2007, 03:25 AM
I can't remember, but I thought I read somewhere that the Stuka automatically pulled the pilot out of a dive if he blacked out. True?

Btw, love the Stuka. Just looks like an evil plane. There are no full scale versions flying today, right?

I have heard something similar too. Would be great if anyone has the answer.

SS Tiger
01-08-2007, 06:11 AM
The automatic pull out was connected to the bomb drop mech, so when the bomb left the pull out was engaged, I'm pretty sure this happened always, even if the pilot was still conscious.

SS Tiger
01-08-2007, 06:23 AM
As for my opinion, I think it was great in both the anti-armour and anti-troop roles(not really in high numbers of troops killed, but the fear factor breaking moral).

A big disadvantage was the short range with a heavy payload, meaning you had to have a operational airfield not far from the frontline. However the JU-87 G-2 with its Flak 18 37 millimetre antitank gun was an excellent use of this weapons platform, and was a success much in the same way the modern day A-10 is.

Remember also the effect these aircraft had on the enemy troops, breaking the moral of troops can be an effective weapon often overlooked when deciding whether an aircraft is effective in combat. Having a Stuka screaming down on your postion must have been pretty frightening!

VonWeyer
01-08-2007, 06:24 AM
Thanx for the info.
You are right regarding the fear factor. Having a Stuka screaming down on you must have been frightening, even for the most hardened troops.

alephh
01-08-2007, 07:09 AM
IMO: It was a lethal aircraft because of it's accuracy, but it was just too vulnerable to enemy aircrafts to be used "freely".

"Perhaps the prime example of its vulnerability to fighters was the shooting down of five Stukas in the space of a few minutes, by the Australian ace Clive Caldwell in a P-40 Tomahawk on December 5, 1941, over Libya."
- from wikipedia

"The Ju87 was used with tremendous success in the Blitzkrieg attacks on Norway, Poland, Belgium, France, Holland, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Virtually unchallenged in the air during these Blitzkriegs the Stukas took a devastating toll on Allied ground and mechanized forces. Shipping was also vulnerable to the pinpoint attacks of the Stuka, and the Ju87 destroyed more Allied shipping than all other German aircraft put together during WW II."
- http://www.aviationarthangar.com/sofdejustava.html

I remember once reading some sort of comparison about accuracy of WWII bombers, and being impressed by Ju-87.


_

VonWeyer
01-08-2007, 08:33 AM
Thanx for the info.
Their are some cool pic's on that website link you gave.

Panzerknacker
01-08-2007, 08:53 AM
The automatic pull out was connected to the bomb drop mech, so when the bomb left the pull out was engaged, I'm pretty sure this happened always, even if the pilot was still conscious.


Nice info Tiger & aleph, some pictures.



First proto with 600 hp british V-12, probably one of the ugliest aifract ever saw.

http://i14.tinypic.com/2pqw0n9.jpg



Ju-87B variant of the LG 1.

http://i3.tinypic.com/40mwpw9.jpg



Calibrating the MG-17s in a B-2 note the rear circle mounting for the defensive MG-15..and the very smoky leutchspur tracer in the shooting.

http://i12.tinypic.com/2w3coeh.jpg


Funny thing the Stuka was the first aicraft to achieve an air victory in WW2.

VonWeyer
01-08-2007, 09:14 AM
Interesting facts. You are right, that prototype is ugly.

alephh
01-08-2007, 09:46 AM
You are right, that prototype is ugly.

Maybe is wasn't all about how beautiful the aircraft was? ;-D

When you see 200kg bombs coming directly towards you, the tendency to admire the beauty of bomber design decreases - god knows why ;-D



_

VonWeyer
01-08-2007, 10:49 AM
Right you are.;)

Panzerknacker
01-08-2007, 05:38 PM
The "D" variant was little less ugly...I think:

The first air combat in WW2.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/neubert3.jpg


Frank Neubert was born on September 28th, 1915 in Herrenalb/Schwarzwald. He belonged to the "Immelmann-Geschwader" since 1936. He took part in invasion at Poland - "Fall Weiss" operation. Early morning September 1st, 1939, his dive bomber unit started to destroy Polish airbase in Krakow (base was empty - a day before Polish air forces were moved to reserve airfields).

But in clouds Neubert and his gunner Franz Klinger, lost ordinance with other unit crews and lost course. Few minuts he looked for main target and find another "lost" Ju 87B. They located at last (empty) Krakow airfield and dropped their bombs. Dive bombers were on return way, when Neubert saw a pair of landed P-24's (note: they just started and there were PZL P-11c's). He noticed, that one of them come after Lt. Branderburg's Ju 87, and decided to attack Polish fighters. Frank Neubert shooted two good targeted series into Cpt. Medwecki (commander of Squadron) plane. "Eleventh" stand in fire and crashed into ground. This same time second Polish fighter, piloted by Sec.Lt. Wladyslaw Gnys (http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/gnys/gnys.htm)fast come out from German attack. After few second Gnys took position after Brandeburg's "Stuka" and opened fire. The cloud rescued German plane. They luckily all returned to main Nieder-Ellguth airfield. In this battle Farnk Neubert scored probably first air victory in WW II. It's depend from time of attack: some sources reported that's happend at 5:30 a.m., but most facts and relations pointed the right time about 7:00 a.m. In that case first air winner in WW II will be Lt. Stanislaw Skalski (http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/skalski/skalski.htm), after his own relation he downed alone reconn Hs 126 at 5:32 a.m.

From 10 May 1940 to July 1940 Frank Neubert flew as Staffelführer of the 1./St.G. 2, from July to Sept 1940 Staffelkapitän 2./St.G. 2. Next Gruppenkommandeur 1./St.G. 2 between September 1941 and January 1942.

Franz Neubert, stuka pilot, managed to achieve the first
air-to-air kill of the WW2.


http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/neubert1.jpg


http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/luftwaffe.htm

Panzerknacker
01-12-2007, 07:48 AM
Stukas in color:

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/signal12a.jpg


http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/signal12b.jpg


http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/signal12c.jpg


http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/signal12e.jpg


Our brave Ju 87 are ready to take off... With us is also one Stuka of the shark-squadron... The bombs are loaded..."
" Next to our plane goes the first formation... I ask wether I can make pictures, and am allowed until the bombs are going to be dropped

"Soon we will reach our targets... One plane leaves the formation, turns around to dive, through the white clouds, towards the target... The climax is when the plane is in a straight line with the target, and the bombs are released... Hundreds of kilo's lighter, the airplane goes to a horizontal flight, and climbes back towards the clouds... The mission was succesfull, and soon the pilot gets out of his seat to make a rapport..."


http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/signal12.html

Panzerknacker
01-12-2007, 05:44 PM
Rudel in combat, very good video.

http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/kontrollklfenster.php?&PHPSESSID=&dmguid=08E92C0055BA58DF030103009D21A8C0170A000000&inf=506240&outf=665560&funktion=play250k

Librarian
01-13-2007, 02:18 PM
Another color photo of this indeed useful and versatile German aircraft:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87BStuka-StabISturzkampfgeschwade.jpg

Ju 87 B Stuka – Stab, I Sturzkampfgeschwader 2 Immelman – Signal, U/Nr. 12/41

Panzerknacker
01-13-2007, 05:00 PM
Beautiful picture :)

Librarian
01-13-2007, 10:22 PM
Thank you, my dear Mr. Panzerknacker. :)

However, I think that the following picture is even more captivating one. As a matter of fact, it was taken by Chef-Bildoffizier (I c Bild) of the Führungsstab Luftflottenkommando 2 , colonel Hans Ruef near Momonova (USSR), on the 15th of July 1941.

It explicitly describes factual possibilities of dive-bombing, as well as enormous importance of the Junkers 87 in early stages of war with Soviet Union.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Stukavolltreffer.jpg

Inscription: Bombenvolltreffer auf Tankzug – A direct bomb-hit on the tank-wagon, Stabia LFL 2, July 15th, 1941. Photo taken by colonel Hans Ruef.

Original photography is nowadays included into Photo Library of the German Air Force. It was captured by US Air Force investigators and transferred into USA in September of 1945, during the operation **** Tracy.

Panzerknacker
01-13-2007, 10:27 PM
He,he, very good one, I think that today this is called "surgical precision ", even sometimes is not as far accurate . :rolleyes:

Panzerknacker
03-14-2007, 06:34 PM
Nice secuence of the deliver of a SC 250 bomb over fort Pilastrino outside Tobruk by a Ju-87B.

Note the mechanism used to avoid the bomb to hit the propellers,


http://i16.tinypic.com/30cwscm.jpg



http://i17.tinypic.com/2wohcmb.jpg


http://i18.tinypic.com/4dz2lgo.jpg


http://i19.tinypic.com/2aje49z.jpg

Flammpanzer
03-15-2007, 02:57 PM
well, it prooved as a good bomber indeed on many theaters of war, but it was totally no match for allied fighters, allthough I read the JU was more manouverable than many expected. this plane had the same problem like the HE111 and the Bf109:

they all HAD to be replaced in the second half of the war by more modern variants, but Germany was not able to do so, so these types had to stay in service until the bitter end. in this role, all of them did not too bad, which speaks for the constructions in general, but the JU87 was totally outdated after 1942 at least. the FW190 took this part as schlachtflieger, when being used as ground-attack-planes. I would say the Il2 was a better ground-attacker, btw.

jens

Panzerknacker
03-15-2007, 09:05 PM
There was a attemp to recreate the Il-2 type in the Stuka, that was the Ju-87D-5 nad D-7 which had his dive brakes removed and the Mauser 20 guns instead the MG-17s.

http://www.lietadla.com/lietadla/nemecke/ju-87/ju-87d5-09.jpg



Also the D-5 and D-7 were used for night low level attacks, at list in this task it was sucessful even in the italian front.

D-8

http://www.lietadla.com/lietadla/nemecke/ju-87/ju-87d7-02.jpg

Panzerknacker
03-16-2007, 09:34 AM
JU-87 blasting some french tanks:

http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-2345751827308151969

Librarian
03-16-2007, 02:41 PM
Magnificent photos, my dear Mr. Panzerknacker! Thank you very much indeed – these descriptive captions are absolutely unique certificatory artifacts. Well done!

And here are some results of my recent factographic research. Perhaps you can call them – forgotten Ju 87 basics.

Firstly a cut-away portrait of Ju 87 from 1943:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87BStukacross-section.jpg


And now that famous "smiling shark" look, affiliated only with another unduly underestimated airplane – with Curtiss P-40.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/StukaSmile.jpg

Finally, here you have an original schematic description, as well as a straight shot of that notorious, but habitually misinterpreted Sturzflugautomatik (automated pull-out) device.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87Sturzflugautomatik-2.jpg

I think that aforementioned piece of airplane equipment deserves some additional explanations. As you know, dive-bombing always was and still is connected with the high G-forces, completely capable to generate total unconsciousness of the pilot, together with all those concomitant flight perils. Confronted with aforementioned threat German engineers have introduced back in 1937. an automated pull-out mechanism, that was installed in all Junkers 87 airplanes, which enormously facilitated the complex task of dive-bombing.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87Sturzflugautomatik1.jpg


General concept was highly inventive and completely pilot-oriented one. Usually flying at normal cruising height and speed Ju 87 pilot was able to locate his target through a window in the cockpit floor. Subsequently, target was visually aimed by pilot and after that he was supposed just to decrease the throttle, to close up the radiator grille, to adjust the propeller-pitch to neutral and finally to pull upward the first (smaller one!) lever located on the upper side of the apparatus.

After that dive brakes were driven out automatically by action of the hydraulically operated mechanism, and equally without human intervention activated trim tabs on the elevator surfaces brought the machine into a plunging flight. Additionally, the control stick was limited to an lateral excursion of only 5 degree, toward preventing potentially dangerous maneuvers. However, this limitation actually was overridable by implementation of a strong muscular tractive force (approximately 30 kg), and this possibility was actually used by some renowned, physically able pilots (like Hans Ulrich Rudel) for sharp corrective in-dive maneuvers.

When the aircraft was close to the target, a green light on the altimeter panel indicated the arrival of the previously calculated bomb-release point. With reaching a pre-calculated release height the pilot was obliged just to press a button on the completely neutrally positioned control stick to release a bomb and to initiate the automatic pull-out mechanism. Apparatus was able to automatically reactivate the trim tabs, to retract diving brakes, to open the throttle, to adjust the propeller pitch on "climb", and finally to levelize the machine. After that the pilot was obliged only to push back that previously activated lever and to retake full operational command.

And yes, I think that very soon you will be… surprised with factual incredibility of some captions, my dear Mr. Flammpanzer. Yes, I do agree with you that good old Ju 87 surely was outdated for 1944, but still Stuka, without doubt, was an outstanding plane. After all – could you imagine consequences of an aerial combat-meeting between… say… Vultee Vengeance and Bf 109 K4?

In the meantime - all the best!

Panzerknacker
03-16-2007, 05:12 PM
Nicely explained Librarian. ;)


To all forum, see this ? this is a post.

Flammpanzer
03-17-2007, 04:15 AM
And yes, I think that very soon you will be… surprised with factual incredibility of some captions, my dear Mr. Flammpanzer. Yes, I do agree with you that good old Ju 87 surely was outdated for 1944, but still Stuka, without doubt, was an outstanding plane. After all – could you imagine consequences of an aerial combat-meeting between… say… Vultee Vengeance and Bf 109 K4?

no doubt, a very unfair combat. allthough the last G-variants and the K were fine and fast battle machines and in a hand of a skilled pilot surely a match for the mustang, there can not be any doubt that the messerschmitt 109 was on the end of a long and successful construction-period - with hardly any chance of getting any better. just look at the "dangerous" undercarriage with its narrow track, that caused so many accidents and the bad view from the cockpit, despite the newer ERLA-haube.

jens

FW-190 Pilot
03-18-2007, 04:21 AM
did Germany make any attempt to improve this plane's ability to fight another fighter?

or they simply treat it like a small bomber

Flammpanzer
03-18-2007, 04:50 AM
well, I guess no, because the whole construction was not built to do so. the JU fas too slow and too big with a (relatively) weak engine compared to the size and weight of the aircraft to be a match to any fighter. I read that in dogfights some JU achieved some aerial victories, allthough this did not happen too often.

the tactical use was normally to be escorted by fighters, so it was treated like a small bomber. improvements were the twin-MG in the rear, that gave a little better defensive-ability.

jens

Panzerknacker
03-18-2007, 12:48 PM
did Germany make any attempt to improve this plane's ability to fight another fighter?

or they simply treat it like a small bomber


As Flampanzer said, the only eficient way to protect a Stuka was with the fighter escort.

However there was plans to enhance the Stuka speed, armor , and defensive armament in a drastic measure, that was the ju-187.

http://www.luft46.com/gmart/gm187-2.jpg


http://www.luft46.com/junkers/3bj187.jpg


http://www.luft46.com/junkers/ju187.html

panzerpete
03-19-2007, 08:04 PM
where did u find that pic, cause ive never heard of that aircraft

Panzerknacker
03-19-2007, 08:08 PM
where did u find that pic, cause ive never heard of that aircraft

Hummm....Did you check the link I ve posted ?

Librarian
03-20-2007, 06:45 AM
Once again – sorry for being late, honorable gentlemen. I shall try to compensate my objectively caused absence.

Yes, my dear Mr. Flampanzer – once again I do agree with you. The development potential of Bf 109 probably was near its end; however I think that some further chances still were available at least in 1945. This matter is, unfortunately, still insufficiently elaborated, but some preliminary investigations are suggesting that some highly intriguing solutions were developed in the final stage of WW2.

The Bf 109 S, for example, reportedly developed by Caudron-Renault in Paris, and submitted as a prototype Bf 109 V24, was designed with a completely new, revolutionary inventive system of compressed air boundary layer discharge. Essence of this indeed ingenious invention, later very commonly used - especially in 1960’s! - is a directional dissipation of compressed air that prevents the boundary layer on the upper surface of the wing from stagnating, thus improving lift. At low speeds the amount of air being delivered by this system - theoretically - could be a significant fraction of the overall airflow, effectively tricking the plane into artificially created flying at a higher speed. As we do know today, blown flaps are capable to improve the lift of a wing by two to three times. This highly inventive suggestion was near its finishing point at the time of France's liberation. Just imagine a combination of a DB 605 L and this new wing, coupled with a new VDM four-blade spinner…

And now back to our main theme - Ju 87.

Often ridiculed as a slow and clumsy airplane, the Stuka actually was quite controllable, stable and surprisingly maneuverable aircraft, even a machine with certain aerobatic qualities. However, like many single-engine bombers, it performed poorly if confronted with rapid, undoubtedly superior enemy fighters. For example, here is an original, by Ju 87 crew taken photography of classicist, via large caliber bomb conducted tank-hunting action. Presented angle is fairly garrulous.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-tankhunting.jpg

Ju 87 – tank-hunting action, France, 1940

Ju 87 was also quite strong and reliable machine, easy to operate and maintain on the muddy, poor-quality front airfields. This quite unknown photo of mud-covered combat airdrome speaks for itself too. I am completely certain that presented operating conditions would be more than sufficient to bring to a halt regular combat-activity of many other warplane types.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87IIIGruppeStukageschwader51.jpg

JU87s of III Gruppe Stukageschwader 51 – unknown field-airdrome


Structural rigidity of the Ju 87 airframe was appreciable too. Without doubt, a little bit old-fashioned product of "Junkers Ironworks" was able to survive appreciable amount of damage.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-badlyAAAdamaged.jpg

Fuselage damage on Ju 87 caused by enemy AAA fire

Regularly highlighted inverted gull wings of Ju 87 were not only capable to ensure stabile flight, but also to absorb startlingly severe damages.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87AAAwingdamage.jpg

Highly damaged left wing of the Ju 87

All in all, Ju 87 proved as an excellent and devastating weapon in the hands of well-trained, experienced aircrews, who knew how to use it.

When the air superiority in the areas of the conflict was assured, the Ju 87 Stuka was able to create more devastation than a great number of people would like to admit. Pin-point accuracy and complexity of AA artillery fire against bombers already in their dives, have made this airplane a thorn in side of Allied ground forces and navy.

Finally, a tiny personal reflection: perhaps the immortal achievements of an another, almost forgotten, this time allied combat air group that was also equipped with supposedly outdated and inadequate airplanes – those achievements accomplished by USN VB-6 and VS-6 led by Lieutenant Commander Clarence Wade McClusky - outfitted with equally immortal, outdated Douglas SBD Dauntless, will be able to permanently demonstrate that seemingly an obsolescent weapon with a mixture of technical virtues and flaws could be used to excellent effect by soldiers who knew how to make use of the virtues and how to deal with the flaws for the benefaction of their country.

Those previously mentioned, apparently outmoded planes, honorable ladies and gentlemen, were able to score in solely 6 minutes the biggest naval victory in the maritime WW2 history, with an completely inferior force inflicting a terrible defeat on a superior one because the virtues of the "Slow But Deadly" Dauntless were completely able to recompense for its defects.

The very same conclusion we could extract out of a Ju 87 story.

In the meantime, as always - all the best!

FW-190 Pilot
03-20-2007, 03:51 PM
i wonder did other bombers end up making the sound like JU-87 when they dive, after all, those sound does makes a terrify effect on both military and civilians.

Panzerknacker
03-20-2007, 07:57 PM
sorry for being late

You are more than forgiven, Nice gallery Librarian.


i wonder did other bombers end up making the sound like JU-87 when they dive, after all, those sound does makes a terrify effect on both military and civilians

I am not really sure if after 1941 the siren worked as in the early days, Is not very wise to tell th enemy when you are attacking. However some german commanders were delighted with the idea to had a siren in his combat machines, even I read a recomendation of a Flametrower tank commander to install sirens in thiers tanks...as late as october 1944.


Very interesting footage. Ju-87 as test bed for ejection seats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t59svWa1n_4

Flammpanzer
03-21-2007, 01:07 PM
some pics of this aircraft. you might guessed it - not from a real one ...;)

it is the D-version with the two 3,7PAK guns. a nicely done model in metal, scale 1/72. I have to admit, I like the shape of this machine somehow, some regard it as an ugly bird, but I think the Ju 87 has at least some sex-appeal.

jens

Panzerknacker
03-21-2007, 06:13 PM
Nice model, the cannon armed aircraft was the G variant.

Flammpanzer
03-22-2007, 01:33 AM
oh, correct. I was only looking at the more streamlined canopy and thinking of the "D".

jens

Librarian
03-22-2007, 06:09 PM
wonder did other bombers end up making the sound like JU-87 when they dive, after all, those sound does makes a terrify effect on both military and civilians

No my dear Mr. FW 190 Pilot, that sound was a unique one. However, I think that this specific issue deserves some further explanations.

As you know, each person has a different perception of the noise from an aircraft. The airplane noise a human being hears and the person's perception and response to it depends on the characteristics of the noise source and the path the noise travels to reach that person.

Most noise is caused by the unsteady airflow over various components - wings, flaps and slats, horizontal and vertical tails, the edges and tips of various control surfaces, as well as by the specific and completely individual sound of an airplane engine used in a given type of airplane. Various aerodynamic surfaces on the airplane produce significant, unsteady flow of the air, which produces audible sound over a wide range of frequencies.

Human ears are more sensitive to sounds of certain frequencies, and airplanes are producing wide range of different frequencies, but they are all generally heard as a specific mix a low-frequency vibration, or rumbling of the vibrant aerodynamic surfaces, subjugated to the sound of the engine operating at full or less than full power, and by the high frequency output of the propeller at the front of the engine.

However, specific high-pitched sound of a diving plane is a factual result of a Doppler-effect generated change of a basic, complex frequency observed from a moving sound source. A good example of this is a siren from an ambulance car, which is the moving sound source that is coming toward the observer. As the sound source approaches the observer, the pitch is always higher. The faster the sound source is moving, the higher the pitch of sound is heard as it is moving toward the observer.

Initially, when diving with extended dive-brakes, Ju 87 had generated an awful screaming noise caused by the stream of air rushing over its body. Later, however, this specific but generally completely "natural" sound was augmented by miniature twin-bladed propellers fitted on the landing gear, which produced a siren effect.

German pursuit toward over-psychologization of a basically completely typical aerial combat conduct produced some quite peculiar solutions. For example, even some german standard bombs (typical example: SC 250) were equipped with additional shrieks, and subsequently they made an intense scream as they fell on their targets. This psychological warfare initially was effective, and helped to break the fighting spirit of the unprepared civil population or insufficiently trained allied soldiers, but later this solution was abandoned as completely ineffective.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/SC250screemers.jpg

Prepared SC 250 bombs outfitted with supplementary whistles, arranged for loading into the He 111 H 6 bomb bay

Source: Manfred Griehl – Luftwaffe at War, Lionel Leventhal Ltd, 1999.

However, as previously appropriately observed by Mr. Panzerknacker, this praxis has been only a palliative answer to the tactical problems. As we all know, honorable ladies and gentlemen, battlefields are usually quite noisy milieus. What if your enemy is stone-deaf because he is fighting in a thundering tank, for example? In that case a properly solution will be only a good aimed and sufficiently powerful explosive charge (for example 129 kg of Amatol-TNT 60/40 mix) fitted in a forged steel encasement. The fighting will of an enemy probably will be the same, but his tracks and sprockets surely will be devastated.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/T34knocked-outbySC250.jpg

Anti-tank effect of SC 250 delivered by Ju 87, vicinity of Smolensk, July 1941.


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/BT5overturnedbySC250explosion.jpg

BT 5 overturned by explosion of a SC 250, July 1941.


And if enemy was completely unprepared for attack by virtue of nonexistence of any anticipative signals ,success of the Luftwaffe was almost guaranteed. As you can see, the good old Ju 87 was completely able to effectuate even the intrinsic worth of a… really low-level bombing.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Low-levelJu87attackPervomaiskiy.jpg

Low-level bombing conducted by Ju 87, Pervomaiskiy, Kharkov district, August 1941.

And thank you once again for your compliments, my dear mr. Panzerknacker. I shall try not to disappoint you in my successive post.

Panzerknacker
03-22-2007, 06:55 PM
The germans just love to make noise. :)




http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/T34knocked-outbySC250.jpg

Anti-tank effect of SC 250 delivered by Ju 87, vicinity of Smolensk, July 1941.



Very nice pic, notice that this tank is one of the few T-34 equipped with a long 57mm gun.

FW-190 Pilot
03-24-2007, 05:25 PM
thanks, Librarian. that is one of the best reply i ever get in a forum!

1000ydstare
03-25-2007, 03:07 AM
I think the screaming of the Stukas was only effective at teh start. Soon enough it was realised that as an aircraft they were at the mercy of others such as the Hurricane and Spitfire.

That and the bombs, although highly accurate (for the time), were quite small. One run was all they could manage before they had to go home.

FW-190 Pilot
03-25-2007, 05:39 AM
yeah, but that one run is pretty precious hit though. you can see in previous post that it knocks out the russian tank. i dont think it can be done efficently with a bomber.

Digger
03-25-2007, 07:59 AM
The sirens fitted to the Ju-87 were unofficially called 'Jericho Horns' and were an idea of Erhard Milch as a means to increase the psychological impact on enemy infantry in particular.

As a matter of interest the Ju-87 nearly did not reach service as Oberst Wolfram von Richthofen the then head of the Technische AMT cancelled the entire project. The very next day von Richthofen was replaced by Ernst Udet(an unabashed admirer of Stuka bombing) and the project was reinstated.

Another attempt to can the Ju-87 occured in 1939, but the success of the Ju-87 in Poland forced Goring to intercede and Ju-87 production was actually increased. Throuhout 1940 there were continued warnings from within the Luftwaffe the Ju-87 was obsolete and vunerable to enemy fighters.

The decimation of the Ju-87 force over Britain had a shattering effect on Goring.

Regards Digger.

1000ydstare
03-25-2007, 10:05 AM
Stukas also served in Spain, quite well. They were able to provide fire support to troops, well ahead of what conventional guns in teh Artillery were able.

Yes, they were able to destry tanks, but one hit was all you got. Then off home for tea and medals.

Certainly in the early days anyway.

Panzerknacker
03-25-2007, 03:58 PM
thanks, Librarian. that is one of the best reply i ever get in a forum!


That is just Librarian style. ;)

windrider
03-25-2007, 08:47 PM
If you happen to go to Normandy,
you must visit the Caen war memorial museum,
where they have reproduced a nice french countryside road. As you walk in, you start to hear the stuka siren diving at you !
I'll tell you that you instinctively search for the ditches on the side of the road...

1000ydstare
03-27-2007, 02:09 PM
Ref the earlier question about the pilot blacking out.

The plane had no facility to gauge whether or not the pilot had blacked out.

The redesigned efforst (of which there were many) would probably have not been as good, for the very reasons that they were designed to be.

A faster, armoured and heavier aircraft wouldn't have had the characteristics for dive bombing. It is strange that the modern A-10 was very similar to the Ju-87 in that although both were fearsome aggressors against ground targets, they were pitifully poor at Ait to Air.

The large calibre guns of the Ju 87G, and a few other aircraft, were used as base points for reasoning in fitting the fearsome 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun in to the A10 as a primary weapon.

Librarian
03-28-2007, 04:50 AM
thanks, Librarian. that is one of the best reply i ever get in a forum!

Oh, thank you my dear Mr. FW190 Pilot. I felt that some kind of a scientifically based evaluation was really needed in this knotty issue.


Also thanks for the admiring comment my dear Mr. Panzerknacker. However, I have to admit that I am still a little bit uncertain about that possibility. Unfortunately, that German photographer who took this picture has picked an attractive, but from strictly technical point of view fairly discouraging angle – the most important component, that famous additional fitting ring, that was added to compensate different diameters of the 76 mm F-34 and the 57 mm ZIS-4 gun is completely imperceptible, because the complete frontal part of the gun mantlet is in shade. On the other hand, "our" barrel is somehow… short. In any case, I am not an expert in this field, so I’ll take your judgment for granted.



That and the bombs, although highly accurate (for the time), were quite small. One run was all they could manage before they had to go home… Yes, they were able to destry tanks, but one hit was all you got. Then off home for tea and medals.


Well, not obligatorily small, my dear Mr. 1000ydstare – JU 87 B, for example, was completely capable to expedite even that 1-ton monster SC 1000. Furthermore, that type was completely capable to carry and deliver also a deadly combination composed of one SC 250 and four SC 50, and Ju 87 D was even capable for carrying one SC 500 and two SC 250 bombs. If a bombing was carried out manually, then wing bombs were dropped firstly in pairs, and after that fuselage bomb was distributed too.

Here you have a fairly good presentation of those bomb-carrying potentials.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/JU87BRHAF1942.jpg

Ju 87 B with four wing-loaded SC 50 bombs, Royal Hungarian Air Force, 1942.


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87DwithSC500.jpg

SC 500 loading onto Ju 87 D fuselage bomb-rack


Consequently, at least two bombing runs were completely possible in each action, my dear 1000ydstare.

And now something about bombing accuracy. Narrative descriptions are usually very boring material, but in our case we have some luck, i.e. German photographers were - by chance - quite agile in those times, so some additional photographs will be able to confirm pinpoint accuracy-bombing potentials of the Ju 87 Stuka in different types of combat actions.

Here you have almost unknown photographs of German attack on Soviet battleship Oktjabarskaja Revolucija, formerly known as Gangut. The date of action is September 21st, 1941 and action was carried out by Stukageschwader 2 Immelmann.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/OktjabarskajaRevolucija1.jpg

Soviet battleship Oktyabarskaya Revolutsia – direct hit of a SC 250 and two close missings of SC 50 bombs


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/OktjabarskajaRevolucija2.jpg

Already heavily damaged Battleship Oktyabarskaya Revolutsia under attack – additional hits of two SC 50 bombs


I have to break my post here because I have received this massage:

You have included 13 images in your message. You are limited to using 4 images so please go back and correct the problem and then continue again.

I have to admit that this information is a little bit annoying, but no problem…

Librarian
03-28-2007, 04:53 AM
...Poor vessel was so badly damaged that she just managed to stay afloat. On the 27th of September 1941 the battleship was punched again and once again knocked by bombing, and as a result half of her main armament was completely destroyed. She was repaired, but magnitude of those damages has prolonged her restoration until November 1942. The repairs did not include all her main armament and it was not until 1944 that she had a full main armament operational.

Yes I know – those ships were motionless. But JU 87 Stuka was capable to prove that even a moving target like a ship at sea is not completely safe. I’m sure you remember those immortal words of late Secretary of the US Navy Josephus Daniels: "I'm so confident that neither Army nor Navy aviators can hit the Iowa when she is under way that I would be perfectly willing to be on board her when they bomb her!"

Well, what a pity that he was not able to see this snapshot:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87attackonHMSGloucestermay1941.jpg

Aerial attack of a Ju 87 Stuka bombers on HMS Gloucester, May 22, 1941

Two scored direct hits and 7 close hits were enough for the ship’s hull plates to rip open from the force of the explosion, and to sink this unfortunate British cruiser.

And here you have another illustration of Ju 87 accuracy. No further comment is needed.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87railwaygaugeattack.jpg

Precise devastation of an important railway connection carried out by Ju 87 Stuka. Vicinity of Harkov, 1941


As we all know, bridge-bombing is a highly demanding operative assignment. Whenever air superiority was assured Ju 87 was completely capable to accurately and economically fulfill these tasks.


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/BridgedestroyedbyJu87Ukraine1941.jpg

Ju 87 attack on Soviet railroad bridge, Ukraine, July 1941


Soviet railway stations were high-priority targets in the beginning of the Soviet campaign. Here is another snapshots concerning this issue. Do you rememeber that previously presented low-level attack ona a Soviet train? Well, attack was initially cunducted by high-speed diving, and after elimination of a Soviet AAA continued with a combination of in-dive and low-level attacks.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87attackonPervomaysk.jpg

Initial Ju 87 diving attack on a Soviet railway station, Pervomaysk, August 1941

To be continued...

Librarian
03-28-2007, 04:55 AM
Part III - sorry gentlemen, but it is the only solution...

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/TraindevastatedbyJu87Pervomaysk.jpg

Final results of previously presented attacks on Soviet railway composition in vicinity of Pervomaysk, august 1941


Perhaps the most appalling presentations of a Ju 87 destruction capability are the following snapshots. Their distinctiveness is contained in fact that they are evenly covering one single action of the Ju 87 bombers, but from completely different angles.


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87massacreSmolensk1941.jpg

Aerial massacre of Soviet troops conducted by JU 87 Stuka bombers, vicinity of Smolensk, August 4 1941. Picture taken by colonel Hans Ruef, Stabial LFL 2


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Smolensk1941-Ju87massacre.jpg

Destroyed Soviet vehicles, vicinity of Smolensk, August 10, 1941. Picture taken by unknown German soldier.



The plane had no facility to gauge whether or not the pilot had blacked out.

Absolutely correct and truly matter-oriented observation, my dear Mr. 1000dstare. However, this problem was not principally irresolvable, at least not in theory. Some kind of an onboard "unconscious man" surveillance system actually was available back there in late thirties, and – believe it or not - those solutions actually were loanable from railcar and tram industry.

If I remembered that well, numerous countries actually have had legally stipulated that if a tram or a railcar has being driven by a single conductor, it was obliged to be equipped with a special device of a approved type, capable of stopping the vehicle if the conductor was incapacitated. System was designed in a manner that the special control button was to be pressed by driver at every 15 seconds or to be released at every 40 seconds, thus preventing activation of the emergency braking. Of course, in this specific case such a device could be developed in a manner that within occurrence of high G-force caused absence of retracting human-generated signal, our apparatus automatically turns on auto-pilot, with subsequent activation of electro-mechanically programmed and performed compass-guided reciprocal base airdrome heading course. Unsurprisingly, successful landing is still a problem for our potentially unconscious pilot, but survival chances of the crew in this case are surely enhanced.


As always – all the best!

1000ydstare
03-28-2007, 12:45 PM
Librarian

They were called dead man switches/handles mate, and were fitted to many devices as far back as the 1800's. Although in some cases they were more to indicate that the operator was happy for the machine to operate. (ie modern steal presses.)

They were universally fitted to street cars in America in December 1918, after a spectacular crash on the Brooklyn Transit system.

In the Ju-87, it could have been possible to fit such a device. But that would have added to the pilots workload, at the decisive moment. Obviously there were no medical methods available such as BP or Heart rate measuring.

The easiest way would have been to put a grip switch on the yoke, gripped by the palm. Put then the pilot would have had to have gripped it the whole time he was flying (gripping or pushing every so often wouldn't have been practical).

A Mercury switch could have been fitted to activate the switch in a dive, but then this could affect the plane during dog fighting also. A system could have been rigged so that when the plane was rigged for a dive, or a button was pushed to indicate the commencement of a dive, but this system would have been too complex or plainly ignored by young pilots disdainful of the "nanny system".

A case in point would be the RAF display team (prior to their naming the Red Arrows). It was discovered that their planes (forget which type) during hte 1950/60s were much more agile if a certain fuse was removed. Thus they removed the fuses. When told to fit this saftey fuse again, they did so.... but on the grounds they hadn't been told to fit a WORKING fuse, they refitted BLOWN fuses.

WRT the grip switch, it is also important to note, that in such diving operations, the plane could be unrecoverable by the time such a switch was realeased. It takes some time for a hand to realease when unconcisious and when you factor in desire to hit a target/addrenalin in the muscles.

Basically such a device would be impractical and ineffective. It took just under 30 seconds for the plane to descend from 15,000 ft (patrol/lurking height) to 1,500 ft (minimum bomb realease point) at speeds reaching 300 mph.

There are claims of such devices, but I can't see how they could work. What is known is that the plane was under, almost, auto pilot. The plane self-leveled on bomb realease.

Panzerknacker
04-07-2007, 09:29 PM
Stuka tank killers in action in 1945, the english comentator made some good points in the last seconds of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QBCIAmo3FQ

Panzerknacker
08-22-2007, 08:16 PM
Some examples of mid and late war usage of the bomber variant of the Sturzkampflugzeug.

Stukas over Greece 1943.

Wochenschau-Archiv (http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/kontrollklfenster.php?&PHPSESSID=&dmguid=08E92C0055BA58DF030103009D21A8C06F09000000&inf=1197000&outf=1259960&funktion=play250k)

Kuban bridgehead Ukraine 1943.

Wochenschau-Archiv (http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/kontrollklfenster.php?&PHPSESSID=&dmguid=08E92C0055BA58DF030103009D21A8C03009000000&inf=1120840&outf=1225960&funktion=play250k)

Eastern Front 1944.

Wochenschau-Archiv (http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/kontrollklfenster.php?&PHPSESSID=&dmguid=08E92C0055BA58DF030103009D21A8C09002000000&inf=680880&outf=843960&funktion=play250k)

Combat in Hungary 1945.

Wochenschau-Archiv (http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/kontrollklfenster.php?&PHPSESSID=&dmguid=08E92C0055BA58DF030103009D21A8C0930C000000&inf=323640&outf=403040&funktion=play250k)

Librarian
04-01-2008, 01:29 PM
Graphic design bombards us daily in a multitude of guises, honorable ladies and gentlemen, ranging in scale from advertising hoaring to record sleeve. We are nowadays surrounded by the largely ephemeral creations of the graphic artists whose work – two dimensional and usually prepared for print – is geared principally to the processes of commerce, with sales figures as the guiding light.

However, the commercial nature of the advertising work, serving to heighten the competitiveness of the given field, was observable even during the WW 2, and the basis of so much graphic design talents has been – as always – the need to catch the eye of the citizen, to make a vivid impression and convey desired information succinctly by force of graphic impact.

And believe it or not, honorable ladies and gentlemen, our dearly beloved, good old Junkers Ju 87 Stuka actually was an invigorating challenge for those governmentally supported efforts as well.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-poster.jpg

Unsere Stukas! (Ju 87 poster, 1940)


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-ad1941.jpg

Die Junkers-Flugzeugwerke AG, Dessau - Arbeitsgesellschaft für Qualität (Ju 87 ad, 1941)

B-17engineer
04-01-2008, 05:28 PM
Stuka in a dive.

That stuka in the dive actually i read dove to steeply and couldn't pull out and crashed

Panzerknacker
04-01-2008, 06:30 PM
And believe it or not, honorable ladies and gentlemen, our dearly beloved, good old Junkers Ju 87 Stuka actually was an invigorating challenge for those governmentally supported efforts as well.



There was even a movie of the Ju-87 called ( unsunprisingly)Stukas !...released in 1941.

snebold
04-02-2008, 02:08 PM
The Ju 87 was steady and easy to control in a dive, it made the job easier for the pilot. There was no attempt to make it more manouvrable, but poured on more armour and gave the rear gunner the MG81Z.

I think they developed a defensive tactic consisting of flying very low and when a fighter was closing in, pulling up to give the rear gunner a better shot and then get back to treetop level again. (But I do NOT remember the source of this information)

The IL-2 formations went into Lufberry circles (I think that´s the name, sorry again, the source is long gone, but it means flying in a circle one aircraft after the other), for mutual protection if attacked by fighters. I don´t know if this was attempted by Ju 87 pilots, but with the weaker forward armament of the 87 it probably had less appeal?

Panzerknacker
07-03-2008, 06:36 PM
Rare modification in a D-3, note the side mounted MG 81J in the rear gunner emplacement, one in port and other starboard :shock:

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/2695/img272tr7.jpg

The aircraft belongs to pilot Uffz. Wolfinger (right) and Lt. Neumüller Bordfunker

Panther F
07-04-2008, 08:34 AM
What a great collection of photos. The Stuka has always been one of my very favorite aircraft! :)

Librarian
07-08-2008, 04:24 PM
Well, if you feel some kind of affection for our good old Stuka, my dear Mr. Panther F, I think that some additional photos still are available:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/JU87-D2RHAF.jpg

Ju 87 D-3, Royal Hungarian Air Force - 1944

Please note that Ju 87’s spats were removed by Hungarian technicians, due to their known tendency to fill up with mud whenever the Stuka was obliged to use drenched, dirty airstrips to operate from. Their removal, however, didn’t produce a significant deterioration of the operational performance.

flamethrowerguy
07-08-2008, 05:15 PM
The spats were the only ugly part of the Stuka anyway...

Major Walter Schmidt
07-08-2008, 09:10 PM
The spats were the only ugly part of the Stuka anyway...

nah... thaeyere their coolsest... :mrgreen:

imi
07-09-2008, 08:00 AM
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7663/stukasdl2.jpg
My favourite picture from the main site,beautiful planes

flamethrowerguy
07-09-2008, 03:47 PM
Hi,
got you guys a colored drawing of a Ju 87 B-2 cockpit. I'd like to post more images but it just doesn't work... why ever.
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/793/stukacockpitbl4.jpg

flamethrowerguy
07-10-2008, 04:07 AM
Found a couple of interesting and rare photos to this issue in one of my books, lookie here:

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6185/nachzschlachtbruchas0.jpg
Prague-Ruzyn 1945: Crash landing due to enemy fire of a JU87 D-7 of a Night-Stuka unit (did not know something like this existed until now...)

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9342/ju87trger1xf5.jpg
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/837/ju87trgerie5.jpg

JU87 C meant for use on german aircraft carriers which never was finished

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/8683/ju87aufsatzbehlterdt4.jpg
STRANGE BIRD!!! JU87 with top container which was used to drop own agents behind enemy lines or to transport wounded away from the front.

imi
07-14-2008, 11:02 AM
flamethowerguy:the first picture is best

SS Ouche-Vittes
07-14-2008, 01:19 PM
The Ju-87 could attack with deadly accuracy. Swarming down on Poland, Norway, France, and the Low Countries, the 'Stuka' left a trail of devastation and struck terror in the hearts of seasoned troops. It was a good ground-attack aircraft but it was easy enemy fighter prey. It's success relied on having air cover.

Librarian
07-16-2008, 04:08 PM
And here we have another photo-rarity in our thread, honorable ladies and gentlemen. This time we have our dearly beloved Ju 87 pictured while she was in Yugoslav service. This particular airplane has a pretty intriguing background, so it will be epigrammatically presented here.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87B2-YAF.jpg

Ju 87 B-2, Rajlovac, May 1945

Although outdated by early 1944, many Ju 87’s were still in use as highly solid platforms for night ground attack sorties, even in 1945. Primary purpose of these machines was destruction of enemy supply lines and concentrations, as well as suppression of adversary guerilla forces in the background regions. Amongst these units one particular unit – Nachtschlachtgruppe 10– was used for specific anti-Partisan purposes on the Balkan Peninsula, being situated on the Butmir airfield next to Zagreb. On February 12, 1945 one Ju 87 B-2 Stuka (WNr.0406) from the NSGr. 10 received an order for a repositioning mission with immediate effect. Airplane took off from Butmir and took a direct course toward even today renowned air-base Zalužani near Banja Luka, but the pilot mistook the course that he should have taken, and landed at the freshly cleaned runway of the auxiliary airport at Sanski Most, which was already occupied by the Partisan forces, to be exact by Air Squadron of the 5th Corps of NOVJ.

This unit - previously formed on September 21, 1944 - consisted of 8 aircrafts: a couple of captured Morane-Saulnier MS 406 fighters, as well as of two-engine Caproni Ca 311 bombers, and a pair of Bücker Jungmann training and Benes-Mraz Be 51 sport planes. Together with this freshly captured and highly appreciated Ju 87 Stuka they all participated in a general attack of the Partisan forces on the Banja Luka Fortress, where surrounded belligerent forces were putting up a ferocious resistance. The Germans later on pushed the Partisans out of Banja Luka, forcing the unit to move to other available airfields in western and eastern Bosnia. The actions of this unit, however, provided a huge boost to the morale of the ground forces and proved the values of Partisan air units in the war.

On the other hand, absolutely undisputable and highly attention-grabbing fact is the verity that the very last airborne operation of the Yugoslav forces against the German army was completed by this airplane on May 28, 1945, when this machine, escorted by a pair of Bf 109 Gs, bombed various German and collaborationist troops who had refused to surrender after the officially acknowledged armistice.

Panzerknacker
09-16-2008, 10:16 PM
Ju-87D loading up a SC1000 bomb, pretty nice "pickle".

windrider
09-17-2008, 08:41 AM
Hi Librarian,
what is the plane in the background ? Looks like an older version of Do-17, with strange engine cowlings (Gnome-Rhone ?). If it is,
never thought it would be still in service in 1945... My understanding was they were phased-out before the war.

Panzerknacker
09-17-2008, 07:04 PM
Briefing next to Ju-87G , note the big tubes of the BK 3,7 guns..

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/6421/49hn5.jpg

Librarian
09-24-2008, 11:25 AM
Hi Librarian,
what is the plane in the background ? Looks like an older version of Do-17, with strange engine cowlings (Gnome-Rhone ?). If it is,
never thought it would be still in service in 1945... My understanding was they were phased-out before the war.

Hawkeyes, my dear Mr. Windrider! Excellent observation, indeed! :D

As a matter of fact, presented airplane was the Do17K – an export variant of the Do17 built for the Royal Yugoslavian Air Force. As you know, the Do17K was the closest relative of the Do17E and M, but it mainly differed in several major features and was generally more capable combat platform. Do17Ka-1 and Ka-2 were derivatives of the Do17E/F and featured fabric-covered lower wing surfaces, as well as a shorter distance between the engines. Do17Kb, however, possessed all-metal wing-covering, and some longer engine mountings.

Germany delivered 20 examples of the Do17Ka-1, 14 Do17Ka-2 and 2 Do17Kb. These original German examples were complemented with home-produced models, built in accordance with the official license acquired by the state-owned airplane factory in Kraljevo.

First production string of planes had the original French Gnome-Rhône 14K Mistral Major engines, while the second and third production block had domestic, license produced G&R14K engines. All DFA (Drzavna Fabrika Aviona-State Aircraft Factory) built Do17Kb's have had a built-in-windshield FN machine guns. Offensive armament of the first and the third block consisted of 8 internally carried bombs of the so called "Stankovic type" (106 kg), and two external racks for two 200 kg bombs. Similar bomb equipment were installed on all German-built planes.

The second DFA production-block have had two UD 32-type bomb-containers, with a total of 64 pieces of those 10 kg bombs within it. These machines were later converted to carry one additional container, with a total of 96 small bombs. Nevertheless, there are certain informations that even few samples with twelve 90 kg bombs 90 kg were built as well.

Yugoslavia entered the WW2 on April 6. 1941, when Axis powers attacked the country. Do17K's led an immense attack against German units in Bulgaria (airfields in the vicinity of Sofia), as well as a number of group-attacks against advancing German armored colomns.

After that, Do17Ks have found new operators after the fall of Yugoslavia - RAF in Africa used two samples. Hungary has acquired one example and actively used it as a fast reconnaissance airplane until 1944. Bulgarians captured six damaged examples near Skoplje, while the new Croatian state overtook eleven healthy pieces. Sounds completely incredible, but no less then nine planes survived the WW2!

Overall, 73 Yugoslav Do17K's were manufactured - 37 within the Dornier factory in Friedrichshafen-Manzell, and 36 inYugoslavia. Within the DFA plant 33 examples were finished and officially commissioned, while 3 machines were posteriously completed in the "Ikarus" factory in Belgrade and delivered to Croatian Air Force in 1943. Certain examples were captured, and pressed in active service within YAF until the early fifties, being finally decommissioned and – alas! – scrapped in 1951-1952.

And now, back to our main guest star in this thread – back to the good old Ju 87 Stuka! I hope that you will like this one as well. So here it is:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87B-LMRHUAF.jpg

Ju 87 B of the 7/StG 77, closely examined by members of the Royal Hungarian Air Force, Eastern front, 1941.

Enjoy! ;)

windrider
09-25-2008, 05:38 PM
Hi Librarian,
many thanks for this elaborate answer. Your posts are always interesting and informative, one of the main reason I keep coming to this forum.

Ivaylo
09-26-2008, 09:41 AM
No doubt the Stuka was one of the feared weapons in the Germany arsenal , but i think after 1942 it lost it's huge role in the war simply because the Allies had more air power month after month and the Luftwaffe had more and more little to offer expecially in 1943 -1944 , so without much air cover from the fighters it was easy to shut down the stuka .

Librarian
09-26-2008, 09:18 PM
Thank you very much for your exceptionally kind words, my dear Mr. Windrider. :)

You know, I do have a constant feeling that many items have been dropped from the catalogue of the world’s collection. We have added more and more to the human collection of facts. So inventive and active have we been that we have forgotten a lot of what we did in the past. That’s why our task here, my dear Mr. Windrider, is not to worship what already exists, but to find those missing parts of our past, capable to take us on our next step into the world of firm knowledge – surely, the most fascinating world of all.

Thank you for giving me the strength to go on.

And now, back to our main theme: here is another half-forgotten picture of our main airborne star in this thread:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87D-Easternfront1944.jpg

Ju 87 D – Eastern Front, 1943.

Enjoy! ;)

Panzerknacker
10-23-2008, 04:43 PM
A interesting squematic that show how the divebombing mechanism of the Ju-88 works.

http://i37.tinypic.com/1znyicy.jpg

redcoat
10-31-2008, 04:38 PM
Stuka in a dive.http://inlinethumb02.webshots.com/44353/2509531630103014230S500x500Q85.jpg
I've found out the story behind the photo.
The Stuka in question was from the 1st Gruppen, Dive Bomber Geschwader 77, pictured moments before it crashed at West Broyle near Chichester on the 18th August 1940, both crew members Unterofficer August Dann and Unterofficer Erich Kohl were killed.
This Stuka was one of 10 Stukas lost by this Gruppen on this date, in an attack on Thorney Island, a further 6 were damaged, one beyond repair.
The RAF Squadrons responsible for their destruction were No 43 and No 601.

Source 'The Hardest Day, 18th August 1940' by Alfred Price

flamethrowerguy
12-05-2008, 05:01 PM
Nice color pic of loading a 37mm gun of the G-version incl. film camera (I guess) above the barrel:

3025

Librarian
05-16-2009, 10:24 AM
And finally, honorable ladies and gentlemen, after a long time, we finally are able to present some new materials - more precisely, certain snapshots connected with early models of the good old Ju 87Stuka. :)

As you know, Junkers Ju-87A-1 was the very first Stuka variant that entered serial production. Hungarian officials were also excited by its performance achieved in Spain, therefore in February of 1940 Hungarian Ministry of Defence (Honvédelmi Minisztérium) ordered 28 Ju 87 K-2s (export variant of the B-1 model), as well as the technical documentation needed for license-based production of the airplane at the Weiss Manfred factory in Budapest.

Unfortunately, German Air Force was unable to provide those airplanes, because this type was already in short supply due to improperly undertaken preparations for the mass production. Shipments for the Luftwaffe have had absolute priority in those times, but factual reasons for the documentation transfer refusal are still unclear. Nevertheless, the Royal Hungarian Air Force actually was the first foreign military which received a very small number of Ju 87A-1s and Bs in 1940 for training purposes - more precisely, a solitary example of the Ju 87 A, and 2 Ju 87 Bs.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87K-4HUAF-1.jpg

Ju 87 K-4 RHUAF, unknown location – 1942.

Early "trousers" on the fixed undercarriage – a distinctive detail of the Ju 87A version are clearly visible, as well as the small and rectangular radiator and two angled-out aerial masts.

Another shipment arrived only in February of 1942, when 4 Ju 87 K-4s (export variant of the Ju 87 A-1) reached their destination at Pápa Air Base, being absolutely unique machines in the whole Hungarian inventory due to the fact that they were practically freshly reassembled aircrafts, made out of old, conked out German Ju 87 A planes! Hungary purchased additional 10 old Ju 87 Bs for training purposes, but they appeared only in 1943.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87K-4HUAF-2.jpg

Ju 87 K-4s of the RHUAF on their flight toward their target-practicing area – the Ural-line (Hajagospuszta – Várpalota), escorted by the WM 21 Sólyom – July, 1942

The first major delivery finally arrived in 1943, consisting of 30 D-1/D-3s, as well as 14 Ju 87 D-5s in 1944. They served well, mainly on the Eastern front, but they always were heavily outnumbered and fiercely fighter-chased birds.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87D-HUAF.jpg

Ju 87 D-5, RHUAF – Eastern Front,1944

Generally, it can be said that besides Italy, Hungary received the greatest number of Ju 87 dive bombers, but they were too few in number to make a difference in the outcome of the war.

In the meantime, as always – all the best!

Deaf Smith
05-16-2009, 09:53 PM
During WW2, Maj. Thomas McGuire, of the 475th FG, wrote a book on combat tacticsl on how to fight the Japanese. In the manual he said the Japanese Aichi D3A1, AKA the Val dive bomber, was a real good plane that seemed to be made to shoot down in large numbers.

Well the Ju-87, Stuka, is in that category. Both were excelent dive bombers but neither the Val nor Stuka could survive in an hostile environment. Either the enemy had no fighters to defend or the dive bombers had to have escort. Neither one could do well at defending themselves.

They worked well as long as it was safe for them with no hostile fighters present.

Panzerknacker
05-17-2009, 12:17 AM
Well, in fact the SBD or even the Helldiver coulnt survive in a hostile enviroment either despite the fact being better armored than the Val. Probably the only divebomber with full air-to-air combat capabilities was the A-36 invader.

snebold
05-17-2009, 05:14 AM
Thanks Librarian! I´m happy that you´re sharing your knowledge of the equipment of the smaller countries of the period. It´s hard to come by.

Deaf Smith
05-17-2009, 01:05 PM
Well, in fact the SBD or even the Helldiver coulnt survive in a hostile enviroment either despite the fact being better armored than the Val. Probably the only divebomber with full air-to-air combat capabilities was the A-36 invader.

True, but the F4U was pretty fair dive bomber and it could survive quite well. That really is what should have happened. According to the book, "Corsair" By Barrett Tillman (page 80), the SDB was only about 10 percent more efficent at divebombing than the F4U.

And the A-36 Apache was used as dive bomber.

And that really is the direction they should have taken. No escort would have been needed if the dive bombers were the fighters.

leccy
05-17-2009, 06:09 PM
if your dive bombers are also your fighters you tend to have those that will loose their bombs when enemy fighters are around or be sitting ducks.

In most air battles the first thing the fighter bombers do when bounced is drop their load to be more manouverable.

This will be classed as an effective halt to the bombing as they will have no ordanance to drop until they go and re-arm/re-fuel, you will also have tired pilots doing a return trip which can get spoiled the same way.

Fighter cover was supposed to prevent the enemy fighters getting close to the bombers.

Either way they still have to face the gamut of AAA on the way to and at the target.

Deaf Smith
05-17-2009, 09:08 PM
leccy,

If all your fighers are dive bombers and no enemy fighters show up, that allows alot more bombers. And if enemy fighters do show up, only some of the fighter/bombers have to drop their bombs in order to protect the other fighter/bombers.

We did that many times with P-47s in the ETO. They were 'self' escorting.

Panzerknacker
05-18-2009, 08:24 AM
I wont be brave enough to put a heavy fighter like the corsair in a 85º degrees, stuka type dive, without dive brakes I could end smashed in the ground, not good for the health you know.:rolleyes:

Deaf Smith
05-18-2009, 08:53 PM
Actually, in the book, "The War Journal of Major Damon 'Rocky' Gause", who escaped from Corridor, and sailed with another American 3100 miles to Australia, he became a Major in the USAAF,and few P-47s with the 365th FG. They modified the flaps and wings to make the plane into a dive bomber. While unfortuantly Gause augered in from 30,000 feet testing the modified plane, it did become operational and used quite well in the ETO.

Now I do note even our SDB did not dive at 85 degrees, but I really don't think you need to go quite that steep to be an effective dive bomber.

Deaf

Panzerknacker
05-18-2009, 09:59 PM
Well, obviously you need some braking device as you mentioned. The pull up stick force would be too great and the risk of overstressing the airframe was high. Thanks for the info.

And no you dont need a so step dive for accuracy but the capabilities was true, the Aichi dived at 80º and the stuka could go almost vertically down.

snebold
05-19-2009, 04:41 AM
The F4U made a suprisingly effective dive bomber, it was good at it.
(See f.x. some older F4U Corsair thread here)

Deaf Smith
05-19-2009, 07:32 PM
I remember reading about Rudel commenting about what it felt like to go virtualy strait down and pull out before you hit the ground, all the while people firing on you from below.

I'm sure, since you can't dodge (and miss the target), it was no fun. Kind of like a real 'Toko ri' going strait down, if you've seen the movie.

Deaf

snebold
05-20-2009, 09:57 AM
Read a book by a British test pilot who flew a Ju 87 after the war. He was very happy about it´s diving behaviour, it felt safe and controllable while "standing on it´s nose", while some other DB´s (I can only recall the Blackburn Skua right now), made an impression of "running away" with to much speed for comfort.

Panzerknacker
05-21-2009, 07:28 PM
Rare thing with the Skua, withdrawn from first line in RN service after the Norwegian campaing. Nevertheless some other more vintage planes like the Swordfish and Albacore remained in service. A formation of Sworfish tried to attack the Scharhorst and Gneseinau in february 1942 and was completely wiped out.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2v9by1d.jpg

In relation of that one must say the the JU-87d was by far more "survivable" than both british biplane designs.

Librarian
05-23-2009, 02:46 PM
The inversion and reversal of meanings of words is common in aeronautics: sophisticated is an all to frequent example which shows sloppy thinking and limited vocabulary, neither of which we can afford today. The old, but utterly wise advices to test pilots given by Mr.David P. Davies, past Head of Flight Department and Chief test Pilot of the Airworthiness Division of the Civil Aviation Authority, however, richly deserves wider appreciation.

1) Don’t believe other people – prove it for yourself.

2) Stick to what you have proved believable.

3) Don’t be overawed by other more senior people.

Our main problem, however, is that aircraft design is about people every bit as much as machines. The things said by different people about certain flying machines are reflecting their own experiences and their knowledge. That’s why in this subject written history must never be ignored. Especially the untold or lesser-known history, deeply buried in various dusty repositories, discarded and almost useless as the cartwheels on a modern heavy-traffic highway.

If you have a mind like mine, honorable ladies and gentlemen, it will go blank and the brain will stall at the first sight of a page of higher mathematics. Unfortunately, though, mathematics cannot be avoided in aeronautics, because we are concerned with physics, more precisely with shapes, proportions, sizes, weights, power, etc. And although certain simple mathematics are again and again insufficient for a completely scientifically based argumentation and validation, some simple mathematical operations are completely sufficient to emphasize the fact that our clumsy looking, completely outmoded, single-engined pants equipped dive-bomber actually was remarkably maneuverable by any standards – as a matter of fact, Ju 87 family actually possessed better maneuverability then otherwise highly respected Allied fighters of the WW 2 like Lavochkin La 5, or North American P 51 D, primarily due to its uncommonly low wing loading (the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing).

Yes, I know, honorable ladies and gentlemen: It sounds completely unbelievable, but the good old Ju 87 B-2, for example (maximum weight 4460 kg, wing area 31,90 m2) actually possessed a specific wingload of only 139,81 kg/m2 (179,31 kg/m2 in its D-3 variant), while this value by the renowned P 51 D was 192 kg/m² (La 5 FN on the other hand was only slightly better - 186 kg/m2). In capable hands, therefore, good old Ju 87 was completely able not only to outmaneuver enemy fighters in prolonged turning engagements, but even to attack adversary fighters, as described in a completely mind-boggling mission-report which was printed in a less-known Hungarian military magazine "Magyar Szárnyak" (Hungarian wings) [No. 3 – February, 1944. – pp. 11-12].

That fact often surprised and sometimes even endangered attacking Allied fighters, not even to mention that on some not so infrequent occasions aged Ju 87’s managed to shoot down their attackers with those rearwards-looking MGs. Such examples were numerous but less-known as well - even in late 1943 (November 19th),for example, a Soviet Yak 9 fighter was shot down by gunfire from a close formation of old Romanian Ju-87’s.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87D-3-FARR.jpg

Ju 87 D-3s of the 3rd Dive Bomber Group, Royal Romanian Air Force – October, 1943

This subject remains relatively unknown not only to the general public, but also to people professionally involved in aeronautical research. For example, the story of Ju 87’s factual maneuverability rarely is a part of a modern textbook on WW 2 aviation, or a modern aeronautical course related to effects of aerodynamic brakes usage in low-speed level-flight evasive maneuvering – but with a little bit of luck we will be able to add some innovative resources to this highly intriguing issue. Perhaps the accurate translation of certain completely forgotten personal war-diaries from early 1944 is the best starting point. ;)

In the meantime, as always – all the best! :D

Ivaylo
05-24-2009, 06:02 AM
I wont be brave enough to put a heavy fighter like the corsair in a 85º degrees, stuka type dive, without dive brakes I could end smashed in the ground, not good for the health you know.:rolleyes:

:lol::lol::lol: me neither , you can get smashed even in the air before to get to the ground as the plain will get to pieces eventually with torn out wings and so on

ubc
05-24-2009, 03:17 PM
The inversion and reversal of meanings of words is common in aeronautics: sophisticated is an all to frequent example which shows sloppy thinking and limited vocabulary, neither of which we can afford today. The old, but utterly wise advices to test pilots given by Mr.David P. Davies, past Head of Flight Department and Chief test Pilot of the Airworthiness Division of the Civil Aviation Authority, however, richly deserves wider appreciation.

1) Don’t believe other people – prove it for yourself.

2) Stick to what you have proved believable.

3) Don’t be overawed by other more senior people.

Our main problem, however, is that aircraft design is about people every bit as much as machines. The things said by different people about certain flying machines are reflecting their own experiences and their knowledge. That’s why in this subject written history must never be ignored. Especially the untold or lesser-known history, deeply buried in various dusty repositories, discarded and almost useless as the cartwheels on a modern heavy-traffic highway.

If you have a mind like mine, honorable ladies and gentlemen, it will go blank and the brain will stall at the first sight of a page of higher mathematics. Unfortunately, though, mathematics cannot be avoided in aeronautics, because we are concerned with physics, more precisely with shapes, proportions, sizes, weights, power, etc. And although certain simple mathematics are again and again insufficient for a completely scientifically based argumentation and validation, some simple mathematical operations are completely sufficient to emphasize the fact that our clumsy looking, completely outmoded, single-engined pants equipped dive-bomber actually was remarkably maneuverable by any standards – as a matter of fact, Ju 87 family actually possessed better maneuverability then otherwise highly respected Allied fighters of the WW 2 like Lavochkin La 5, or North American P 51 D, primarily due to its uncommonly low wing loading (the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing).

Yes, I know, honorable ladies and gentlemen: It sounds completely unbelievable, but the good old Ju 87 B-2, for example (maximum weight 4460 kg, wing area 31,90 m2) actually possessed a specific wingload of only 139,81 kg/m2 (179,31 kg/m2 in its D-3 variant), while this value by the renowned P 51 D was 192 kg/m² (La 5 FN on the other hand was only slightly better - 186 kg/m2). In capable hands, therefore, good old Ju 87 was completely able not only to outmaneuver enemy fighters in prolonged turning engagements, but even to attack adversary fighters, as described in a completely mind-boggling mission-report which was printed in a less-known Hungarian military magazine "Magyar Szárnyak" (Hungarian wings) [No. 3 – February, 1944. – pp. 11-12].

That fact often surprised and sometimes even endangered attacking Allied fighters, not even to mention that on some not so infrequent occasions aged Ju 87’s managed to shoot down their attackers with those rearwards-looking MGs. Such examples were numerous but less-known as well - even in late 1943 (November 19th),for example, a Soviet Yak 9 fighter was shot down by gunfire from a close formation of old Romanian Ju-87’s.

This subject remains relatively unknown not only to the general public, but also to people professionally involved in aeronautical research. For example, the story of Ju 87’s factual maneuverability rarely is a part of a modern textbook on WW 2 aviation, or a modern aeronautical course related to effects of aerodynamic brakes usage in low-speed level-flight evasive maneuvering – but with a little bit of luck we will be able to add some innovative resources to this highly intriguing issue. Perhaps the accurate translation of certain completely forgotten personal war-diaries from early 1944 is the best starting point. ;)

In the meantime, as always – all the best! :D


Wow maybe their is some hope for this site afterall! Thank you mister Librarian.

I would like to add that the lack of speed was also one of the issues surround this fine dive bomber. Its engine power increased substantially during the war from about 700 hp to 1420 hp and the planes top speed moved from 210mph to 250mph in clean configuration. However the bulk of the increased power was bargained away to buy more armor protection to allow survival against the growing allied AAA threat and in increased range and payload. It started the war with pretty much 500kg load and this increased to 1400kg by mid war.

The plane had a top dive speed of 370mph, showing how much airspeed could grow if the engine power increase had been channelled into top speed instead of increased ordnance load and armor protection. An obviouse first step would have been to redesign the wing to allow retractable wheels. That could have increased this top clean speed by about 25% with out adversely effecting other performance targets.

One question I have is CEP of other comparable divebombers? The Stuka could do 30m CEP in Experten hands, although in regular hands it might be closer to 100m CEP. Level bombers in the hands of experts would be 400-500 CEP at low altitude in a shallow dive, while high altitude level bombers were 1-2 miles CEP. When you start to calculate how many bombs needed to saturate a target to reach the same accuracy as 30m CEP, it becomes clear why the Germans keep this DB going so long.

Panzerknacker
05-24-2009, 08:00 PM
That fact often surprised and sometimes even endangered attacking Allied fighters, not even to mention that on some not so infrequent occasions aged Ju 87’s managed to shoot down their attackers with those rearwards-looking MGs. Such examples were numerous but less-known as well - even in late 1943 (November 19th),for example, a Soviet Yak 9 fighter was shot down by gunfire from a close formation of old Romanian Ju-87’s.




The maneouvrability is absolutely truth, in fact I ve read the Rudel memories ( and I am quoting Rudel not because I am a believer of everything he wrote but because is one of the few Stuka pilots memoirs book available in my home country) in wich described action of Stukas forming a defensive circle and evading russiam fighters with daring daring acrobatics somethimes damaging or shooting dow those with frontal machine guns fire. The big problem of the Stuka was the speed, the aircraft struggled to reach 402kmph and with bombs or 37mm guns cannot reach even 380 km/h. obviously it cant scape of a determined enemy.

kiwimac
05-27-2009, 05:06 AM
I do believe that Rudel proved that even outmoded aircraft can be exceptional in certain roles (as did the Swordfish pilots at Taranto.)

ubc
05-27-2009, 09:51 AM
I do believe that Rudel proved that even outmoded aircraft can be exceptional in certain roles (as did the Swordfish pilots at Taranto.)

THe Swordfish was also a decent ASW plane operating from escort carriers until the end of the war as I recall. That was one of the main reasons Admiarl Donitz caved in and with drew the Uboat fleet from the Atlantic Ocean in 1943.

Panzerknacker
06-10-2009, 06:50 PM
I think the "niche" of the Sworfidh was the night operation in wich the aircraft was less vulnerable to flak. In full day loaded with a torpedo haveing no armor and only a weak machinegun as defense dont seems a very feasible line of work ( if you arent a kamikaze of course)

By the way...had anybody see this ? a proposal for Stuka, ugly as hell.

http://www.luft46.com/misc/hu136.html

http://www.luft46.com/misc/hu136-1c.gif

Deaf Smith
06-10-2009, 06:58 PM
Yes the Ju-87 was known for it's maneouvrability (just as the Val and SDB.)

But, if the fighter did not play the turn-n-burn game and just B&Zed, it would be no contest. This was done very very often in the PTO.

I do not know if the Russians had a doctrine for fighting specific German aircraft. The Allies pretty much did, but I don't know about the Russians.

Deaf

Panzerknacker
06-10-2009, 07:11 PM
The doctrine was: shoot at short distance ...when ammo run out you ramm it.

Well actually I am not sure if taht was the soviet doctrine but was pretty much the case , specially in early stages of the war in the east.:rolleyes:

Librarian
06-13-2009, 12:33 PM
A high-speed boom & zoom combat technique application whereas our good old highly maneuverable, air-brakes equipped old birdie is flying only 15-20 meters above the ground? Well, I hope that you do have a valid life insurance, my dear Mr. Smith… ;)

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87B-21.jpg

Truly low-level flight of the Ju 87 – the very best protection form of flying against B&Z combat expertise

You see, a pure B&Z tactic will not work against a situationally-oriented and capable pilot who repeatedly performes air-brakes assisted flat scissors. Prediction of a future position of the good old Ju 87 in that case is quite impossible, because the flight pattern is constantly unclear, not even to mention that an high-speed pursuit airplane in that case is constantly suffering from both turn-rate performance weakness as well as a minimum speed disadvantage. :)

Deaf Smith
06-14-2009, 06:15 PM
Well if 15-20 meters is all the altitude they are going to get, I guess that's fine. Then ground AAA will pick 'em appart. Even a tossed brick will work at that range.

Deaf

ubc
06-14-2009, 09:49 PM
Well if 15-20 meters is all the altitude they are going to get, I guess that's fine. Then ground AAA will pick 'em appart. Even a tossed brick will work at that range.

Deaf


This response is what’s referred to as an "epic fail"!

Most English reading posters are educated in western history that basically starts WW-II in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor and in Europe in 1944 or at best Italy in 1943. In truth the Second Front and Pacific TO were sideshows to the Main event, the Eastern Front. WW-II was won and lost on the Eastern Front between 1941 and 1943. Everything before and after this is merely prequel and postscript to this main event.

Therefore anything that contributed to the Eastern Front during this period is of profound importance to the out come of the war. The fact that the Ju-87 was not used beyond BoB in the west is not relevant. It made a huge contribution to making Barbarossa possible and helped immensely through the long months of attritional warfare in 1942/43. Eastern Flak was not one of the Russians strong points. Also Stuka was pretty nasty customer in the Med and became quite proficient at sinking ships during 1941-42. Certainly the Red forces didn’t have a good tactical radar network so flying that low meant they would surprise the enemy wherever they went.

The other possible explanation for this type of response is the negative impact of war games especially computer games that take such military hardware completely out of context of their contribution to warfare at large.

BTW tests vs helicopters in such situations [High speed fighter vs low speed @ low altitude] showed the same case. High-speed fighters had no chance of putting the helicopter in their gun sights long enough for any kind of kill. They basically expended their combat fuel in a futile gesture.

Librarian
06-15-2009, 11:49 AM
Thank you very much for your truly excellent explanation, my dear Mr. UBC. :D

You see, my dear Mr. Smith, the extremely low-level flight actually will minimize the factual amount of time enemy gunners have to spot your aircraft and to effectually aim. If you are a truly capable pilot, sufficiently skilled to fly above the treetops with some 280-300 km/h, they will be completely unable even to fire a single shot in your direction!

Mathematically speaking, since ground-mounted anti-aircraft guns cannot follow low flying aircrafts with appropriate speed and accuracy at high angular rates, exposure values for low-level flying aircrafts are so small that statistical penalty for low flying engagement is absolutely feasible, especially if targeted airplanes are not flying in a straight line. :)

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-29.jpg

Extremely low-level flight - the best protection against classicistic AAA

Furthermore, if a couple of 50 kg SC 50s equipped with ElAZ-38 fuze positioned for 4 sec. delayed activation still are underneath our wings (like above!), I am assuring you that our virtuous AA gunners will instinctively jump to the ground to take cover. Like in this case near Pervomaisk:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/DestroyedHeavyAAA-Pervomaysk1941.jpg

Result of the low-level Ju 87 activity - Destroyed AAA battery of 85 mm air defense guns M1939 - Pervomaisk, USSR, 1941

Of course, sufficiently AAA saturated and stratified combat zone theoretically is capable to eliminate our old-fashioned low-level intruders, but that is completely unobtainable on a truly spacious front.

In the meantime, as always – all the best! ;)

Panzerknacker
06-15-2009, 06:04 PM
In favour of the soviets one might need to say the 85mm was designed fire at targets to operating inside a ceiling of 1000 to 7500 meters, if the stuka was very low is very difficult to aim a heavy piece, better try with a 37 or 25mm.

Librarian
06-16-2009, 10:16 AM
True, my dear Mr. Panzerknacker. However, if a truly capable Stuka-pilot was very low with his old-fashioned airplane, even the best Soviet light AA weapon intended for beating fast-moving, low-flying targets - that easy to aim, and permanently ready-for-action M-4 Quadruple Maxim mounted on the Gaz truck-platform - was incapable to stop our devoted birdie:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/M-4Quad-destroyedbyJu87.jpg

Remnants of the M-4 Quad Maxim destroyed by low-flying Stukas, USSR - 1942

As it was already proven numerous times, low-level flight always augmented the survival-probability of the aircraft crew and the combat efficiency in air-to-ground deployment to a maximum. The target could be approached unobserved from the surrounding area and overflown at the greatest possible speed to minimize the effectiveness of possible anti-aircraft defenses right from the start.

By this combat-methodology, and without any significant counter-activity of the Soviet fighters, even those highly defended objects, like a command center of the marshal Semyon Timoshenko, were successfully attacked without a single loss:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/TimoshenkoDacha-July1941.jpg

Destroyed command center of the Western Front, vicinity of Smolensk, July 1941 – photo taken by Chef- Bildoffizier I/C Bild of the Führungstab des Luftflottenkommando 2

Well, that’s all for today, honorable ladies and gentlemen. In the meantime, as always – all the best! :)

Nickdfresh
06-16-2009, 03:19 PM
...
You see, my dear Mr. Smith, the extremely low-level flight actually will minimize the factual amount of time enemy gunners have to spot your aircraft and to effectually aim. If you are a truly capable pilot, sufficiently skilled to fly above the treetops with some 280-300 km/h, they will be completely unable even to fire a single shot in your direction!

...

I concur sir. However, this would also adversely effect the use of the Stuka in its prescribed dive-bombing role turning it into a marginal performer in some cases. Of course, this would not be unusual as many aviators must adopt defensive tactics that hinder their battlefield effectiveness in a tactical ground support role - as the ground forces always are able to counter what is initially the usual significant advantage of the aviator. Of course the Luftwaffe improved the Stuka with more armor and better "tank-busting" armament. But it was never able to terrorize its opposition as it did with such mastery of the early days in the West...

Panzerknacker
06-16-2009, 07:16 PM
Good pictures Lib, good pictures.

Librarian
06-17-2009, 01:06 PM
Education in history of war is not and never was just a matter of gaining new understandings, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh. It is also a process of unlearning or getting rid of false impressions, of fake misconceptions about factual usage of a certain weapon system during the war which are sorrowfully embedded in general population.

For that reason we have listed and analyzed a couple of misconceptions, more precisely persistent and puzzling myths about factual usage of the Ju 87 during the WW2 that are particularly widespread even today, and we trust that this tiny string of posts has helped to clear them away. Without pretending to supply a complete study, we suggested a number of photos and facts that the serious student can use to dig more deeply into this matter.

The persistence of the old attitude that the Ju 87 was used only as a slow and clumsy dive-bomber is not easy to explain. Perhaps it is simply a case of a general tendency to confuse already known theoretical ideas with factual realities after the accurate evidence has vanished. Whatever the situation may have been, our main task here still is provision of the genuine photo-materiel, capable to debunk those myths.

A useful analytical approach in every case connected with usage of certain type of weaponry is to ask: in terms of its effect rather then of its declared purpose, what was its real function? And if the answer is annihilation of enemy units with minimum loss, combination of preserved empirical observations with known technical potentials of the weapon system will be capable to provide the right answer. :)

Yes, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh, you are absolutely right – if point targets were in front of German units, thus representing an unsurpassable obstacle for them, and if there were no active AAA units in a given area, good old Ju 87 indeed dived and conveyed the lethal load right in the kisser:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Simferopol-1941.jpg

Destroyed Soviet anti-tank position, vicinity of Simferopol, 1941

But in case when four batteries of excellent 85 mm Soviet heavy anti-aircraft guns were emplaced around the target (for example that poor railway station of Pervomaisk), operated by the Soviet Army’s AA shooters very best (guys which from a 3 km distance could clip buttons from a vest), Stuka crews were not inclined to penetrate through 7 km wide barrage zone to reach that dead arc in the vertical plane and then to employ their well-known deadly Sturzflug just to keep their well-known name. That was extremely dangerous.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/M1939-Deadarc.jpg

Cross section of the field of fire for the 85mm M1939 antiaircraft gun

They approached their possitions from the treetops instead, and disabled them with their own low-level Steckrübenwurf tactics, two years before the Fw 190 did the same. :)

After that, they straffed unfortunate Soviet trains there with their guns and small bombs and their ammo flow out in kind of a spray, so everything round got very peppered…

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Pervomaisk-1941-3.jpg

Attack of the Ju 87, Pervomaisk - 1941

… so when they later counted their score they got 24 bulls eyes, four magpies and a shepherd! ;)

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Pervomaisk-1941-4.jpg

Remnants of the Soviet train destroyed by Stukas – Pervomaisk, 1941

Subsequently, out of a clear blue yonder, a lonely Soviet fighter joined their group; obviously, he was just a poor recruit. Thus they peppered him with their rear guns as well, in a real course how to shoot. At fifteen meters their MGs kicked, and went off with a noise like a blizzard, and down came the poor devil, looking fair surprised, with a couple of nice holes right through his gizzard!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Pervomaisk-1941-5.jpg

Unfortunate Soviet I 16 fighter, downed by Ju 87 rear gunners – Pervomaisk, 1941

Then after the ball, like a carefree rabbits, they rushed down the field full of pride: nobody stopped them and they boldly scored without losses for their own side. With their actions, they revealed a secret to their High command about their intrinsic necessity, emphasized in that old, truly beautiful German song:

Treat me nice
Treat me good
Treat me like you really should
'Cause I'm not made out of wood...

Original is available here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_byoKAi4CJE&feature=related

However, their message was lost in cacophony of ignorance, empty pride, and sheer megalomania…

And so, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh, the 4th of August 1941 remained in history as their unequaled heyday. I am assuring you that on that very day Ju 87s terrorized their opponents with such a mastery that even the USAF officers, who analyzed those forgotten German snapshots captured during the operation "**** Tracy", were absolutely stunned.

To be continued...;)

Panzerknacker
06-17-2009, 07:26 PM
Well, despite being old design the I-16 wasnt easy to shot dow by a single 7,92mm Mg, must be a lucky shot.

CliSwe
06-17-2009, 07:30 PM
Early experience of the Ju87 in Poland and France between 1939 and 1940, had the plane in its element: unopposed in the air, and a true shock weapon against mostly unprepared ground targets. The first time it was used in defended airspace, was in the early days of the Battle of Britain in 1940. The RAF Hurricanes and Spitfires made no attempt to dogfight it: they quite wisely waited until it was committed to its attacking dive, then followed it down as a stable target. ISTR the Stukas sustaining ~50% casualties in this manner. There is debate as to whether this led to their withdrawal from the BoB, or they were redeployed in preparation for Barbarossa. Whichever is the case, their effectiveness had been sharply diminished by the use of the correct tactics against them. As for low-level bombing missions, the Brits later adapted the Hurricane in this role, after it had outlived its usefulness as a fighter. Not quite the same accuracy as the DB method, but tactically effective nonetheless.

Cheers,
Cliff

ubc
06-18-2009, 01:05 AM
ISTR the Stukas sustaining ~50% casualties in this manner.

What does that mean in real terms? I read that only 67 Stuka were lost in July and August which meant their inventory numbers remained stable at about 400. Less than 10% losses per month is what it looks like. From what I've read the Stuka were withdrawn for the proposed operation Sealion, but when that was canceled, they were sent eastward in preperation for Barbarossa.

Librarian
06-18-2009, 01:29 PM
Excuse me, my dear Mr. Panzerknacker, but since when concentrated fire of 6 rearward-looking defensive MGs, as well as MG bursts from a couple of Stukas attacking from his back are only lucky shots? Yes, yes - I know: independent observers had not confirmed those German claims. However, for me those happenings are representing an example of the tactical excellence and a genuine mastery in combat flying. :)

And please, don’t understand me wrongly – I am not claiming that the Polikarpov I 16 was a bad airplane. On the contrary! In skilled hands, that tiny but incredibly maneuverable machine was completely capable to overpower Ju 87 in every situation, but it seems to me that poor fellow simply was not exceptionally proficient in his job…

On the other hand, I must say that I always was deeply impressed by the fact that practically the most efficient German airplane used against Soviet air force on the very first day of Operation Barbarossa (June 22nd, 1941) was our good old birdie. Amongst 78 Luftwaffe airplanes lost in combat on that very day there were only 2 Ju 87 Stukas. And if your next question is just what had they achieved… well, they - yet again reportedly! - successfully eradicated some 800 Soviet machines… Bulk of them on the ground, of course. But – of course, reportedly! – certain number of unfortunate Soviet machines was destroyed in aerial battles as well.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Airfieldattack-Barbarossa1941.jpg

Ju 87s are attacking Soviet airfield – June 22nd, 1941

In view of the fact that you evidently like those unduly forgotten Polikarpov machines, here are some snapshots from aforesaid period that are connected with them and our old birdie as well:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/PolikarpovI15-1.jpg

Polikarpov I-15 destroyed by German Stukas, June 22nd – 1941

Numerous Soviet airplanes were heavily damaged on that day too, so they were taken out of action as well:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/PolikarpovI15-2.jpg

Heavily damaged I-15s, June 22nd – 1941

Advance of the German troops was so fast that damaged Soviet airplanes remained almost intact right on the spot:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/PolikarpovI15-3.jpg

Polikarpov I – 15 machines, heavily damaged by Stukas – unknown Soviet airfield

However, numerous examples were completely destroyed on their domestic airstrips:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/PolikarpovI15-4.jpg

Completely destroyed I – 15, June 22nd – 1941

Some of them somehow managed to start, but attacking German aircrafts (counting Stukas as well!) downed them easily, since they were outnumbered by the waves of incoming enemy airplanes:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/PolikarpovI15-5.jpg

Downed Polikarpov I-15

Of course, Polikarpov I-15 was not the only type of aircraft that suffered on that day. Numerous other types were destroyed by bombs delievered by our old birdie as well, for example this one:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/MiG1-destroyed.jpg

Destroyed MiG – 1, June 22nd – 1941

If you are looking for some motivational and inspirational music to keep your head refreshed during the contemplation about this intriguing success of our old, pants-equipped birdie, my dear Mr. Panzerknacker, than look no further - here is one especially suitable for these purposes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5avteqfLxc

Reportedly it was always capable to rise the spirits of the Prussian (von Popovitz) branch of our family in time of need… ;)

And now you will excuse me for a moment, honorable ladies and gentlemen, I have to scan some additional materials for our distinguished thread.

Oh, silly me – I almost forgot this:


The RAF Hurricanes and Spitfires made no attempt to dogfight it: they quite wisely waited until it was committed to its attacking dive, then followed it down as a stable target.

This is highly intriguing issue, my dear Mr. CliSwe. Would you be so kind to elaborate this matter a little bit more intensively? You see, as far as I know Hurricanes and Spitfires were the most efficient against our old birdie when they applied numerous variants of the dogfight tactics. After all, from the strict and stringent technical point of view, that was quite understandable – their specific wingload, for example, was significantly better.

Personally, I am deeply interested for that specific anti-Stuka tactics used by Flying Officer David M.Crook against notorious Stuka-pilot Friedrich-Karl Freiherr von Dalwigk zu Lichtenfels - commander of the I/Sturzkampfgeschwader 77. Untill now I was completely unable to acquire any reliable information about that intriguing occurrence.

I am assuring you that nothing shall be neglected on our part to render us fully worthy of your confidence. :)

And now – back to hard and deeply boring work… :roll:

In the meantime, honorable ladies and gentlemen, as always – all the best!

Nickdfresh
06-18-2009, 07:13 PM
Education in history of war is not and never was just a matter of gaining new understandings, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh. It is also a process of unlearning or getting rid of false impressions, of fake misconceptions about factual usage of a certain weapon system during the war which are sorrowfully embedded in general population.

I could not agree with you more here, sir. Your contributions to this site have done much to get rid of false impressions and misconceptions. And I appreciate your most excellent posting as every one is informative and detailed. I indeed look forward to reading your posts and think you are a great credit and resource to this site...


For that reason we have listed and analyzed a couple of misconceptions, more precisely persistent and puzzling myths about factual usage of the Ju 87 during the WW2 that are particularly widespread even today, and we trust that this tiny string of posts has helped to clear them away. Without pretending to supply a complete study, we suggested a number of photos and facts that the serious student can use to dig more deeply into this matter.

I would indeed like to know more about the upgraded Stukas and their use as "tank-busters" on the Eastern Front. The Stuka was a marvelous, agile aircraft and the Luftwaffe was visionary in transposing the use of dive-bombing from fleet naval air arms (like the US Navy, who influenced the doctrine of tactical support greatly as German military attaches did love to observe the exploits of naval aviators here in the 1920s and early 30s) to point targets (larger than destroyers) on land such as tanks and artillery batteries....


The persistence of the old attitude that the Ju 87 was used only as a slow and clumsy dive-bomber is not easy to explain. Perhaps it is simply a case of a general tendency to confuse already known theoretical ideas with factual realities after the accurate evidence has vanished. Whatever the situation may have been, our main task here still is provision of the genuine photo-materiel, capable to debunk those myths.

Slow she might have been. But "clumsy?" Never! The Stuka was an agile carrion ready to pounce and tear the flesh from her plodding enemies on the ground. But the aircraft did have its vulnerabilities that were masked by the ineptness or disadvantages of her adversaries in the West. I do recall reading (a very long time ago) in Len Dalton's "Blitzkrieg" that a squadron of French (somewhat obsolete) P-36 Hawks managed to inflict heavy losses, in at least one instance, on a flock of Stukas --which belied their reputation of sheer terror and omnipotence in the perception of the French and British ground forces. The problem was that the RAF had few fighters to spare and the French Armée de l'Air suffered a rapid advance of the West Heer on her Western-most airfields resulting in a severe disruption of coherent fighter opposition to the Luftwaffe. The British of course were overextended as they had to fly from the Isles and burn their fuel before engaging the Luftwaffe. A problem that would conversely beset the Germans in the Battle of Britain..


A useful analytical approach in every case connected with usage of certain type of weaponry is to ask: in terms of its effect rather then of its declared purpose, what was its real function? And if the answer is annihilation of enemy units with minimum loss, combination of preserved empirical observations with known technical potentials of the weapon system will be capable to provide the right answer. :)

Yes, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh, you are absolutely right – if point targets were in front of German units, thus representing an unsurpassable obstacle for them, and if there were no active AAA units in a given area, good old Ju 87 indeed dived and conveyed the lethal load right in the kisser:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Simferopol-1941.jpg

Destroyed Soviet anti-tank position, vicinity of Simferopol, 1941

But in case when four batteries of excellent 85 mm Soviet heavy anti-aircraft guns were emplaced around the target (for example that poor railway station of Pervomaisk), operated by the Soviet Army’s AA shooters very best (guys which from a 3 km distance could clip buttons from a vest), Stuka crews were not inclined to penetrate through 7 km wide barrage zone to reach that dead arc in the vertical plane and then to employ their well-known deadly Sturzflug just to keep their well-known name. That was extremely dangerous.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/M1939-Deadarc.jpg

Cross section of the field of fire for the 85mm M1939 antiaircraft gun

They approached their possitions from the treetops instead, and disabled them with their own low-level Steckrübenwurf tactics, two years before the Fw 190 did the same. :)

After that, they straffed unfortunate Soviet trains there with their guns and small bombs and their ammo flow out in kind of a spray, so everything round got very peppered…

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Pervomaisk-1941-3.jpg

Attack of the Ju 87, Pervomaisk - 1941

… so when they later counted their score they got 24 bulls eyes, four magpies and a shepherd! ;)

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Pervomaisk-1941-4.jpg

Remnants of the Soviet train destroyed by Stukas – Pervomaisk, 1941

A testament to the flexible command structure of the Luftwaffe, and their faith in their very well trained pilots of the early war period in allowing them the autonomy to deviate from operational plans and press home the attack while exploiting the Soviet weaknesses in short-to-intermediate range anti-aircraft artillery...


Subsequently, out of a clear blue yonder, a lonely Soviet fighter joined their group; obviously, he was just a poor recruit. Thus they peppered him with their rear guns as well, in a real course how to shoot. At fifteen meters their MGs kicked, and went off with a noise like a blizzard, and down came the poor devil, looking fair surprised, with a couple of nice holes right through his gizzard!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Pervomaisk-1941-5.jpg

Unfortunate Soviet I 16 fighter, downed by Ju 87 rear gunners – Pervomaisk, 1941

Yes. He must have been the "bottom of the barrel" as the colloquial American saying goes. Any sane pilot always begins his attack with a wingman to draw fire and to cover his rear end. He, or she, must have been a desperate young pilot trainee...


Then after the ball, like a carefree rabbits, they rushed down the field full of pride: nobody stopped them and they boldly scored without losses for their own side. With their actions, they revealed a secret to their High command about their intrinsic necessity, emphasized in that old, truly beautiful German song:

Treat me nice
Treat me good
Treat me like you really should
'Cause I'm not made out of wood...

Original is available here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_byoKAi4CJE&feature=related

However, their message was lost in cacophony of ignorance, empty pride, and sheer megalomania…

And so, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh, the 4th of August 1941 remained in history as their unequaled heyday. I am assuring you that on that very day Ju 87s terrorized their opponents with such a mastery that even the USAF officers, who analyzed those forgotten German snapshots captured during the operation "**** Tracy", were absolutely stunned.

To be continued...;)

I have no reservation that you are absolutely correct. It was in fact the German Reichswehr/Wehrmacht that, out of the artificially imposed weaknesses of the Versailles Treaty, was far more willing to explore new ideas that were often stifled in the militaries of the West (members of whom often came up with those ideas) --and by a certain Soviet "generalissimo" that feared any competition of leadership...

Cheers!

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/images/smilies/happy0180.gif

Deaf Smith
06-18-2009, 09:47 PM
Of course, sufficiently AAA saturated and stratified combat zone theoretically is capable to eliminate our old-fashioned low-level intruders, but that is completely unobtainable on a truly spacious front.

In the meantime, as always – all the best! ;)

And yet, it failed in the end. For you see, single intruders, while damaging, cannot do much real overall damage. That takes a far more serious effort.

The answer to such low level tactics? Flak towers (as the Germans used in their cities), barrage balloons, and large number of light AAA (as the Germans figured out for defending their air bases) The towers would have to be mobile, and the balloons numerous and easy to real in and move, and the AAA tracked and numerious. I guess the Russians felt for the amount of damage they were receiving it was not worth the effort.

Deaf

CliSwe
06-19-2009, 08:08 PM
What does that mean in real terms? I read that only 67 Stuka were lost in July and August which meant their inventory numbers remained stable at about 400. Less than 10% losses per month is what it looks like. From what I've read the Stuka were withdrawn for the proposed operation Sealion, but when that was canceled, they were sent eastward in preperation for Barbarossa.

Beware the contemporary accounts (exaggerated for propaganda purposes, methinks):oops: The following gives a more balanced picture:
"Baron von Richtofen had a blot to remove from his escutcheon in the spring of 1941. The architect of the close air support doctrine of the Luftwaffe, he had failed miserably during the Battle of Britain. His vaulted (sic) Stukas had been shot to pieces on Eagle Day and had done no better on August 15. Three days later, on August 18, the Stukas tried again. Richtofen sent up four Ju-87 groups, which attacked the British airfields at Gosport, Thorney Island, and Ford, as well as the radar station at Poling on the southern coast. Thirty Stukas were lost or critically damaged in the attack. One group, I/StG 77, lost twelve of its twenty-eight aircraft, and six of the survivors were so badly damaged that they only just managed to reach the Continent. Such losses were more than could be tolerated. Eighth Air Corps was withdrawn from the battle." [Eagles of the Third Reich (Samuel W. Mitcham) p.115].
It's clear, from the foregoing passage, that the "~50% losses" were the tally for I/StG 77 on that day, and not a sustained rate for the campaign. That said, it reinforces the point I made that - excellent CAS platform though it was - it couldn't survive in contested airspace:
"The "Sturzkampfgeschwader" faithfully supported "Generalfeldmarschall" Erwin Rommel's "Deutsches Afrikakorps" in its two year campaign in North Africa, helping it achieve considerable success. However as the tide turned and Allied air power grew in the autumn of 1942, the Ju 87 became very vulnerable, and losses were heavy. The entry of the Americans into North Africa during Operation "Torch" made the situation far worse: the "Stuka" was obsolete in what was now a fighter-bomber's war. The Bf 109 and Fw 190 could at least fight on equal terms after dropping their ordnance , but the "Stuka" could not. The Junkers' vulnerability was demonstrated on 11 November 1942 when 15 Ju 87Ds were all shot down by USAF P-40Fs in minutes." [Weal 1998, p. 65.] .

Cheers,
Cliff

Panzerknacker
06-19-2009, 08:24 PM
Excuse me, my dear Mr. Panzerknacker, but since when concentrated fire of 6 rearward-looking defensive MGs, as well as MG bursts from a couple of Stukas attacking from his back are only lucky shots? Yes, yes - I know: independent observers had not confirmed those German claims. However, for me those happenings are representing an example of the tactical excellence and a genuine mastery in combat flying.


Evidently 6 MG 15 are is more effective than one. :rolleyes: I do believe that a aimed pilto shot could be by far more effective that the sole rear machinegun defense.

ubc
06-19-2009, 10:47 PM
And yet, it failed in the end. For you see, single intruders, while damaging, cannot do much real overall damage. That takes a far more serious effort.

The answer to such low level tactics? Flak towers (as the Germans used in their cities), barrage balloons, and large number of light AAA (as the Germans figured out for defending their air bases) The towers would have to be mobile, and the balloons numerous and easy to real in and move, and the AAA tracked and numerious. I guess the Russians felt for the amount of damage they were receiving it was not worth the effort.

Deaf

Stuka is a tactical weapon. How are 'Flak Towers' and 'barrage balloons' going to fit into Soviet offensive operational doctrine?

ubc
06-19-2009, 11:09 PM
Beware the contemporary accounts (exaggerated for propaganda purposes, methinks):oops: The following gives a more balanced picture:
"Baron von Richtofen had a blot to remove from his escutcheon in the spring of 1941. The architect of the close air support doctrine of the Luftwaffe, he had failed miserably during the Battle of Britain. His vaulted (sic) Stukas had been shot to pieces on Eagle Day and had done no better on August 15. Three days later, on August 18, the Stukas tried again. Richtofen sent up four Ju-87 groups, which attacked the British airfields at Gosport, Thorney Island, and Ford, as well as the radar station at Poling on the southern coast. Thirty Stukas were lost or critically damaged in the attack. One group, I/StG 77, lost twelve of its twenty-eight aircraft, and six of the survivors were so badly damaged that they only just managed to reach the Continent. Such losses were more than could be tolerated. Eighth Air Corps was withdrawn from the battle." [Eagles of the Third Reich (Samuel W. Mitcham) p.115].
It's clear, from the foregoing passage, that the "~50% losses" were the tally for I/StG 77 on that day, and not a sustained rate for the campaign. That said, it reinforces the point I made that - excellent CAS platform though it was - it couldn't survive in contested airspace:
"The "Sturzkampfgeschwader" faithfully supported "Generalfeldmarschall" Erwin Rommel's "Deutsches Afrikakorps" in its two year campaign in North Africa, helping it achieve considerable success. However as the tide turned and Allied air power grew in the autumn of 1942, the Ju 87 became very vulnerable, and losses were heavy. The entry of the Americans into North Africa during Operation "Torch" made the situation far worse: the "Stuka" was obsolete in what was now a fighter-bomber's war. The Bf 109 and Fw 190 could at least fight on equal terms after dropping their ordnance , but the "Stuka" could not. The Junkers' vulnerability was demonstrated on 11 November 1942 when 15 Ju 87Ds were all shot down by USAF P-40Fs in minutes." [Weal 1998, p. 65.] .

Cheers,
Cliff

Cliff these seem like anachdotle [sp] information. Heres a reference from German sources covering the months of July and August 1940.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=80594&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


by Pips on Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:30 am

the details of the 16th August raid were as follows:

St.G 2 hit Tangmere at 1300hrs, destroying two hangers and badly damaging three others as well as the workshop, fire hydrants and pumphouse, all of which received direct hits; stores, sick quarters, the officers mess and the command post were partially hit causing severe structual damage, as well as destroying seven Hurricane fighters, six radar-equipped Blenheim fighters of teh Fighter Interception Unit and a Magister trainer on th ground. Forty motor vehicles were also destroyed.

The attack did cost St.G 2 nine Ju87's shot down and a further three damaged, althpough the Stuka's did shoot one Hurricane down, that of P/O Fiske of 601 Squadron.

As can be seen the Stuka's did substantial damage to Tangmere in spite of the losses suffered. The details of the damage is from the RAF's damage report by the Station Enginerering Officer.

As far as losses generraly goes the Ju87 units were active over both Channel convoys and southeast England from July. Losses suffered over the two month period were:
July 14 - 1; July 20 - 2; July 25 - 1; July 27 - 1; July 29 - 4; August 11 - 1; August 12 - 5; August 14 - 4; August 15 - 7; August 16 - 9; August 18 - 14.

In that two month period the Ju87's.....
sank 1 ainti-aircraft ship - the Foylebank
sank 1 destroyer - the Brazen
damaged five destroyers - Beagle, Boadicea, Bulldog, Boreas, Brilliant
forced the Dover Destroyers to be withdrawn
sank 4 small warships - Warrior II, Kingston Galena, Roding, Gulzar
sank 14 merchant ships
damaged 29 merchant ships
forced Channel convoys to be halted during daylight
damaged 7 airfields - Detling, Hawkinge, Lympne, Tangmere, Lee-On-Solent, Ford, Thorney Island
destroyed 49 aircraft on the ground - 22 at Detling, 15 at Tangmere, 12 at Lee-On-Solent
damaged three radar stations (putting them off air for a short period) - Ventnor, Poling, Dover.

Overall during the two month period the Ju87's suffered a 7.9% loss rate - hardly the massive losses the British claimed. And achieved an remarkable amount in that period.




BTW I was referencing the critical war in the east from 1941-43 since this is the heart of WW-II in Europe. Out side of that context its clear the lack of effective german tactical air training lead to a progressive disintergration of the air defense leading to less and less effective usage of all bombers types.

CliSwe
06-20-2009, 01:08 PM
Cliff these seem like anachdotle [sp] information. Heres a reference from German sources covering the months of July and August 1940.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=80594&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0






BTW I was referencing the critical war in the east from 1941-43 since this is the heart of WW-II in Europe. Out side of that context its clear the lack of effective german tactical air training lead to a progressive disintergration of the air defense leading to less and less effective usage of all bombers types.

ubc, I haven't the slightest doubt that the above accounts are accurate and credible. OTOH, Mitcham is a respected source (as is Weal), although the very weight of their output makes one wary. For example, I'd nitpick Weal regarding Rommel's rank (he wasn't promoted to Field Marshal whilst commanding a Corps) and the organisation which flew P-40s (the USAF did not come into being until after the war). Their main message, however, remains irrefutable: Stuka attrition could not be sustained over Britain. Whatever face-saving OKW explanation was offered (preserve the airframes for Sealion, send them east for Barbarossa, etc.) they were in any case withdrawn from the campaign. IMHO this indicates, not (as you remarked) a failure of tactical understanding, but a realisation that the Ju 87 was being misused in a strategic campaign. The Luftwaffe in any case was not equipped for a strategic offensive: it was a superb tactical air force which cooperated splendidly with fast-moving ground forces. On its own, it lacked the ability to eliminate the RAF in British airspace.

Cheers,
Cliff

ubc
06-20-2009, 04:37 PM
IMHO this indicates, not (as you remarked) a failure of tactical understanding, but a realisation that the Ju 87 was being misused in a strategic campaign. The Luftwaffe in any case was not equipped for a strategic offensive: it was a superb tactical air force which cooperated splendidly with fast-moving ground forces. On its own, it lacked the ability to eliminate the RAF in British airspace.

Cheers,
Cliff

Cliff my reference to 'lack of effective german tactical air training ' , was more to do with the progressive loss of Luftwaffe flying hours through the mid war years that progressively diluted the effectiveness of their pilots. By comparison the Allied figures climed so that by wars end they were looking at 600-800 flying hours compared to about 50hours for the late war Luftwaffe training.

But no argument about the miss application of Stuka assets in strategic airwar...which was alien to their war training. When Combined with army assets the Stuka was a vital part of korps warfare in the early years. German sources [Schenk for example] report the Luftaffe with drew their Stuka to make sure the inventory was ready for ground support for 'Sealion'...but it could just as easily been seen for 'Barbarossa'.

Librarian
06-23-2009, 09:11 AM
As usually, I am late again, honorable ladies and gentlemen. Nevertheless, I shall try to compensate that sorrowful verity with a pair of forgotten pictorial artifacts. :)


I could not agree with you more here, sir. Your contributions to this site have done much to get rid of false impressions and misconceptions. And I appreciate your most excellent posting as every one is informative and detailed. I indeed look forward to reading your posts and think you are a great credit and resource to this site...

Thank you very much for that truly outstanding personal appraisal, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh. Yes, as brilliantly observed some 25 years ago by a renowned historian, Mr. David Lowenthal, the past always is a foreign country. However, it seems to me that in recent times we are constantly facing a new, quite symptomatic phenomenon of our epoch, brought about probably by the combination of increased human numbers, decreased number of open-source libraries and general lack of human patience. Result of that dreadful combination has been the incipient vulgarization of history. :roll:

Factual History - the very basic concern of our distinguished web-site - is both accomplishment of knowledge and human persistence, work of the dusty hands and a movement of the spirit, the traditional but somehow forgotten property of modern man, of his ideas, his material artifacts taken in sum to be a guide to life. Dionysius is still telling us the ancient truth that popular History basically is Philosophy taken by examples, with philosophy suspended between the I-believe of theology and the I-know of science. But above all History is a birthright which we all inherit, the heritage man carries with him on his short earthly voyage.

That’s why we invite all those whose interests lie in this marvelous field - whether as contributors or pure readers, to join us in this marvelous venture. :D


Slow she might have been. But "clumsy?" Never!

Thank you for this comment, my esteemed colleague. In that case my job in this thread is practically done. Yes, the Ju 87 Stuka was a little bit slow, but also a very agile, maneuverable airplane, popular with crews due to its unrivalled bombing accuracy, ability to operate in unprepared airfields, easy maintenance, and good rough-field performance. Later we will analyze those aspects as well. But before that, we need to keep all of our already given promises. ;)

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-30.jpg

Ju 87-B, USSR - 1941

During the initial phase of war with the Soviet Union, Luftwaffe was inundated with constant demands of the Army for close air support. Although those demands were far greater than Luftwaffe's resources could bar, the Stukas were exceptionally active and achieved the peak of their success during the battle of Smolensk, when they persistently annihilated all observable elements of the encircled Soviet units:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-Smolensk1.jpg

Ju 87 is attacking encircled Soviet units – vicinity of Smolensk, 1941

Saturation of the combat-zone was absolutely outstanding – different bombs were accurately scattered over a surface of several hectares:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-Smolensk2.jpg

Smolensk, 1941 - aerial photo of the bombing range showing the numerous bomb craters

Result was absolutely stupenduous – more than 5000 different vehicles were completely exterminated by agitated Stuka attacks:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-Smolensk3.jpg

Destroyed Soviet vehicles - Vicinity of Smolensk, the 4th of August, 1941

German tactics was indeed open-minded and object-oriented one – Soviet anti-aircraft units represented especially important and accentuated objects. They were mainly chased and attacked while on march, thus they were unable to create an useful defense perimeter for their own troops:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-Smolensk4.jpg

Destroyed Soviet light AA artillery – vicinity of Smolensk, 1941

The final results were able to realistically paint the grim picture of War's toll:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-Smolensk5.jpg

Destroyed artillery pieces and wounded horses – a tremendous cost of War. Smolensk – 1941

Yes, Stuka was able to cause the most horrific war injuries in numbers almost too large to comprehend. But horrors of war are hardly ever considered objects of premeditated philosophy of conflict… :(


I would indeed like to know more about the upgraded Stukas and their use as "tank-busters" on the Eastern Front.

I am doing my best to find something for you, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh. I hope that some previously unseen snapshots connected with the aforementioned matter will be available as well. ;)


The answer to such low level tactics? Flak towers

I really don't want to be a Killjoy, my dear Mr. Smith, but the good old Soviet Il 2 Sturmoviks actually proved that the aforesaid constructions were not the unconquerable technical solutions for sufficiently determined and properly trained crews, prepared to successfully use a deadly combination of simultaneous high-angle attack from different directions, and browny power of the ROFS-132 rockets.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Flakturm-zwilling-destroyedBerlin19.jpg

Destroyed heavy Flakturm-Zwilling, Berlin – May 1945

In addition - although this thread is not dedicated to this highly intriguing question! - I shall say that the only practically impenetrable all-round AA area defense system on the whole planet was established around the Soviet capital in 1944. A true mathematical genius designed it, and it was extremely expensive. But, as already explained, this issue is representing a proper them for a completely new thread. :)

Well, that’s all for today, honorable ladies and gentlemen. I have to proceed with my regular work. :roll:

In the meantime, as always – all the best! :)

Dani
06-23-2009, 06:31 PM
[QUOTE=Librarian;158156]As usually, I am late again, honorable ladies and gentlemen. Nevertheless, I shall try to compensate that sorrowful verity with a pair of forgotten pictorial artifacts. :)

Never say you are late Mr. Librarian!! Your posts are most welcomed!

paladin
07-06-2009, 05:48 AM
200 x ju87 pictures

junkers ju 87 ( german photo archiv ) (http://www.v-like-vintage.net/Default.aspx?lang=de&pos=searchresult&search=junkers)
:rolleyes:

bluedonkey99
08-14-2009, 01:41 PM
Gentlemen

i wonder if you can help?
Lucas an excellent model builder is looking for info on a particular late war scene.

The astute amongst you will
(a) recognise the photos in the set of links below
(b) know where the rest or other source of images from this scene are?

I have recently had to rebuild my PC some some of my image files are all messed up or lost!

But i certainly recall these images and the following!
The Ju-87 in front of the shed/barn appears as follows
1) in colur
2) from an angle taken from the side of the second link below (of the second me-262 in the main image)
3) addtional photos from differnet angles of the Ju-98 and me-262

I include the link to the pivitol Ju-87 image and one that include the afore mentioned ju-87 in the back ground of the me-262 shot.

There is a i am sure at least one or two other photographs taken of this scene and both the ju-8 and me-262 from various angles and vantage points at this time.

I am not sure of the exact location some say its Innsbruck others nearby landzberg (nr dacheau?)

it is certainly in Alpine Germany or Austria...

does anyone have any more information or photographs ?

i see this as bit like the series of images of the wrecked panther outside Cologne / Koln catherderal?

many thanks
BD99


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/group-builds/unofficial-group-build-after-battle-ju-87-stuka-litte-diorama-19846.html

http://www.outtacontext.com/life/images/dad_german_jet.jpg


http://www.tegernseer-tal-verlag.de/content/spurensuche/galland/pictures/me262.jpg

Non_Sequitor
09-25-2009, 10:23 AM
I would have to say that the Stuka was a great platform as long as air superiority was not an issue. It was one of the best, if not the best, dive-bombers of the war. It's accuracy was unparalleled at the time of its introduction, and the automatic pull-out after bomb release was pretty unique. If the Luftwaffe had been able to clear the skies of enemy fighters, I think that the Stuka would have a similar reputation as the Tiger tanks do.

Librarian
03-16-2010, 03:22 PM
Amongst the many talented artists, work of young Mr. Jakub Štasta has contributed some most brilliant themes and motifs to the artistic repertoire connected with the WW2, which is very important in today's world because it helps to inform people about the past - a past that they may know nothing about.

Being distinguished by the way in which he brought different genuine historical elements together, Mr. Štasta is one amongst a distinguished band of so called "digital artists" to flourish in the resourceful atmosphere of numerous WW2 aviation themes.

One among them is not to be missed, because it is deeply connected with the main star of this topic:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87G-2byJakubStosta.jpg

Ju 87 G-2 Kanonvogel (W.Nr. 494085) – Jakub Štasta (Czech Republic, 2008)

I hope you'll like it. :)

Well, that’s all for today, honorable ladies and gentlemen. In the meantime, as always – all the best! ;)

burp
03-17-2010, 05:38 AM
That and the bombs, although highly accurate (for the time), were quite small. One run was all they could manage before they had to go home.

For an airplane specialized in hunting of veichles the most effective weapon is his cannon, not bombs or other type of weapon: also main battle tank has a "soft" top, that a armor piercing bullet can pierce easily. The armored veichles like APC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier) or IFV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFV) cannot sustain damage from "small" cannon airplane-mounted. This is true for WWII but also for nowadays. For tank-huntig the cannon will be forever the most cost-effectly weapon.
The A-X program, that creates the A-10 Thunderbolt II, has a prerequisite for his members the reading of Hans Rudel's book Stuka Pilot. With the upgraded version suggested by Hans rudel's himself, use of external gun pod with 37, the Stuka is able to defeat most of today main battle tank hitting them on the top.

Regarding the question about applying special-purpose tactics by Russian, yes, the Russian apply them. At the start war for example special purpose tactics used agains Japanese airplanes by Russian are copied by Flying Tigers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tiger) and latter used as base for development of entire set of tactics used by USAF. In the West, after the initial shock of aggression by German combined with extermination of capable officer by Stalin's purge, the Red Army restart to elaborate tactics agains Lutwaffe, refined them and modified the structure of their aviation for a better applications of the tactics. The succesfull use of night straffing run over German base conducted by low flying airplanes at low speed, the Po-2, is created after invasion starting from the presense on the theather of large number of old russian airplanes and advancing Heer that use separated based. The German copied this tactic and Stuka proved very well suited for it.

I think that the success Blitzkrieg cannot be explained without knowing the importance of both precision ground attack and psichological effect that Stuka mades. In an era where stand-off weapon and long rage artillery moved their first steps the Stuka is perfect: low level flying means accurate spotting of targets, dive bombing means chirurgical accurate bombing, low speed means difficult aiming for modern enemy fighters without proper training and plane only orientation to ground attack means that it delivers his deadly weapon where is usefull for support of ground troups only. An inderect tribute to Stuka is the admission from Soviet storic culture that the IL-2, the russian counterpart of Stuka, is the most important airplane for victory against Nazism.

I know that Stuka is a difficult target, but i believe that after 1943, when Allies obtain air supremacy, the number advantage that they always have, the development of ad-hoc tacticts against low level-low speed target also with introduction of large number of refined version of fighter or introduction of new version make Stuka not safe anymore. I believe that the substution of Junker 87 Stuka with the Focke Wulf 190 is the right choice.

Librarian
03-17-2010, 03:24 PM
Oh, I am assuring you, my dear Mr. Burp, that in competent hands our good old Stuka was capable not only to outmaneuver and even shoot down the largest part of modern enemy fighters in late 1943 - the Lavochkin La-5, for example - but even to achieve that while being fully-loaded with bombs. :)

By my personal opinion, it really is a pity that those almost completely forgotten war diaries of late Captain Lévay Gyöző, commander of the 102/2 HUAF Dive-bomber Squadron, still are available only in Hungarian. It would have been very usable for young pilots, as well as for numerous civilian devotees of airborne swooping worldwide, to learn how to successfully evade a very agile head-to-tail attack of a capable Soviet fighter, shrewdly undertaken from under and the side. :cool:

But, until that, we shall present some additional wartime snapshots which are connected wit our old birdie:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-Color.jpg

Ju 87 - 1942

I hope that you will like this one. After all – it is in color. ;)

In the meantime, as always – all the best!

burp
03-18-2010, 06:14 AM
I'm not questioning if the Stuka can avoid more faster fighter approaching it in usual head-to-tail dogfight.
I'm saying that fighter with more speed and proper tactic has a good chanche to destroy a Stuka. It's simple question of physics, think about two flying object, the Stuka is an object slower but more manoeuvrable. Every object has a fix amount of energy that can spend for moving itself in space. More manoeuvrable means that consumes less energy to change trajectory. So, for example, if Stuka has 10 unit of energy to spent in an unit of time, and need 9 of them for a trajectory change. The fighter normally has 15 unit of energy at time but need 16 of energy for a trajectory
change. This means that if low speed object react quickly can avoid the faster object because it takes less time to change trajectory. The only solution for faster object is to reach a higher level of energy, so he can spent more energy in an unit of time. Normally this is achieved getting an higher altitude position, so the faster object can dive and reach higher energy state, so if example object in diving achieve 30 energy it can spend 16 unit of energy and so can change trajectory faster. The faster object can reach more easily higher position so slower object cannot win using same tactic.
This tactic is well-know from Top Gun Program for example, where instructors teach to exchange air-speed for altitude, but traces back to old tactics used by USAF against Zero, a Japanese airplane that can easily outmanover any of US fighter.

Another fact that i want to bring to your attention is the rate of Stug lost on Western Front.
After battle of Stalingrad the rate of loss is circa 1 Stuka for day.
After Battle of Kiev the Stuka force loses 50% of his aircraft, losing 13 or much more airplanes for every day. In battle among others, 8 Stuka aces who hold Knight Cross were killed.
Who said that Stuka is no longer capable to survive in modern (1943) times is General der Schlachtflieger Dr Ernst Kupfter, a Stuka ace that is the direct chief of all airplane for ground attacking. He is the man that sunk HMS Gloucester with a Stuka, one of his 633 mission, all aboard Stuka. I think that if a man like this says something about Stuka he exactly knows what he is saying.
I know also that Hans-Ulrich Hudel preferred for himself and his Stug the Stuka. But only few Stug leaders make the same choose, a lot of them instead have the same opinion of Kupfer. Some Stug with Stukas continue to get success against russian armored but as already said in my previous post the Stug is the perfect anti-tank weapon, despite of his vulnerability to fighters. A proof of that is the Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey, a mixed Stug armed initially with few FW 190 and a lot of Stuka but at the end of Continuation War had only a fraction of Stuka, this Stug was able to destroy 200 tanks and 150 airplane, stopping the Soviet fourth strategic offensive.

Librarian
03-18-2010, 07:16 PM
Thank you, my dear Mr. Burp, for that truly kind acknowledgment concerning factual maneuverability of the Ju 87 Stuka. Proper evasive tactics, accompanied by skillful piloting and apposite mechanical design always were capable to achieve astonishing results through history.

However, it seems to me that certain theoretical misconceptions, nowadays so deeply embedded into popular beliefs, must be analyzed and straightened for the very sake of the aeronautical science.

You see, although fighter pilots have always known that management of energy is critical to survival and success, energy-maneuverability methods were never so highly accentuated like today. In WW1 the experienced pilots always tried to enter a dogfight from above. They could then exchange the potential energy of altitude for the kinetic energy of speed or turn rate. Although fighter dogfight maneuvers largely really do rely upon the exchange of potential and kinetic energy to attain a positional advantage (for example, that today so popular "high speed yo-yo" maneuver, already explained by you, and regularly emphasized as a most suitable tactic to be used when overtaking a slower aircraft in a hard turn), it has never been actually emphasized that there is a very dodgy, but still incredibly intriguing possibility for successful counteracting of all positive energy state-based concepts of combat maneuvering.

That solution is known in theory as the energy height reduction maneuvering, sometimes described as a lateral directional flying, or Fractionized Energy Method. And the most important key for that accomplishment, my dear Mr. Burp, is a so called high wing mechanization index. What that means? In our case, my dear Sir, a possibility for an asymmetric mid-air braking (oh yes – unlike numerous fighter airplanes the Stuka actually has air brakes under each wing!) which will create continuous non-linear decentralization of the center of turning circles.

Something pretty odd, something that our highly attractive combat successor, the FW 190, actually never had.

Sounds complicated? Fortunately, we have some more modern examples. You see, there is no more complicated flying job then a fighter pilot’s. Your enemy has ability to maneuver in three dimensions at a variety of speed, your weapons can be effectively fired only within a specific flight envelope, and you may be on the verge of losing consciousness because of pulling high Gs. It has, therefore, been the most challenging job for the aircraft designers and engineers to construct a plane with the ability to outmaneuver the skills of the average fighter pilot. The modern story of successful fractionized energy maneuvering begins – ironically enough – in the spring of 1971 with a US Navy unit known as Top Gun, which taught dog-fighting skills to naval aviators, then engaged with MiG’s over Vietnam.

The aircraft in question was pretty unconventional one – Ryan BQM-34, know as the Firebee. But our example was not just any other Firebee, but one specially designed to give the "best of the best" a REAL TEST! That Firebee was upgraded with a system called MASTACS (Maneuverability Augmentation System for Tactical Air Combat Simulation), and the pilots of the renowned Top Gun were keen to prove their superiority. :rolleyes:

And so, a graduation exercise was scheduled for May 10, at Pt Mugu. Commander John C. Smith, commanding officer of the Top Gun school, decided to ride as radar operator and chief tactician as he and 3 other combat veterans from Vietnam scrambled in F-4 Phantom fighters from Miramar.

What developed was a no-holds-barred contest. Commander John Pitzen, Top Gun combat instructor, was tactical director for the modified Firebee, and instructed Mr. Al Donaldson, who manned the remote control station. In effect, they were in the cockpit of the target, and after the stage was set for a head – on approach, the Firebee proved to be an extremely elusive target. Open – circuit radio chatter told of the Top Gun star-pilots difficulties. Smith called "Tally-ho, off the left wing", but the drone was able to pull such a high asymmetric brake-assisted G-maneuver, that the F-4 could not follow the maneuver! Commanding officer of the Top Gun was learning the hard way that a modified target drone could rack into a 100 degree bank and make a 180 degree reversal turn in only 12 seconds, permitting the drone to get in behind the now vulnerable F-4. In that position, the drone ceased being a target, but an attack aircraft. :twisted:

The flight was a convincing demonstration of innovative maouvering undertaken by the drone. Pandora’s box of modern age all-robot Air Force combat flying was almost opened, but both USN and the Teledyne Ryan quitly backed away from pushing the concept any further at that time, and everything remained as "business as usual" comportment… :(

Well, that was all for today. As usually, we will finish our posting with an an additional snapshot dedicated to the Old Screaming Lady:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87-73.jpg

Ju 87 at takeoff – unknown airfield, USSR, 1943.

Oh, BTW: Do you know, by any chance, average rate of daily losses of the FW 190 F/G on the Eastern front during the war, my dear Mr. Burp? Unfortunately, I was able only to find some fractional data-sets regarding the Western theater of operations (for example, the fact that 5 FW 190 F-8s, were lost in combat on January 1st, 1945). You see, in that case we will be able to compare factual cost-efficiency rate for each airplane, and even to compare overall combat efficiency between the good old Po 2 Kukuruznik and the Fw 190. Thank you in advance. ;)

In the meantime, as usually – all the best! :)

Tiger205
03-24-2010, 09:18 AM
I'm not questioning if the Stuka can avoid more faster fighter approaching it in usual head-to-tail dogfight.
I'm saying that fighter with more speed and proper tactic has a good chanche to destroy a Stuka. It's simple question of physics, think about two flying object, the Stuka is an object slower but more manoeuvrable.

This tactic is well-know from Top Gun Program for example, where instructors teach to exchange air-speed for altitude, but traces back to old tactics used by USAF against Zero, a Japanese airplane that can easily outmanover any of US fighter.



Dear Sir!

Nice post, but...
1/ "the Stuka is an object slower but more manoeuvrable"
Really? Comapare it please with the Yak-3 please ! :rolleyes:

2/ Top Gun, of course...but why to go so far?? At the beginning of WW II the Bf-110 pilots had problems to shoot down the more agile PZL-11c fighters. They started to use hit-and-run techniques (exhange speed for altitude) and use their much stronger armament and structure. They soon became very succesfull.
Usually, the F4F pilots tried to zoom through the screening Zeros and go after the bomber directly. With altitude, they could adopt hit-and-run tactics; their rugged construction resisted the Japanese 7.7mm machine gun bullets.

The Marine (and Navy) pilots also started to use this "hit und run" tactic from Guadalcanal with theiir big fat F-4Fs (Wildcats) against the more agile Zeros. (VMF-223,. major Smith - who got the MoH for his attitude).

But this was not "Top Gun" (by my best knowledge)
The United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program (SFTI program), more popularly known as TOPGUN, is the modern-day evolution of the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School which was originally established on March 3rd, 1969 at the former Naval Air Station Miramar in California[1]. The SFTI program carries out the same specialized fighter training as NFWS had from 1969 until 1996, when it was merged into the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center at NAS Fallon, Nevada.

regards:
TGR

Librarian
03-25-2010, 03:27 PM
May I answer those questions, my dear Mr. Tiger 205? ;)


Really? Compare it please with the Yak-3 please.

No problem, but you can do that personally, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. After all, it is not so complicated. Please, just compare a couple of essential numerical indicators:

Specific wingloading:

Ju 87 B-2: 139,81 kg/m2

Ju 87 D-3: 179,31 kg/m2

Yak 3: 181 kg/m²

Power to mass ratio:

Ju 87: 0.27 HP/kg

Yak 3: 0.60 HP/kg

Evidently, in a pure one-on-one dogfight the good old Ju 87 B-2 is completely capable to outturn the Yak 3 if she is applying the energy depletion maneuvering (by staying on the very boundary of stall!) and to win. Although no other Soviet fighter can turn as well as a Yak 3, which was the best Allied dogfighter due to its incredible agility, actually is a poorer turn-fighter than the Stuka.

If you are an experienced Stuka flyer, all you have to do is to put quickly your airplane into the first half of an oblique loop, tilted at an angle. Then go down and fly as low as you can (at the treetops or even lower!), and after that stick to your continuous flat turns! Make an energetic 88 degree bank, drop out your flaps, activate asymmetrically your air-brake under the lower wing, and pull continuously sharp (minimum 4 G !) turns. You cannot get away, but with your successful flat scissors you will be able to stalemate your charming little opponent! Remember – YOUR airplane has superior turning characteristics, therefore proceed to turn on a dime, and call your own fighters to help you! Additionally, your opponent might eventually make a mistake, and you personally or your distinguished rear gunner can take advantage of it. :)

Of course, the physical effort required by you will be comparable with that of an oarsman pulling hard in a Olympic boat race, but that’s part of a true combat aviator’s life... ;)


At the beginning of WW II the Bf-110 pilots had problems to to shoot down the more agile PZL-11c fighters they started to use hit and run techniques (exhange speed fior altitude) and use their much stronger armament. They soon became very succesfull.

Well, curiously, they were incapable to repeat those highly successful hit-and -run tactics against the PZL during the aerial battle which took place on September 2nd 1939, when 8 PZL fighters of Polish Squadron III/6 engaged a formation of 23 Messerschmitt Bf 110's of I./ZG76. German pilots reported 2 victories at the loss of three aircraft.

In addition, the Norwegian Gloster Gladiators, or Soviet Polikarpov I 153s were equally successful against those outspoken German heavy fighters. Seven Norwegian Gloster Gladiator biplanes, for example, which were operational at Fornebu airport, managed to shoot down a total of 5 German aircraft on 9 April, 1940, including 2 Messerschmitt Bf 110heavy fighters, with only one Gladiator being shot down that day. Then again, the Polikarpov I 153 Chaika was very successful against the Bf 110 as well. That extremely agile Soviet biplane under command of Captain G. I. Agafonov, for example, was capable to shoot down singled-handedly two Bf 110s and two Ju 88s during a pair of combat-sorties above Mariupol on October 7 th, 1941, without a single loss on the Soviet side.

No, my dear Mr. Tiger 205 - the Bf 110 definitely is not my type of combat aircraft... :)


The Marine (and Navy) pilots also started to use this "hit und run" tactic from Guadalcanal with theiir big fat F-4Fs (Wildcats) against the more agile Zeros. (VMF-223,. major Smith - who got the MoH for his attitude).

In that case, my dear Mr. Tiger 205, just open the throttle of your nimble Zero, and pull a very narrow spiral climb. It will make your airplane an almost impossible target, due to constantly changing angle and distance. See? Nothing to be afraid of, once you master the unknown. :D

And now, as usually, some snapshots connected with our old birdie.

As you know, during the course of the legendary film "Battle of Britain" a Luftwaffe Stuka (curiously the "D" model!) had to be seen during crashing into a radar tower. While the movie cameras were turning, stills photographer Robert Penn left nothing to chance by using 2 cameras of his own. With a hand held Leica loaded with Kodacolor X he obtained the remarkably greater degree of authenticity through slight camera shake. This was due to slower emulsion reaction of the color negative film, and illustrates the ease with which "news" can be faked.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87Crash-BoB.jpg

The Battle of Britain – Stuka crashing into a Radar Tower


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87Crash-BoB2.jpg

The Battle of Britain – explosion of a crashed Stuka

Needless to say, the ill fated Stuka was a radio controlled model. :)

Well, that’s all for today, honorable ladies and gentlemen. In the meantime, as always – all the best!

Tiger205
03-25-2010, 05:58 PM
My Dear Friend,

1/
"No, my dear Mr. Tiger 205 - the Bf 110 definitely is not my type of combat aircraft..."

O, I WILL BE IN Bf-110 G4, you in the remarkable Avro Lancaster.
And I gona to play some Jazz music with my schräge Music for you :lol:
TGR

2/
OK I ask from the other angle.
Which pilot would you like to be: russian/french in Yak-3M or german in Ju-87 Dora - in a doghfight?
(Me - definitely - behind the ShVAK cannon and ShKAS mg's)

Regards:
TGR

Nickdfresh
03-25-2010, 06:19 PM
...
The Marine (and Navy) pilots also started to use this "hit und run" tactic from Guadalcanal with theiir big fat F-4Fs (Wildcats) against the more agile Zeros. (VMF-223,. major Smith - who got the MoH for his attitude).
...

regards:
TGR

My freind,

The Marine/Naval aviators flying the F-4 Wildcats didn't so much use "hit-an-run" tactics as they used the "Thach Weave." The tactic did not involve "hitting and running" as much as it was about luring the over-aggressive IJN aviators onto an 'easy kill' while an another U.S. pilot was maneuvering behind waiting to ambush.

I believe the saying/axiom was something to the affect that: one F-4 Wildcat against a single Japanese Zero might as well be outnumbered 10-1. But two Wildcats (flown by skilled, experienced pilots) could take on ten or more Zeros....

CliSwe
03-26-2010, 01:22 AM
My freind,

The Marine/Naval aviators flying the F-4 Wildcats didn't so much use "hit-an-run" tactics as they used the "Thach Weave." The tactic did not involve "hitting and running" as much as it was about luring the over-aggressive IJN aviators onto an 'easy kill' while an another U.S. pilot was maneuvering behind waiting to ambush.

I believe the saying/axiom was something to the affect that: one F-4 Wildcat against a single Japanese Zero might as well be outnumbered 10-1. But two Wildcats (flown by skilled, experienced pilots) could take on ten or more Zeros....

We're a bit OT I know (seeing as this is the Stuka thread), but - there's a quite lively discussion on another board regarding the F4F's merits as compared to, say, the RAF's Hurricane. Don't want to get too involved in the technicalities, but basically: once the relatively fragile Zero copped a short burst from the F4F's .50cal armament, it was all over. The Brits were at a disadvantage with their rifle-calibre armament - although they did better later in the war with the Hispano 20mm cannon.

Cheers,
Cliff

Tiger205
03-26-2010, 03:47 AM
My freind,

The Marine/Naval aviators flying the F-4 Wildcats didn't so much use "hit-an-run" tactics as they used the "Thach Weave." The tactic did not involve "hitting and running" as much as it was about luring the over-aggressive IJN aviators onto an 'easy kill' while an another U.S. pilot was maneuvering behind waiting to ambush.

I believe the saying/axiom was something to the affect that: one F-4 Wildcat against a single Japanese Zero might as well be outnumbered 10-1. But two Wildcats (flown by skilled, experienced pilots) could take on ten or more Zeros....


Concur.

Thnx for the correction

Regads
TGR

Librarian
03-27-2010, 05:01 AM
Oh, goodness me… Those truly spanking new offers of yours always refreshingly reach the spirit of even the most unwavering flying esquire, my dear Mr. Tiger 205.

Well, although throwing out the "cabbage" from seven miles up is not the very best ending to a garishly attractive line of old-fashioned flying business, intrinsically hooked on genuine technological pre-eminence, I am accepting your truly kind offer. :D

If you wish, I shall ride the cotton wool clouds, flying high above the patchwork earth, and under the canopy of stars, with a gentle basso-proffundo murmur of my four RR Merlin engines. However, I have the pleasure of informing you that in conformity with my personal request our heavy British birdie will be equipped with the Serrate radar detector and homing apparatus (actually, Bomber Command loaned that from my favorite heavy birdie - the Vickers-Armstrong Windsor). Of course, flight of my distinguished squad will be covered by our illustrious colleagues, Wing Commander Branse Burbridge and Bill Skelton. :twisted:

As you would expect, even though musical performances are all a bit irrelevant high above the flaming thunder, my faithful crew and Little Me will be under the enliving influence of one old, fashionable, and truly catchy melody, provided by static-free beauty of the mighty BBC power-wave, received through the wonderful Marconi superheterodyne tuner that keeps our favorite station constantly in perfect tune. Namely, my dear Mr. Tiger 205, this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-UHaCZSBeM

"The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling for you but not for me"

It seems to me that this melody is capable to overstep the line that separates "utility" music from the kind one wants to hear for its own soul’s sake. :)

Therefore – good luck, Old Been and be careful of some sore chaffing! Pip-pip, cheerio, toodle-oo, and all that rot. :D


OK I ask from the other angle.
Which pilot would you like to be: russian/french in Yak-3M or german in Ju-87 Dora - in a doghfight?
(Me - definitely - behind the ShVak gun)

You are not offering the Yak 3-U, my dear Mr. Tiger 205? Oh, what a pity. You know, that’s my personal fighter of choice, capable to complete an excellent match up against the legendary Weave of Thatch. Well, if that is the case, I am taking the Old Screaming Lady. You know, it seems to me somehow that my engagement actually will be like teaching someone’s grandmother to twist – everyone knows that it is theoretically possible, but nobody knows what the point in it really is. Well, if nothing else, we will be able to evaluate the real effectiveness of those mid-air activated air brakes, and to test real efficiency of those freshly installed 20 mm cannons which replaced those old 7.9 mm wing machine guns. :cool:

BTW - here is another snapshot connected with our old birdie and the RHUAF as well:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87RHUAF-9.jpg

Ju 87 K-2, RHUAF

Well, that’s all for today. In the meantime, as always – all the best! :)

Tiger205
03-27-2010, 05:40 PM
Oh, goodness me… Those truly spanking new offers of yours always refreshingly reach the spirit of even the most unwavering flying esquire, my dear Mr. Tiger 205.

Well, although throwing out the "cabbage" from seven miles up is not the very best ending to a garishly attractive line of old-fashioned flying business, intrinsically hooked on genuine technological pre-eminence, I am accepting your truly kind offer. :D

If you wish, I shall ride the cotton wool clouds, flying high above the patchwork earth, and under the canopy of stars, with a gentle basso-proffundo murmur of my four RR Merlin engines. However, I have the pleasure of informing you that in conformity with my personal request our heavy British birdie will be equipped with the Serrate radar detector and homing apparatus (actually, Bomber Command loaned that from my favorite heavy birdie - the Vickers-Armstrong Windsor). Of course, flight of my distinguished squad will be covered by our illustrious colleagues, Wing Commander Branse Burbridge and Bill Skelton. :twisted:

My dear pudding-eater Friend, over the canal!
Do not worry about your serrate equipment, we will pick the pieces up from the remaining parts of ypor plane after it falling down to our beloved German soil :)
Me, and my firend, Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer are flying here with our Gustav 4s - EQUIPPED with 9 cm wavelength system known as FuG 240 Berlin - instead of using the old simple Lichteinstein radar - as you expected!
Menawhile, my other old buddy, Hauptmann Heinz Strüning accompanied by three of his 3./NJG 1 commrades will take care of Burbridge and Skelton with their brand new Mosquito Hunter He-219 A6 planes. :)

Tiger205
03-27-2010, 05:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-UHaCZSBeM

"The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling for you but not for me"



Dear Friend,
Tell the truth, I'm a "tracked" person, more "expert" in tanks and panzer isseues than aircraft (my first hobby from my childhood after reading the books of pokriskin and Tadeus Rolski)
So thsu, my faforite song is (hopefully U know it too):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lh6NUaXx6I&feature=related

Have a nice weekend (and let Schumi win)!

Tiger205
03-27-2010, 06:02 PM
Thanks for the Photo my Friend!

As I am not a rabid Stuka fan, I prefer an other attack plane we got from the Germans:

http://img0.tar.hu/tiger205/size2/73730474.jpg
(model F8 of course)

and - back to the Bf-110 - the favorite photo from this lovely-ugly duck for me is the followin (can U guess why??) :)

http://img0.tar.hu/tiger205/size2/73730473.jpg

Librarian
03-27-2010, 08:20 PM
Golly gosh - I say, old chap, what an absolutely spiffing idea thas really is! Unfortunately, that itsy-bitsy-tiny-winy slim proboscis of that Augsburg-made thingy-ma-bob tinny is simply excessively tight for that electronic thing, you know. ;)

Better try something else. For example, the good old Junkers 88. There is much more space for that contraption. And once you give to that old wacko bomber a little bit of work, it will shine up like a new penny. So steady on, Old Fruit, and in the meantime just stick to that Lichtenstein mattress of yours. :D

BTW Old Bugger: Our 85th Squadron specialists K. D. Vaughan & R. D. McKinnon are somewhere out there too. So be very careful, because that highly praised Owl of yours actually is little match for their Mossie NF Mk XXX equipped, as well as my own birdie, with the SERRATE Mk. VI. :lol:

You will excuse me now for a moment, I have to finish my Devon cream rice pudding with quick raspberry jam – with a teaspoon of genuine cinnamon it is the ultimate in comfort food, you know. :cool:

Oh, I was so busy yesterday that I almost forgot this – another snapshot connected with our Old Birdie:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87D-53.jpg

Ju 87 D – Eastern Front, 1943

I hope that you will enjoy this one as well. You know, Old Chap, this Flying Lady sometimes reminds me on the good old time when my late grandpa was in active service. Goodness me, those were the days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIm1rvMGzhk&feature=related

Well, that’s all for today. Ta-ra, huzzah, and ta-ta for now! :)

Tiger205
03-28-2010, 08:50 AM
Hello!

Let we finish this night fight OFF discussion, before I introduce my old chap Kurt Welter flying with the plane bellow (Me-262B-2)!

http://img0.tar.hu/tiger205/size2/73746284.jpg

anyways, let me send you my favorite video from the nice old day when I was a teenager watching the silver eagles over the skies of Pápa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLZ0we1BUug&feature=related

To Be ON TOPIC let me post a picture about our brave pilots flying against (not agile like Yak-3, but) deadly USAAF P-51D-s.

http://img0.tar.hu/tiger205/size2/73746542.jpg

Regads:
TGR

runwaypainter
03-29-2010, 07:26 AM
"The Junkers' vulnerability was demonstrated on 11 November 1942 when 15 Ju 87Ds were all shot down by USAF P-40Fs in minutes." [Weal 1998, p. 65.] . Hmmm Johnny come latelies...LOL

During the 1 SAAF "Stuka Party" on July 3rd 1942, the Squadron shot down 13 Ju87b's and a 109 while protecting the 1 SA Infantry Division at El Alamein. One Stuka was seen to limp away. Following the war it was discovered that he didnt make it either. One can only imagine the reaction at the German airfield when the entire Staffel of 15 aircraft takes off and not one single aircraft returns. Ray, however dived down behind a Stuka twice and fired but on the second occasion caught a burst of fire from the rear gunner. It punctured his cooling system, fuel system and damaged the undercarriage. He crash landed at Burgh-el-arab. Years later, whilst at school, one of the temporary teachers told me he had been a ground crew man at Burgh and had seen my father become the first man to crash land a Hurricane at over 500mph.



! Squadron South African Air Force War Diary entry for July 3rd, 1942

Tiger205
03-29-2010, 04:37 PM
[I]one of the temporary teachers told me he had been a ground crew man at Burgh and had seen my father become the first man to crash land a Hurricane at over 500mph.

it is hard to imagine a Hurricane flying faster than 400 mph

Librarian
03-29-2010, 07:34 PM
Oh, please don’t worry, old chap! I’m sorry if I rubbed your fur the wrong way. But we may take heart from the fact that we are actually practicing here our ability to examine critically proposed technical solutions, and that’s the acid test of thinking, you know. Can the individual evaluate critically all the factors involved, and analyze and synthesize until, as a result of that critical study, there comes a definite conclusion – that’s the main issue here. As well as our ability and readiness to cast aside hypothesis found not valid. Thinking, my dear Mr. Tiger 205, implies objectivity and singleness of purpose. One hypothesis must be no better than another when it has been critically examined and found wanting, but to cast it aside may take courage. It is difficult at times to prevent what one has perhaps unconsciously come to expect or hope would be the outcome. Objectivity in critical thought is a crucial thing and exceedingly difficult to achieve, because much of our reflection takes its hue from the subjective values, prejudices and stereotypes that pervade all our thinking.

Complete objectivity should, however, characterize rigorous thinking, and there should be no hesitation in casting aside proposed solutions when they are found invalid. Unfortunately, a number of unrealistic assumptions were worked into the human mind along with the enduring truths. Today’s theorists, enjoying the advantage of modern information technology are in a position to discard these unrealistic assumptions. After all – that’s why we are here. :)

Therefore please – a couple of days ago you offered me a job and asked me to give up my well-paying, full-time position. Consequently, before I give up my flying business, don’t hesitate and give your distinguished jet co-worker a call. I am really eager to see his flying capabilities against my good old slow-flying Lanc in the middle of night, with a plethora of heavy, rainy clouds. You know, Me 262’s high speed advantage actually was so great that it practically became a difficulty in the conditions of a radar-based night interception, and as a result the Kommando Welter specialized in intercepting the much faster Mosquitos. ;)

Of course, I am assuring you that I am sufficiently trained and bodily and mentally completely capable to perform the Corkscrew Maneuver, which allows continuation of course while presenting to the attacking fighter an extremely difficult target. Here is the graphical essence of it:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ausweichmanover-Lancaster.jpg

The Corkscrew Maneuver

You see? Not so terribly complicated at all. :D

BTW: I am assuring you that in time of need our Mossies will be upgraded very soon as well. You see, quite early, more precisely in the June of 1942, there was a proposal for a "Jet Mosquito", equipped with two H 1 Goblin jet engines (13,3 kN of thrust), 9,979 kg all-up weight, 907 kg bomb load, and top speed of 716 km/h at 12192 m (service ceiling of the Me 262 B 1a/U1: 11450 m). Further consequences of decreased weight of the Jet Wooden Wonder (there are no bombs in the bay) are increased index of thrust-to-weight ratio and significant (50 km/h) augmentation of speed. Oh yes – a new electronic device named "Perfectos", capable to track and jam German IFF signals will be introduced as well. :cool:

But enough of NF encominiums! Let’s go back to the good old Stuka. Here is a small artistic token of appreciation for you personally, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. It is connected with the Ju 87, and - as far as I know - this is the very first public appearance of this quite specific artwork on the Internet:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Elore-Zubovalegyutt.jpg

Forward, Hungarian poster - 1942

Egy kis ajándek, Uram, a Pápai Sámánok tiszteletére. ;)

As we all know, proper service and repair procedures are vital to the safe, reliable operation of all machines, as well as the personal safety of those performing repairs. This tiny string of authentic, previously also unpresented WW2 photos, outlines procedures for servicing and repairing aircraft engines:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Stuka-EngineOverhaul1.jpg

Freshly overhauled Junkers Jumo 211 engine

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Stuka-Engineoverhaul2.jpg

Derrick crane truck moves the engine

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Stuka-Engineoverhaul3.jpg

Last check before installation on a four point hoist

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Stuka-Engineoverhaul4.jpg

Two-arm engine support bar with fixed chain assemblies



"The Junkers' vulnerability was demonstrated on 11 November 1942 when 15 Ju 87Ds were all shot down by USAF P-40Fs in minutes." [Weal 1998, p. 65.] . Hmmm Johnny come latelies...LOL

Indeed, my dear Mr. Runwaypainter. As always, combination of incorrect tactics, personal incapacity of the commander, new, nervous pilots and fruitless egotism of combatants always was and still is capable to produce an astonishing defeat.

You know, I also do remember the June 3rd,1942, when certain chap, Hans Joachim Marseille was his name, attacked alone a formation of 16 Curtiss P 40 fighters and shot down six aircraft of No. 5 Squadron (SAAF), five of them in six minutes, including three aces: Robin Pare (six victories), Douglas Golding (6.5 victories) and Andre Botha (five victories).

Here is a tiny photo-reminder for you:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/DestroyedCurtiss.jpg

Destroyed Curtiss P 40 in North Africa

This time Ein Jäger aus Kurpfalz was right on time. And, honestly, he had superior birdie as well. :neutral:

Well, that’s all for today. In the meantime, honorable ladies and gentlemen, as always – all the best! ;)

RichardJ
09-01-2010, 11:12 AM
This response is what’s referred to as an "epic fail"!

Most English reading posters are educated in western history that basically starts WW-II in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor and in Europe in 1944 or at best Italy in 1943. In truth the Second Front and Pacific TO were sideshows to the Main event, the Eastern Front. WW-II was won and lost on the Eastern Front between 1941 and 1943. Everything before and after this is merely prequel and postscript to this main event.

Therefore anything that contributed to the Eastern Front during this period is of profound importance to the out come of the war. The fact that the Ju-87 was not used beyond BoB in the west is not relevant. It made a huge contribution to making Barbarossa possible and helped immensely through the long months of attritional warfare in 1942/43. Eastern Flak was not one of the Russians strong points. Also Stuka was pretty nasty customer in the Med and became quite proficient at sinking ships during 1941-42. Certainly the Red forces didn’t have a good tactical radar network so flying that low meant they would surprise the enemy wherever they went.

The other possible explanation for this type of response is the negative impact of war games especially computer games that take such military hardware completely out of context of their contribution to warfare at large.

BTW tests vs helicopters in such situations [High speed fighter vs low speed @ low altitude] showed the same case. High-speed fighters had no chance of putting the helicopter in their gun sights long enough for any kind of kill. They basically expended their combat fuel in a futile gesture.

Dear ubc,

I have just entered this thread for another reason than this reply, which I shall deal with separately, but in the meantime cannot let your somewhat blinkered comments pass without a response.

Yours is obviously a typical and un-informed North American view of the timetable of WW2. That war started in 1939 and finished in 1945.

The Stuka was a very capable machine providing that air supremacy was in German hands. Many contributions to this thread have commented on its successes and failures and I shall briefly reiterate.

The Stuka was supreme during the German conquering and occupation of mainland European countries during 1939 & 1940. However, it received its first and very bloody nose from the RAF when attacking Britain in 1940 to the extent that it was withdrawn from that battle.
It was then deployed in force on the Eastern Front and again was a great success until the Soviet air force became modernised and numerically superior, when it again received a bloody nose.
Although getting a bit long in the tooth by the latter years of the war, it was deployed successfully in Libya, the Eastern Mediteranean and Caucasus campaigns, despite suffering heavy losses.
Only Allied air supremacy over most of Europe in the final years of the war rendered the Stuka virtually useless.

Your statement, referring to the Pacific and 2nd Front campaigns as sideshows and that WW2 was lost and won on the Eastern front, that being the main event and that everything else was a prequal or postscript, is entirely misguided, an afront to those who took part and historically flawed.

Regards,

Richard.

RichardJ
09-01-2010, 11:31 AM
Hi to you all,

I have read this thread with great interest and enjoyment of all (well almost all) subscribers. My purpose of posting is that I am carrying out research for my forthcoming website about aviation history. This will be a membership site, but will also have much free content.

I have been searching in this instance for photos of the Ju87 Stuka and noticed that some of those I have found elsewhere also appear on this thread. I would like to know if anyone wishes:
a) to submit their photos for public use on my website (with acknowledgements of course) or
b) direct me to sources of good quality photos of the Stuka

I would also like to hear from anyone who might wish to submit articles about WW2 aircraft or associated subjects. There are lots of subscribers here who obviously have wide knowledge of their particular subjects and my aim is to encourage a sharing of knowledge to as wide an audience as possible. The historic aviation fraternity benefits greatly from websites such as ww2incolor and therefore its promotion is also to be encouraged.

Regards,

Richard.

ubc
09-03-2010, 11:07 PM
Stuka didn't recieve a bloody nose at the hands of the RAF , they suffered 67 kills over June- July 1940 and 11 in Oct 1940, with total 128 lost in combat from Aug 1940-Mar 1941.[Germany and the Second World War vol II]. Their fleet numbers hovered around 400 during this time period, so these losses were much less than 10% per month average. At the height of the BoB, the LW losses were ~ 20% per month on the main bomber types.

So what "bloody nose" was it that the Stuka suffered? Or are you miss interpreting their withdrawl in preperation for invasion, as equalling battered ?

BTW if this uninformed north american poster is wrong and WW-II didn't start in 1939 and end in 1945 , when did it start and end? :shock: ;)

Panzerknacker
09-11-2010, 10:00 PM
Hi to you all,

I have read this thread with great interest and enjoyment of all (well almost all) subscribers. My purpose of posting is that I am carrying out research for my forthcoming website about aviation history. This will be a membership site, but will also have much free content.

I have been searching in this instance for photos of the Ju87 Stuka and noticed that some of those I have found elsewhere also appear on this thread. I would like to know if anyone wishes:
a) to submit their photos for public use on my website (with acknowledgements of course) or
b) direct me to sources of good quality photos of the Stuka

I would also like to hear from anyone who might wish to submit articles about WW2 aircraft or associated subjects. There are lots of subscribers here who obviously have wide knowledge of their particular subjects and my aim is to encourage a sharing of knowledge to as wide an audience as possible. The historic aviation fraternity benefits greatly from websites such as ww2incolor and therefore its promotion is also to be encouraged.

Hello. I would not get to busy trying to find out copyright issues on Stuka photos, the mother of all is the Bundesarchiv and it allows the publication of any of its large collection as long you mentioned the source. The rest are personal pics but relatively few and in fact the original owners of those are 99.99 % already dead so why bother.

Count me for your website if you need some article on aircraft armament.

imi
09-23-2010, 04:07 AM
A hungarian one,in very nice condition
http://i54.tinypic.com/i43how.jpg
http://i53.tinypic.com/1677f4j.jpg

burp
09-24-2010, 09:52 AM
Stuka didn't recieve a bloody nose at the hands of the RAF , they suffered 67 kills over June- July 1940 and 11 in Oct 1940, with total 128 lost in combat from Aug 1940-Mar 1941.[Germany and the Second World War vol II]. Their fleet numbers hovered around 400 during this time period, so these losses were much less than 10% per month average. At the height of the BoB, the LW losses were ~ 20% per month on the main bomber types.

So what "bloody nose" was it that the Stuka suffered? Or are you miss interpreting their withdrawl in preperation for invasion, as equalling battered ?

BTW if this uninformed north american poster is wrong and WW-II didn't start in 1939 and end in 1945 , when did it start and end? :shock: ;)

At the same end Ward John, author of Hitler's Stuka Squadrons: The Ju 87 at war, 1936–1945 said that between 8 and 18 August 1940 Lutwaffe lost 20% of his Stuka. I suppose that lose 20% of your forces in just 10 days it's a bloody nose if we trust Ward John.
Forgive me, but i repeat again: we can talk a lot of theory, saying what book is true and what is inaccurate, but fact are the only true. The fact is that majority of jug commander chose to use FW-190 or HS-129 instead of Ju-87. Only few of them, like well-know ace Rudel, choose to keep Ju-87. They risk their life and the life of their man making this choise, so i think they are the only one to have the right to say something about it.

I suppose that northamerican guy omiss to say that is for US the war start in 1941.

stano666
11-27-2010, 03:48 PM
well, it prooved as a good bomber indeed on many theaters of war, but it was totally no match for allied fighters, allthough I read the JU was more manouverable than many expected. this plane had the same problem like the HE111 and the Bf109:

they all HAD to be replaced in the second half of the war by more modern variants, but Germany was not able to do so, so these types had to stay in service until the bitter end. in this role, all of them did not too bad, which speaks for the constructions in general, but the JU87 was totally outdated after 1942 at least. the FW190 took this part as schlachtflieger, when being used as ground-attack-planes. I would say the Il2 was a better ground-attacker, btw.

jens
just what i was thinking, germany didn't had replacement for t stuka (He111, Bf109, a.o.) apparently they thought t war was won so why make new designs, costly fault they made (the order to stop working on designs that couldn't be flying within one year is famously erroneous) just as t lack of strategic bomber also a strange "mistake", although that wasn't voluntary, it had to do with the lack of raw materials. But they could and should have done more with the big bomber designs they had.
btw another nice job panzerknacker, librarian (a.o.)u seem to have lots of knowledge bout t luftwaffe, tanks again :-)

stano666
11-27-2010, 05:37 PM
Amongst the many talented artists, work of young Mr. Jakub Štasta has contributed some most brilliant themes and motifs to the artistic repertoire connected with the WW2, which is very important in today's world because it helps to inform people about the past - a past that they may know nothing about.

Being distinguished by the way in which he brought different genuine historical elements together, Mr. Štasta is one amongst a distinguished band of so called "digital artists" to flourish in the resourceful atmosphere of numerous WW2 aviation themes.

One among them is not to be missed, because it is deeply connected with the main star of this topic:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ju87G-2byJakubStosta.jpg

Ju 87 G-2 Kanonvogel (W.Nr. 494085) – Jakub Štasta (Czech Republic, 2008)

I hope you'll like it. :)

Well, that’s all for today, honorable ladies and gentlemen. In the meantime, as always – all the best! ;)

Your post, are very nice and r deeply appreciated .
But about Jakub's drawing of g2 kannonevogel: looks scrary for t pilot (and reargunner) too, for they don't have divebrakes, i can hear reargunner shout: "aufsteigen Heinrich!" (pull up Heinrich!) and another thing about t drawing is the tail, it has two struts supporting t elevatorwings (those small ones -in dutch its called tailwings-) but shouldn't that be one bigger strut per side???, anyho i couldn't draw it better myself btw, many more tanks and greetings stano666

Wehrmacht39
12-01-2010, 11:54 PM
Great thread!

Ravenn22
04-27-2011, 07:05 PM
I read that that Ju 87 development was actually based on visits of German Airforce officers to US operations in Honduras in the late 1920s.

The JU87 was noted as an extremely effective weapon system, if they enjoyed air superiority. In the hands of the skilled pilots developed in the early part of the war, they could place bombs with almost pin point accuracy. Their major problem was air speed, the design was from the mid 1930s, and they were simply outclassed by the later fighter designs. They suffered major losses in the Battle of Britain, the British fighters liked to hit them just after they pulled out of their dives.

They saw some use in North Africa but there they could be felled by even the relatively poor performing P40/Tomahawk.

The air superiority achieved during the early phase of the Eastern front was custom made for the aircraft. But increased Russian aircraft doomed it to a secondary role midway through the campaign. In addition, due to the fact they used liquid cooling, they did not fair well in the brutal winter conditions.

jamestallakson
05-05-2011, 02:59 PM
it was a good aircraft and the added sirens scared the bajesus out of the troops but i think a bit more armor and firepower would have made it better

burp
05-06-2011, 03:18 AM
I don't agree with it. More armor means an airplane less agile. The firepower of Stuka is perfectly fitted for his duty, with one bomb it can sink battleships, and with under-wings 37mm guns is able to destroy every type of Allied tank. The rear mg is already an updated high fire rate.