I think that this question is good enough to warrent it's own thread. I have to admit I've often wondered myself if the Stuka perhaps gets it's "bad rap" more from the circumstances of it's employment vs. any inherrant design flaw.
from a post by "Kurfurst" on the SBD/D3A/Ju-87 comparison thread :
So....what do other people think about the Stuka and it's history of being the life of the "Stuka Party?"
from a post by "Kurfurst" on the SBD/D3A/Ju-87 comparison thread :
There`s absolutely nothing supporting the Stuka being especially vulnerable as a dive bomber. It shared the defiences of all dive bombers - namely, a relatively small plane with limited defensive armament, and more importantly, the difficulty of maintaining a mutual defensive fomation with each other the escorting fighters immidiately after the dive attack was made. In short, the formation broke up after the dive bombing, and in this period the dive bombers were vulnerable to fighter attacks. But such weakness is equally true for any other dive bomber. For a dive bomber, the Stuka was solid - as fast as the best, rugged, well armored and armed. It continued to operate successfully until the Allied air superiority was such that even fighters found it difficult to operate in the daylight.
Other than that, there`s nothing to support it had some 'special vulnerability'. The claim is largely based on British propaganda stemming from the BoB, but even that is just that - propaganda.
So....what do other people think about the Stuka and it's history of being the life of the "Stuka Party?"