Ju-87 Stuka vulnerability to fighter attack

Nikademus said:

1. This would match what Shores wrote. a total of 7 F4F's. One of the seven includes Gerhardt and a pilot of VGF-29 who reported that his oil line had been cut and then was never heard from again. Shores suspects he fell afoul of a French fighter.

2. According to Shores, Flotilla IF's CO Vaisseau Folliot was shot down in his D.520 by Wildcats. The other 10 were Hawks though.

Click to expand...

1. The VGF-29 pilot was Lt.jg George Trumpter; the loss seems operational from the description in Lambert "Wildcats Over Casablanca", left his formation after takeoff with oil leak, failed to return (to USS Santee). Since there were no known encounters with French fighters in the Southern Task Force's area, (and none mentioned in Mordal's account from the French side), it seems speculative of Shores to add that one. Especially considering again that among the other 6 there's doubt about the cause of three already: Mikronis (AA according to him, though during an air combat), August and Connor.

2. Foillot's loss was the one which matches the uncredited claim of VGF-26 at Port Lyautey I mentioned in the next paragraph. For Hawks I have a Squadron Signal book by Shores summarizing 6 lost (+5 'damaged') in first combat 4 in second. Do you get the details from "L'Aviation Vichy au Combat' or yet something else he wrote? But it seems low to me given the French-sourced named pilot casualties in Lambert for the 11/8 combat (5 KIA, 4 WIA, 'several other a/c inoperative') and Cressman for 11/9 (2 KIA, WIA, 2 forced landings). Another source is Ketley "French Aces of WWII" which quotes 5 KIA, 4 WIA and 2 killed in takeoff accidents in the 11/8 combat with 13 total GC II/5 a/c destroyed (including ground); and 4 downed in the second plus Plubeau's a/c belly landed.

I'm on the minutiae level well off topic I know , but seems to me a straight down the middle analysis would count a likely maximum of 6 F4F's, and having taken the maximum there, wouldn't then split hairs by not counting French planes whose pilots crashed in accidents during combat, bellied, etc, so would come out a few higher than 11. Shores is one of the greats, but I question that particular accounting.

Of course, besides the political/psychological factors, the first combat had most of the French at a disadvantage (taking off, though others already on CAP bounced the strafing Wildcats from above). But in the second combat neither side had initial tactical advantage, and GC I/5 outnumbered VF-9.

Joe

Hi Nikademus,

>We know they were armored, and that the Ju-87B-2/U3 featured "increased" armor for the close support role.

I haven't seen any proof that the Battle of Britain Stukas were armoured, so where did you find this bit of information?

>We know from the accounts of the pilots.

Remember I replied to your comment on Japanese pilots knowing how to hit effectively with cannon. You'd not get the account of the pilot who had been hit effectively because he would not come back to tell about it.

>Statistics can be the greatest liars at times. I've heard about that said statistic yet i've never seen a source yet that claims the B-24 to have greater ruggedness over the B-17.

Oh well, my general impression from many internet discussions is actually that this is a conception usually born from poor understanding of the laws of statistics, and for some people perhaps from a refusal to part with their toy theories when they discover they are not supported by facts. Better to shoot the messenger

Here is the data on the B-17 vs. B-24:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hardest-plane-take-down-ww2-3114-5.html#post293977

Note that the statistics do in fact point towards a greater survivability of the B-24, but not necessarily towards a greater "ruggedness" as the B-24 has different performance charactistics from the B-17. All we can say is that in the end, fewer B-24s were lost per sortie than B-17s. (If we mean to discuss this in depth, I suggest we continue it over in the original thread to keep things organized

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Nikademus,

>The 64th Sentai pilots used this tactic and it proved rather effective at stopping Hurricanes quickly. Similar accounts are in Shores' Fighters over the Desert. A coolant hit can very quickly disable a plane/pilot combo.

I was commenting on the effectiveness of the rearward armament of a dive bomber, and as far as I can tell the 64th Sentai was a fighter unit using its forward armament.

The difficulties of aiming a manually operated gun from a moving platform certainly make aimed fire at the radiator of an attacker impractical, and while the perception of any hits at all, effective or not, often (but not always) would make the attacker break off his attacks, I have read plenty of accounts showing that a hit in the radiator was only noticed by a pilot when the temperature gauge showed the engine was boiling.

That might lead to a "quick" end, but the dive bomber might have gone down as result of the continued attack all the same.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

Hi Glider,

>To have the level of protection your hinting at, the Armour on a Ju87 Radiator would dwarf that on an Il2, loads of which were shot down my 20mm. Not likely.

I've got a Pilot Press cutaway of the Il-2 here that indicates a thickness of 6 mm for the Il-2 cowl armour, which encloses the Stormovik's radiator. The Ju 87D-3 cutaway in Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe" shows 8 mm ventral armour beneath the oil reservoir, and an unspecified thickness of armour for the radiator.

If you found out that thickness figure, please share it with us. If you didn't, well - difficult to make reliable statements on something you don't know.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

True as ever to a degree, but seeing as the 20mm would penetrate 19mm or armour at 400 yards at a deflection of 20 degrees, the bsis of my assumption is not unreasonable. Obviously if the range was closer or the angle less it would penetrate a lot more.
Your implication that the radiator still may survive this sort of fire made me smile.
I have this vision of a formation of Radiators flying along, imune to shell and shot with barely a scratch on the paintwork. The rest of the aircraft is of course shot to hell but never mind, the radiators carry on regardless.

Hi Glider,

>the 20mm would penetrate 19mm or armour at 400 yards at a deflection of 20 degrees

Hm, which 20 mm, and which 20 degrees?

>Your implication that the radiator still may survive this sort of fire made me smile.

I implied and am ready to say explicitely that not every hit is going to penetrate. High-explosive incendiary and steel "ball" rounds, which made up a fair share of the belting for the British Hispano cannon, don't have the penetration of armour-piercing rounds.

And if you look at a typical armour protection diagram, for example that of the Wildcat that is praised in this thread as particularly rugged, you'll find that the cones of protection are remarkably small. The Wildcat is protected against rifle-calibre rounds in a 12 degree angle above, 40 degree below if you accept that the pilot's legs and thighs can be hit, but only 12 degree below if you mean to protect them, and 15 degree to either side. The vertical angles are even smaller for protection against 12.7 mm rounds.

Still, that bit of armour protection made a big difference in combat.

>I have this vision of a formation of Radiators flying along, imune to shell and shot with barely a scratch on the paintwork. The rest of the aircraft is of course shot to hell but never mind, the radiators carry on regardless.

Excellent picture - now imagine the same shot-to-hell aircraft with a happily purring radial engine in front. That's the radial's "big" survivability advantage ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

Hi Nikademus,

I haven't seen any proof that the Battle of Britain Stukas were armoured, so where did you find this bit of information?

Click to expand...

Hi HH,

I havn't seen any proof that they wern't. . Recall I asked you when you suggested they might not be. I did a little digging and found this site indicating that they were. The discussion then moved on to the question of how much "better" protected the D varient might be over the B varient.

The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka.

Remember I replied to your comment on Japanese pilots knowing how to hit effectively with cannon. You'd not get the account of the pilot who had been hit effectively because he would not come back to tell about it.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you can claim such a thing. It is fully possible to "effectively" target (i.e. "hit") a plane and not have it become an automatic kill.

Oh well, my general impression from many internet discussions is actually that this is a conception usually born from poor understanding of the laws of statistics, and for some people perhaps from a refusal to part with their toy theories when they discover they are not supported by facts. Better to shoot the messenger

Click to expand...

lol. Maybe. My general impression, also from many many years of Internet discussions is that Statistics are a most popular course of action because they can be manipulated and interpreted in many ways to support whatever argument is currently being forwarded. Being 'statistics' (i.e. "data") they carry an automatic air of authority. Another way of putting it was a statement recently made from one of my professors when the subject of statistics came up; "Statistics don't lie....people lie using statistics" Point being here, that in the end as with any other form of "fact", interpretation and point of context are key. I don't discount statistics. But I take them with a grain of salt. Especially when they are bandied around during a political debate.

Here is the data on the B-17 vs. B-24:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hardest-plane-take-down-ww2-3114-5.html#post293977

Click to expand...

Ah yes....seen it. Big thread. Can you point me directly to where it shows the B-24 to be more survivable than the B-17? I really don't feel like rereading the whole thing.

Note that the statistics do in fact point towards a greater survivability of the B-24, but not necessarily towards a greater "ruggedness" as the B-24 has different performance charactistics from the B-17. All we can say is that in the end, fewer B-24s were lost per sortie than B-17s. (If we mean to discuss this in depth, I suggest we continue it over in the original thread to keep things organized

Click to expand...

Indeed. Believe I already made some counter-arguments on that theory on that thread. I'll leave them there.

Back to the Football game

HoHun said:

Hi Nikademus,

I was commenting on the effectiveness of the rearward armament of a dive bomber, and as far as I can tell the 64th Sentai was a fighter unit using its forward armament.
The difficulties of aiming a manually operated gun from a moving platform certainly make aimed fire at the radiator of an attacker impractical, and while the perception of any hits at all, effective or not, often (but not always) would make the attacker break off his attacks, I have read plenty of accounts showing that a hit in the radiator was only noticed by a pilot when the temperature gauge showed the engine was boiling.

Click to expand...

Hello,

I have read numerous accounts as well, where the pilot, whether hit from behind/angle from a fighter or from a rear gunner, immediately knew when he took a hit in the engine/coolant system. Hence my comment that yes, there are times when the effect is immediately felt and the attack stopped in it's tracks.

That might lead to a "quick" end, but the dive bomber might have gone down as result of the continued attack all the same.

Click to expand...

In some cases, but not all cases.

JoeB said:

1. The VGF-29 pilot was Lt.jg George Trumpter; the loss seems operational from the description in Lambert "Wildcats Over Casablanca", left his formation after takeoff with oil leak, failed to return (to USS Santee). Since there were no known encounters with French fighters in the Southern Task Force's area, (and none mentioned in Mordal's account from the French side), it seems speculative of Shores to add that one. Especially considering again that among the other 6 there's doubt about the cause of three already: Mikronis (AA according to him, though during an air combat), August and Connor.

Click to expand...

Hi Joe,

Yes, it is speculation in part. Shores writes it as such (i.e. "possible") Per this source the transmission from the pilot (It might have been Trumpter or not) the statement was that his line was "cut", not that he had a leak. It seems strange to me that if he had a leak from the beginning that he wouldn't have immediately aborted his mission. Another wrinkle is that Shores states another pilot of the flight went down in a operational loss at sea. This might have been a reference to Trumpter.

Either way.....I certainly don't have a problem with the estimated loss being 6 as opposed to 7 F4F's. I included it though because the author felt it was possible. The French pilots made a number of claims (as do all pilots) anytime no connection can be made i discount them but if the author feels a poss exists, i'll at least notate it as possible.

2. Foillot's loss was the one which matches the uncredited claim of VGF-26 at Port Lyautey I mentioned in the next paragraph. For Hawks I have a Squadron Signal book by Shores summarizing 6 lost (+5 'damaged') in first combat 4 in second. Do you get the details from "L'Aviation Vichy au Combat' or yet something else he wrote?

Click to expand...

Something else; Fighters over Tunisia by Shores, Ring and Hess. (1975)

I'm on the minutiae level well off topic I know , but seems to me a straight down the middle analysis would count a likely maximum of 6 F4F's, and having taken the maximum there, wouldn't then split hairs by not counting French planes whose pilots crashed in accidents during combat, bellied, etc, so would come out a few higher than 11. Shores is one of the greats, but I question that particular accounting.

Click to expand...

that kill (and possible another i'll add) could be called into question. Its rare when 2 different sources agree completely. One must also use their own judgement as well. As mentioned, i included it because the author specifically wrote that he felt it was "possible" a kill took place. But if someone wants to say its 6 vs. 7. I don't have an issue with it. It doesn't disturb the conclusions i've made thus far on WWII air combat on a day to day basis.

Hi Nikademus,

>I havn't seen any proof that they wern't. . Recall I asked you when you suggested they might not be. I did a little digging and found this site indicating that they were. The discussion then moved on to the question of how much "better" protected the D varient might be over the B varient.

The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka.

Hm, I found this post by you:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...bility-fighter-attack-11124-2.html#post308745

Notice you mentioned "one online source" without a URL, and an armour increase for ground-attack aircraft. As we were talking about dive bombers, I didn't think it was necessary to consider that, especially as I had pointed out the existence of an armoured version in the post I made directly before.

With regard to the armour status, I visited a friend today who has a well-stacked aviation library and asked him for information on the Stuka armour status. No final answer, but he had "Das geheime Typenbuch der deutschen Luftwaffe" by Manfred Griehl, which contains reproductions of the Flugzeug-Baureihen-Buch of the RLM, and it had very brief descriptions of the Ju 87 variants:

Ju 87A-1: "Ohne Panzerung"
Ju 87B-1: "Ohne Panzerung"
Ju 87B-2: "Ausführung ohne Panzerung läuft aus"
Ju 87D-3: "mit zusätzlicher Grundpanzerung"
Ju 87D-8: "wie Ju 87D-5 (Ausführung ohne Rüstsatzpanzerung)"
Ju 87R-1: "Mit und ohne Panzerung"

More variants are listed, but with no reference to armour.

("Ohne Panzerung" means "without armour". "Ausführung ohne Panzerung läuft aus" means "variant without armour is being phased out from the production line". "Mit zusätzlicher Grundpanzerung" means "with additional basic armour". "Wie Ju 87D-5 (Ausführung ohne Rüstsatzpanzerung)" means "like Ju 87D-5 (variant without equipment kit armour)". "Mit und ohne Panzerung" means "with and without armour".

>I don't see how you can claim such a thing. It is fully possible to "effectively" target (i.e. "hit") a plane and not have it become an automatic kill.

Well, depends on the definition of "effective". My point is that you only see part of the total hits because someone inevitably will fail to return, so it's difficult to judge the effectiveness of the attacking fighter pilots from looking at the planes that returned, even if they were holed.

>My general impression, also from many many years of Internet discussions is that Statistics are a most popular course of action because they can be manipulated and interpreted in many ways to support whatever argument is currently being forwarded.

Guess you are a burned child because of that Sherman-vs.-Tiger thread Interpretation of statistics may be difficult, but without any data at all, everything is open to imagination.

>Can you point me directly to where it shows the B-24 to be more survivable than the B-17?

It's a direct link to the relevant post - maybe it takes a while to load completely before jumping to the right position. I have switched off signature blocks, so maybe my load times are faster ...

>Believe I already made some counter-arguments on that theory on that thread.

Hm, I found comments you made on Koolkitty's posts, but not on mine. Perhaps you could post a direct link?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

Hi Glider,

>the 20mm would penetrate 19mm or armour at 400 yards at a deflection of 20 degrees

Hm, which 20 mm, and which 20 degrees?

Click to expand...

British Hispano II and its 20 degrees from angle of impact

>Your implication that the radiator still may survive this sort of fire made me smile.

I implied and am ready to say explicitely that not every hit is going to penetrate. High-explosive incendiary and steel "ball" rounds, which made up a fair share of the belting for the British Hispano cannon, don't have the penetration of armour-piercing rounds.

Click to expand...

And I wouldn't disagree with you. Ball penetrated 9mm of armour at 400 yards at 20 degrees from angle of impact, HE obviously wouldn't

>I have this vision of a formation of Radiators flying along, imune to shell and shot with barely a scratch on the paintwork. The rest of the aircraft is of course shot to hell but never mind, the radiators carry on regardless.

Excellent picture - now imagine the same shot-to-hell aircraft with a happily purring radial engine in front. That's the radial's "big" survivability advantage ...

Click to expand...

Again I totally agree. There is less of a target area on a Radial as the cooling system is mostly behind the engine. On an in line, the radiator is out in the open ready to be hit.

Hi Glider,

>British Hispano II and its 20 degrees from angle of impact

What exact type of ammunition? What is the reference for measurement of that angle? What kind of armour plate?

>Again I totally agree.

Guess the irony was lost on you ... what your pretty image described was merely that you can (and with a fair likelihood will) shoot an aircraft "to hell" without even touching the engine. The radiator and oil cooler are just part of the total vulnerable area, and you'll have to run a serious analysis of projected target area to find out which aircraft is actually more vulnerable to fire, with the engine type being just one of several factors.

>There is less of a target area on a Radial as the cooling system is mostly behind the engine. On an in line, the radiator is out in the open ready to be hit.

If you look at the diagrams Crumpp posted, you'll see that reality is more complex than that. And if you look at the SBD protection diagram I linked above, you'll see that for bullets coming from behind as during fighter attacks, oil reservoir and oil cooler of the SBD are actually in front of the engine, as the bullet sees it.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Nikademus said:

Something else; Fighters over Tunisia by Shores, Ring and Hess. (1975)



that kill (and possible another i'll add) could be called into question. Its rare when 2 different sources agree completely. One must also use their own judgement as well. As mentioned, i included it because the author specifically wrote that he felt it was "possible" a kill took place. But if someone wants to say its 6 vs. 7.

Click to expand...

Yes I guess the other thing I'm suggesting is using more sources, I've mentioned 4 others, including newer ones directly quoting original US and French sources in detail (I've heard a rewrite/update of 'Fighters over Tunisia' is eventually forthcoming. ?).

On VGF-29 that's definitely Trumpter because he was the only guy missing in that unit. To perhaps better explain what I said before, there were three US task force in three fairly separate areas of the Moroccan coast. VGF-29 flew from USS Santee, in the area around Safi where no French source mentions any claims. It's simply not plausible to 'suspect' it corresponded to French claims in the Casablanca and Port Lyautey areas of the Central and Northern TF's, even for Chris Shores. .

And as mentioned it isn't just 6 v 7 but that the 6 could easily be 3, since Mikronis thought he was downed by AA and there's no evidence August wasn't too, nor any specific account saying Gannon's ditching was due to hostile action at all. And 11 could only be calculated by paring the French losses in a way that *would* result in more like 3 than 6 F4F losses if the same treatment was applied on both sides, that's my point. Though, it could be more limited info available to Shores back in '75, not saying it's a bias necessarily. But altogether it was more like 3~6 F4F v ~12-14 Hawk/Dw, so not actually a tiny difference in the episode, though not a major revision to the air history of WWII, indeed

Joe

HoHun said:

Hi Glider,

>British Hispano II and its 20 degrees from angle of impact

What exact type of ammunition? What is the reference for measurement of that angle? What kind of armour plate?

Click to expand...

AP MkII
Ball Mk 1
Armour I.T.70
I dont understand what you mean by reference for the measurement of angle. I also don't know what the spec is of I.T.70 before you ask.

I also don't get where you are coming from as I have supplied everything I can and the only point that I am trying to make is that this type of ammunition is almost certain to penetrate any armour on an aircraft at normal combat ranges. That is clear.

>Again I totally agree.

Guess the irony was lost on you ... what your pretty image described was merely that you can (and with a fair likelihood will) shoot an aircraft "to hell" without even touching the engine. The radiator and oil cooler are just part of the total vulnerable area, and you'll have to run a serious analysis of projected target area to find out which aircraft is actually more vulnerable to fire, with the engine type being just one of several factors.

Click to expand...

The irony was lost on you my friend.

>There is less of a target area on a Radial as the cooling system is mostly behind the engine. On an in line, the radiator is out in the open ready to be hit.

If you look at the diagrams Crumpp posted, you'll see that reality is more complex than that. And if you look at the SBD protection diagram I linked above, you'll see that for bullets coming from behind as during fighter attacks, oil reservoir and oil cooler of the SBD are actually in front of the engine, as the bullet sees it.

Click to expand...

Again I agree, but on an inline all the radiator and all of the engine are visible and vulnerable. Generally speaking, on a radial one tends to be behind the other and the vulnerable area is less.

Again I agree, but on an inline all the radiator and all of the engine are visible and vulnerable. Generally speaking, on a radial one tends to be behind the other and the vulnerable area is less.

Click to expand...

The vulnerable area is about the same. Once again, air cooled engines have a larger oil tank capacity and larger oil cooler. Oil is the motors liquid coolant.

As for one behind the other, see the Corsair diagram.

All the best,

Crumpp

Hi Glider,

>I dont understand what you mean by reference for the measurement of angle.

Is it measured between a line perpendicular to the plane of the (flat) armour plate and the projectile trajectory, or is it measured between a line in the plane of the armour plate and the projectile trajectory?

>I also don't get where you are coming from as I have supplied everything I can

I'd additionally like to ask for your source, please.

>Again I agree, but on an inline all the radiator and all of the engine are visible and vulnerable.

If you'd look at a three-view, you'd notice that the radial engine has a larger frontal area than the inline engine. When we are analyzing rear attacks, the same applies to the rear area of both engines.

It would be hard to make any meaningful statement on relative vulnerability without actually measuring these areas, but - well, surprise me by not even trying.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

As far as I'm aware the Ju 87B-2 had armour albeit I don't know where or how much. The Ju 87B-2/U3 had "additional armour" over the standard B-2 but once again I don't know where. Given the information I have at hand though I don't believe the radiator was armoured until the Ju 87D (in 1941), but I could be wrong.

I don't believe the Stuka to be anymore vulnerable than any of the other slow dive bombers/ground attack aircraft of the day. I also don't believe it to be any better, and those sirens were only effective in the early days - and mostly against civilians. Their whole purpose being to disrupt columns of refugees to make military movements harder for the enemy. It's like soldiers getting used to being mortared in Iraq and Afghanistan today, sure they still get their heads down but it doesn't demoralise or strike fear anymore.

HoHun said:

Hi Glider,


>I also don't get where you are coming from as I have supplied everything I can

I'd additionally like to ask for your source, please.

Click to expand...

Dig it out for yourself, its easy to find and to give you a clue, part of this site. You haven't tried to look into it, just asked the same question different ways as a way of avoiding the obvious fact that a 20mm hit on a radiator at normal combat ranges will destroy the radiator and the plane will go down.

If you have looked for it and cannot find it, I will post the source but do some work for a change.

>Again I agree, but on an inline all the radiator and all of the engine are visible and vulnerable.

If you'd look at a three-view, you'd notice that the radial engine has a larger frontal area than the inline engine. When we are analyzing rear attacks, the same applies to the rear area of both engines.

It would be hard to make any meaningful statement on relative vulnerability without actually measuring these areas, but - well, surprise me by not even trying.

Click to expand...

This may come as a suprise but not all attacks are from the back, there tends to be a vertical factor involved an the danger area on an in line is greater than on a radial.

At the end of the day the airforces (all of them) recognised that an in line was more vulnerable to damage than a Radial due to the vulnerability of the Radiator.
If you disagree with this statement and know better then prove it wrong and I will accept your view.

Glider

Glider said:

At the end of the day the airforces (all of them) recognised that an in line was more vulnerable to damage than a Radial due to the vulnerability of the Radiator.

Click to expand...

Makes you wonder why the British Air Ministry 'gently' encouraged aircraft manufacturers to respond to specification F.7/30 (1930) with the evaporatively-cooled Goshawk engine. Despite the aerodynamic advantages they must have known how vulnerable the system would have been in a bullet fight? In the end they gave up on F.7/30 and selected the radial engined Gladiator.

Evaporative cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Makes you wonder why the British Air Ministry 'gently' encouraged aircraft manufacturers to respond to specification F.7/30 (1930) with the evaporatively-cooled Goshawk engine. Despite the aerodynamic advantages they must have known how vulnerable the system would have been in a bullet fight? In the end they selected the radial engined Gauntlet.

Click to expand...

Do you know what evaporative cooling is and the differences?

Crumpp said:

Do you know what evaporative cooling is and the differences?

Click to expand...

The physics of it, very little Crummp, only a basic understanding that the concept was to distribute the drag inducing 'radiator' over a large surface area, but this in turn provided a larger vulnerable area for damage.