How did anyone come to the conclusion the Stuka was good?
It attacked France and Britain in mass numbers and with supporting 109s was effective but it was slow, under-gunned and under-armoured. They got ripped to pieces when the British fighters were there. As dive bombers they did their job, but they didn't do it well compared to others.
As ground attack planes, they were out-classed by nearly everything, Henschel 129, Typhoon, Tempest, Sturmovik, Hurricane IV..the list could go on.
The 37 mm cannons put under the Stuka were good at anti-tank role if there were nothing else in the sky or no AA on the ground. Which is always unlikely.