Ju-87 Stuka vulnerability to fighter attack

it's a fact that the Fw 190 Schlachtflieger could skim over the humps/bumps of eastern Germany ~ Prussia and the eastern regions and fire off 2cm and the panzerblitz rockets before the Soviet MT with triple AAA would know what hit them, the Stuka units in small waves and in singles could not perform this function let alone be implemented with rocket/racks it would tear the wings right off

HoHun said:

Hi Nikademus,

The A6M2 had two machine guns compared to the Spitfire's and Hurricane's eight - again, the Stuka was facing four times the firepower.

Click to expand...

Hi HH,

In theory yes. However the Hurricane/Spit's guns were wing mounted and to get the full effect of that firepower required the target to be in the optimum convergence point and all guns had to be functioning (no jams). The A6M has less total theoretical firepower but with the guns centermounted, a highly skilled pilot such as those faced in 42 in the Pacific had a good chance to get a thorough spraying of the target using 2 guns. Not *always* of course, but it shows that static comparison of total firepower isn't always black or white. Dependant on situation, he might end up putting more or equal bullets on target. They had more challenges bringing their cannons on target. The Germans, their skilled pilots at least were also notorious for being able to make the most of their center mounted cannon(s)

Until the armour condition of the Stukas "slaughtered" in 1940 is determined, it's not possible to conclude anything from it since obviously, an unarmoured aircraft would indeed be terribly vulnerable regardless of the qualities of the specific aircraft type.

Click to expand...

Are you saying the Stukas used in 40 and 41 were unarmored or were less armored? If the latter yes, thats a factor though it still doesn't seem to have made much difference at least against fighter planes. One online source speaking of the B-2 stated it's armor was increased to combat damage from ground attack. Perhaps rear facing protection was not signifigantly enhanced. And what about the fuel tanks? better self sealers?

If comparing the Stuka to a SBD-3 that fought in the first line from the Battle of the Coral Sea in mid-1942 to the conclusion of the Guadalcanal campaign in 1943, it would be better to use an armoured example of the Ju 87B-2 or even a Ju 87D. The latter seems to have featured "Grundpanzerung" as a standard ('basic armour' - probably to differentiate it from more elaborate ground attack armour). The Ju 87D entered service in March 1942.

Click to expand...

The Ju-87B-2 beganreplacing the B1 by the end of 39. I believe it fought in the desert and over Britian. The D fought in the Med....it's vulnerability to fighters seemed largely unchanged. Tactics (night attack for example) did more to limit losses in some cases.

Oh well - firepower is directly related to the killing ability of any aircraft, even on a plane-for-plane basis. I never heard of fighter pilots discounting firepower either - and they sure were focused on their personal aircraft.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is discounting firepower here.

I don't think SBDs ever fought Ju 87s - you surely meant to write something different

Click to expand...

Well its little known in the West, but Russia secretly built their own copy of an SBD to use as an anti Stuka vehicle.

naw. I meant comparing battles that involved SBD's vs fighters and Stuka's vs. fighters. As you mention its impossible to put a completely level playing field comparison due to environment but one can still glean impressions from them and comments by pilots and air leaders. There seems to be a difference though as i mentioned prior....i think overall the difference would be moot if the SBD were employed en-mass as an army support weapon. A 2E is simply a better more survivable vehicle. For example only, if one were to conclude an SBD was 20% tougher to kill than a Stuka, and you lose 55 Stukas in a single battle, then just using that equation you lose 44 SBD's. Both suffered heavy losses. The difference becomes largely moot.

Hi Nikademus,

>However the Hurricane/Spit's guns were wing mounted and to get the full effect of that firepower required the target to be in the optimum convergence point

Roger that - you could even have beat me over the head with my own post in the "Centreline Armament Thread". The Spitfire armament was even worse than the Hurricane armament since the outer guns were really very far from the centreline.

Since the question if the Stukas we are looking at were actually armoured (and to which degree) is of overriding importance, a detailed discussion of the 8-wing-gun fighter versus the 2-nose-gun fighter is not going to help us much, though.

>Are you saying the Stukas used in 40 and 41 were unarmored or were less armored? If the latter yes, thats a factor though it still doesn't seem to have made much difference at least against fighter planes.

The Betriebsanleitung lists the standard Ju 87B-2, and the Ju 87B-2 "with armour". That might be simplified language, but the "with armour" version had its weight increased by 130 kg. I don't think that in June 1940, Stukas were considered for the Schlachtflieger role already, but I might be wrong.

The type overview Ju 87D lists "basic armour" in the column "Variant and differences" emphasized in bold type. "Basic armour" doesn't sound like ground attack armour, and that it's listed in the "differences" column appears to indicate that the B was not equipped with basic armour off the factory lines. The Betriebsanleitung for the B-2 leaves open the possibility that it was retro-fitted, though.

>The D fought in the Med....it's vulnerability to fighters seemed largely unchanged.

It might have had increased armour, but the RAF fighters had greatly increased firepower for certain.

That doesn't mean it couldn't have done better against the A6M2 the SBD-3 faced. The rear guns of the Ju 87D had a 50% higher rate of fire than those of the SBD-3, and the A6M2 had only 50% of the firepower of a Spitfire, and 25% of that of the four-cannon Hurricane.

>I don't think anyone is discounting firepower here.

Well, then my observation that the Ju 87D's opponents fielded heavier firepower than the SBD-3's should have some relevance to the assessment of the two dive bombers' relative vulnerability

>The difference becomes largely moot.

I think it's rather difficult to determine any difference at all since there is no comparable situation which shows the success of both types in similar circumstances.

As I see it, the one thing that we can say for certain is that the SBD-3 tended to face unarmoured, unprotected, low-firepower fighters while the contemporary Ju 87D met well-armoured and protected fighters of generally superior firepower and speed.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

As I see it, the one thing that we can say for certain is that the SBD-3 tended to face unarmoured, unprotected, low-firepower fighters while the contemporary Ju 87D met well-armoured and protected fighters of generally superior firepower and speed.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

Henning ?????

Are you saying that an SBD was by definition in a far less hostile environment because it ONLY met the lightly armored and under gunned Zero? Is that your 'certainty'?

Also the stuka was surprisingly manuvourable

I have heard reports of german stuka polits giving the Spits a run around.

I think it was the most accurate dive bomber of the war because it could do vertical dives. And the most practical. But you neeed to have air supiriority before the stuka can be truely effective, yet the Luftwaffe never had that in the BOB. Remember how good it was at the blitzkreg of western europe.

helmitsmit said:

I think it was the most accurate dive bomber of the war because it could do vertical dives. .

Click to expand...

Thats debatable. The Vengeance also used a vertical dive to attack targets (probably others too). Any a/c dropping a bomb from the vertical, or very little angle, is going to be highly accurate. I don't see how two different a/c capable of the same feat is going to be more accurate then the other.

Stability in a dive, speed of said dive, aiming devices, bomb performance, AAA fire.......

Nikademus said:

Are you saying the Stukas used in 40 and 41 were unarmored or were less armored? If the latter yes, thats a factor though it still doesn't seem to have made much difference at least against fighter planes.

...

The D fought in the Med....it's vulnerability to fighters seemed largely unchanged.

Click to expand...

'Seems'? Excuse moi, but to me it *seems* these statements of yours are appearantly based on nothing. Where are the bloody facts....?

It`s just kept being repeated that the Stuka had some sort of mythical vulnerability, while the SBD had some sort of mythical survivability. The Stuka was 'slow'. It had 'poor armament'. It was 'not so rugged'. 'Not so survivable'. Not invented here.

Claims were not supported by any facts, references or serious sources so far, basically most claims in this thread *seem* to have no relation to the technical facts - actual speed, actual defensive armament, actual level of armoring the plane had - just personal bias and preconceptions is present.

It`s a pointless excercise, nothing can be learned from it by anyone.

The Ju-87 was a better dive bomber than te SBD, and as far as protection goes I'm sure there wasn't much difference between the two.

Hi Nikademus,

>It didn't help that the A-24's were an early version of the SBD and I don't think they were armored or had self sealing tanks.

David Donald's "Bomber" gives the A-24 versions as follows:

A-24 = SBD-3 (minus arrestor gear), 78 examples factory build
A-24 = SBD-3A, 90 examples from a Navy batch converted to A-24 standards
A-24A = SBD-4, 100/170? examples
A-24B = SBD-5, 615 examples, Tulsa-built

I figure all of the Army A-24 variants had the arrestor gear removed, but Donald mentions it only specifically for the first batch.

Accordingly to Donald, armour and self-sealing tanks were introduced with the SBD-2 variant.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

What is the data for each model of Ju 87 for actual speed, actual defensive armament and field of fire, actual level of armoring the plane had?

Hi Al,

>What is the data for each model of Ju 87 for actual speed, actual defensive armament and field of fire, actual level of armoring the plane had?

I'd love to see accurate data, too - hard to find, though.

Here is some armour data for the Ju 87D-3 from David Donald's "Bomber":

Pilot armour: Armour glass windscreen, armoured seat with 8 mm back armour, 4 mm side armour, 8 mm shoulder and head armour (above the armour seat). The side armour is a triangle designed to protect hips and thighs from oblique rear shots. The head armour is labelled "head rest" in the drawing, but I suppose it was the customary cushioned armour plate.

Cockpit armour: 4 mm armour floor, 8 mm rear armour bulkhead.

Some bits and pieces of rear gunner "side and head armour" that I can't make out clearly in the drawing.

8 mm armour floor below the main oil tank aft of the engine.

"Additional side armour (external)" for the cockpit sides - I think this may be our Schlachtflieger bolt-on armour. Unfortunately, no thickness is given.

For the SBD-5 and -6, the BuAer standard characteristics provide a drawing showing armour and fuel tank arrangement.

Untitled Document

(This also has SBD-5 performance data. "Speedy Bee" indeed!

On the SBD-5 and 6, there is some armour decking on the nose, probably designed to close the gap between the protection the engine yields against frontal shots and the pilot position. The pilot has an armour glass windscreen and back armour, set about 1 ft behind his back. The rear gunner has the shield on the Brownings and some armour plates on the rear bulkhead for breast and shoulders.

Pilot rear armour weight is listed as 45 kg, forward armour as 17 kg, rear gunner armour as 14 kg. The total is 76 kg. No armour thickness figures are given.

For comparison, the difference between standard Ju 87B-2 and Ju 87B-2 "with armour" was given as 130 kg in the Betriebsanleitung, but what exactly is included in that amount is not clear. (It might be different from the Ju 87D-3 layout described above.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

It is very easy for pilots to think they are vertical when they are not. The stuka had an angle meaure at the side of the canopy to aim the pilot and it had a automatic recovery system incase of blackout.

Henning, a cubic foot of rolled steel weighs 489.6lbs.

HoHun said:

For the SBD-5 and -6, the BuAer standard characteristics provide a drawing showing armour and fuel tank arrangement.

Untitled Document

...

Pilot rear armour weight is listed as 45 kg, forward armour as 17 kg, rear gunner armour as 14 kg. The total is 76 kg. No armour thickness figures are given.

For comparison, the difference between standard Ju 87B-2 and Ju 87B-2 "with armour" was given as 130 kg in the Betriebsanleitung, but what exactly is included in that amount is not clear. (It might be different from the Ju 87D-3 layout described above.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

In comparison, the Ju 87D`s armor protection weight some 400 kg.

Maximum speed also appears to be the same, ie. 410 km/h.

Armament, forward firing, two fifites on the SBD, compared to two 7.92mm MGs or two 20mm cannons on the Ju 87D.

Rear armament, two 30 cals on the the SBD, two 7.92mm on the Ju 87D, altough the latter were MG 81s and were much faster firing than the Brownings, and the rear gunner`s position was more heavily armored.

Wildcat said:

The Vengeance also used a vertical dive to attack targets (probably others too).

Click to expand...

Boscombe Down tested a Vengeance I (AN889) in August 1942.

Proved to be a "very accurate" dive-bomber. "A radial error of 30 yards was achieved in near vertical dives by 'tipping-in' after the the target disappeared under the wing."

The dive brakes also proved to be very effective-"a 45 deg. dive was held to 280mph with the brakes extended compared to 390 mph retracted."

How fast was the Stuka traveling in its optimum dive at 90 deg.?

Hi Graeme,

>Boscombe Down tested a Vengeance I (AN889) in August 1942.

Thanks for the summary! I'd almost say the Vengeance must have been a better plane than generally recognized - Dunstan Hadley, author of "Barracuda Pilot", also had something nice to say about the type, which he flew for a while instead of his usual mount, the Barracuda (which was dive-bombing capable as well, though I understand the expected attack mode was to dive, level out and then make a torpedo run).

>How fast was the Stuka traveling in its optimum dive at 90 deg.?

Eric Brown has written an article on the type in "Wings of the Luftwaffe" ...

First a bit on armour since we were discussing that before:

"The cowling embodied quite an amount of armour plate to protect engine and cooler, and I was to discover liberal quantities of additional armour distributed beneath and around the two cockpits ..."

On diving:

"Now a dive angle of 90 deg is a pretty palpitating experience for it always feels as if the aircraft is over the vertical and is bunting, and all this while terra firma is rushing closer with apparently suicidal rapidity. In fact, I have rarely seen a specialist dive bomber put over 70 deg in a dive, but the Ju 87 was a genuine 90 deg screamer! For some indefinable reason the Ju 87D felt right standing on its nose, and the acceleration to 540 km/h was reached in about 1370 m, speed thereafter creeping slowly up to the absolute permitted limit of 600 km/h so that the feeling of being on a runaway roller-coaster experienced with most other dive bombers was missing."

"As speed built up, the nose of the Ju 87 was used as the aiming mark. The elevators were moderately light in the initial stages of the dive but they heavied up considerably as speed built up Any alterations in azimuth to keep the aiming mark on the target could be made accurately by use of the ailerons. [...]"

"When I finally turned for Schleswig, to where I was supposed to deliver the Ju 87D-3, I must confess that I had had a more enjoyable hour's dive bombing practice than I had ever experienced with any other aircraft of this specialist type. Somehow the Ju 87D did not appear to find its natural element until it was diving steeply. It seemed quite normal to stand this aircraft on its nose in a vertical dive because its accleration had none of that uncontrollable runaway feeling associated with a fixed 90 deg inclination in an aircraft like the Skua. [...]"

(Eric Brown notes that he had flown the Skua, the Vengeance and the Dauntless dive bombers before he tried the Stuka.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Kurfürst,

>In comparison, the Ju 87D`s armor protection weight some 400 kg.

Highly interesting! Is that including the external side armour mentioned in Donald's book (and also in Eric Brown's account)?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I recently read the book by Hans Rudel "Stuka Pilot", who everyone knows is the pinnicle of Stuka pilots. In the book he clearly states his superior piloting skills allowed him to avoid being shot down. He states pulling high G manuvers that the soviet pilots could not maintain. Not to mention his rear gunner was a crack shot and kept the enemy at bay. For excellent reading I highly suggest this book. I have read somewhere about SBD's dogfighting with Kates Vals. The SBD's had 2x.50 cal's where as the Japanese counterparts as well as the Stukas had 2x.30 cal. Quite a difference between the two weapons.

Thanks for the summary! I'd almost say the Vengeance must have been a better plane than generally recognized - Dunstan Hadley, author of "Barracuda Pilot", also had something nice to say about the type, which he flew for a while instead of his usual mount, the Barracuda (which was dive-bombing capable as well, though I understand the expected attack mode was to dive, level out and then make a torpedo run).

Click to expand...

Hi Henning,

It very nicely illustrates the fact the aircraft is designed to do a job and unless the design team is incompetent, it will perform that design task.

So much is just flat out O-P-I-N-I-O-N.

Reminds me of "high wing" vs. "low-wing" fans going at it as to whose aircraft is the best!

It amazes me what people will take and push as fact.

All the best,

Crumpp