Ju-87 Stuka vulnerability to fighter attack

only that the concept

Click to expand...

The skin of the aircraft is used to condense the coolant.

The concept is to keep the liquid coolant under great pressure so that it remains in liquid form as long as possible when sprayed directly on the cylinders/heads. The liquid turns to vapor and cools through evaporation just like the sweat on your skin. The heated vapor is then collected and cooled to liquid form through a network of tubes in the skin of the aircraft.

I probably don't need to point how this would be problematic for an Military aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

Thanks Crumpp

You are very welcome!

HoHun said:

Hi Nikademus,

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.

Click to expand...

Did you click on the link i posted and you just quoted in your last reply? Here it is again. If you'll reread post#138 you'll see I wrote "the Ju-87B-2/U3 featured "increased" armor for the close support role"

Not close support aircraft.

The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka

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:

Click to expand...

Interesting. It would be puzzling why they'd build an unarmored version of the Stuka when even the Hs-123 that preceeded it supposedly had 'some' armor.

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.

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem all that difficult to me after reading the pilot's accounts, examining the damage and reading up on the weapons used. As for the definition of "effective". hokay. I think i can hear the hairs splitting here.

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.

Click to expand...

Oh believe me......i've seen many more threads like that, and threads choke full of statistics, alleged or otherwise. I also own Clay Blair's Uboat war series...one of the most statistically stuffed books i've ever read. Yet many of his conclusions and interpretations are considered controversial. As mentioned....statistics or not, it all still comes down to interpretation and context.

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 ...

Click to expand...

starting to wonder if there's a problem with linking here. You didn't seem to see my link to the Ju-87 online page. And when i click, i do go to another part of this site but i'm not seeing the particular post that's being referenced.
odd.

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

Click to expand...

I'm afraid too now. My linkings seem to not be working. You might end up on the Isle of Myst.

JoeB said:

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. ?).

Click to expand...

God i hope not. I just spent a fortune getting this copy. Yes, multiple sources are always helpful though in the end one still ends up choosing which one is more accurate. Parshalls/Tully and Lundstrom don't completely match up either where losses are concerned. I'm happy with Shores in the meantime. His cred is very good. Which doesn't mean i won't chk other sources.....but there's the time and money thing. Just recently picked up Ford's revised Flying Tiger's book. So far matching up Shore's figures in Bloody Shambles I....but i'm sure there will be some varience at some point given some of the arguments tossed in the past on that particular subject.

On VGF-29 that's definitely Trumpter because he was the only guy missing in that unit.

Click to expand...

right, but I never said that any other pilots went missing. The other pilot who went down was picked up and returned.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, i've read many accounts where the pilots thought they were hit by this or that. I've also read numerous accounts where pilots swore they saw a plane slam into the ground and explode, yet records postwar later state all the planes on the opposite side returned!

As for the 11 french planes.....I committed no sleight of hand pairings and treated both sides the same. Since we seem to be getting into the nitty gritty despite both stating we can dispense with it , one can go even deeper and par down the French losses due to their tactical situation of the time. (For example, GC II/5 being caught while just taking off by the F4F's.....a factor that greatly impacted the exchange ratio of that skirmish)

, 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

Click to expand...

Ok. I guess my point would be, just because it's older doesn't mean it's less accurate. I'll give the benefit of a doubt though. I don't have these other sources you cite so i'm not going to say your wrong but on the same token you don't have my source and to be honest i don't feel like printing whole pages out so we can nitpick each instance of kill. The way I see it at the moment its looking like 5-7 F4F for 11-13 French H/Dw. A ratio range not uncommon with other engagements I've seen.

Hi Glider,

>Dig it out for yourself, its easy to find and to give you a clue, part of this site.

Either you name your source, or our discussion ends here.

"Name your sources" is principle #1 for educated discussions, and I have zero tolerance for refusing to do so.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Nikademus?

>starting to wonder if there's a problem with linking here. You didn't seem to see my link to the Ju-87 online page. And when i click, i do go to another part of this site but i'm not seeing the particular post that's being referenced.
odd.

Hm, seems you are right as Flyboyj had the same problem in another thread - my precise link was not taking him to the correct post. I usually spend quite some effort on finding the posts I'd like to reference so that the reader can access it easily, so it's a bit frustrating that it doesn't seem to work for others Strangely, it always works when I test it!

I create these links by simply pasting the URL into the post and not using any of the user interface buttons, leaving it to the forum software to create the proper HTML. I'll have a look at the HTML ...

Did you already post the link to the Stuka site in the post #138 in this thread? I only saw it in the post #148 (and our following posts) of this thread.

(As basically the information regarding armour is not more exact to that of the Betriebshandbuch mentioned earlier except for naming the number of the Umbausatz, I thought it didn't provide much new information, which is why I didn't give it deeper consideration. It was not a question of the URL working or not

>Did you click on the link i posted and you just quoted in your last reply? Here it is again. If you'll reread post#138 you'll see I wrote "the Ju-87B-2/U3 featured "increased" armor for the close support role"

Roger, I saw that. Problem is, we still don't know the status of the Battle-of-Britain Stukas (which were not used for close support, but of course they could have carried the extra armour anyway since they clearly was the need for it).

The problem with the site itself is that it lists Green's work as one of the sources, and while Green has done great work in general, it seems generally to be accepted that details from his book should better be cross-checked with independend modern sources.

>Interesting. It would be puzzling why they'd build an unarmored version of the Stuka when even the Hs-123 that preceeded it supposedly had 'some' armor.

I'm surprised, too. It had been my impression that the Luftwaffe was one of the few airforces to have recognized the need for armour early on, based on their experience in the Spanish Civil War.

>As mentioned....statistics or not, it all still comes down to interpretation and context.

Still, disagreeing over statistics is a lot more scientific than disagreeing over reputations

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Joeb,

Just in case you missed this post, too:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...bility-fighter-attack-11124-3.html#post311116

(Post #118 in this thread, in case the direct link doesn't work.)

I'd really appreciate an answer. Thanks in advance!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

(Post #118 in this thread, in case the direct link doesn't work.)

Click to expand...

I did miss that, so my supposed 'distortion' all comes down to parsing the words 'statement' v. 'judgement'?

The clear implication of your 'statement' about inferior firepower and speed (not sure what difference a few 10's mph of speed of mid 300's mph fighters really makes combating low-mid 200's mph divebombers, but anyway...) is the conclusion or 'judgement' of a more permissive environment faced by SBD's, or else you would naturally have explained 'the firepower of Zeroes was lower but that's just one aspect....etc.'. I think your implication, of more qualititatively permissive environment of divebombers facing Zeroes, is questionable, given the high effectiveness of Zero units of 1941-42 inflicting losses on many Allied non fighter types. Though I'll repeat again, I personally think the SBD reputation of being able to take care of itself against fighters is *partly* because there weren't than many cases where they met intense opposition from well positioned Zeroes; although in cases like the survival of 2 plane SBD scout sections vs several Zeroes at a time, it's hard to envision Ju-87's of any model also surviving those missions.

And that's all I'm going to explain about my already, I really think, reasonable straightforward and fairly simple opinion I've already explained a couple of times. If you continue to have a have a problem with it, I regret that you feel that way.

Joe

Hi Joeb,

>I did miss that, so my supposed 'distortion' all comes down to parsing the words 'statement' v. 'judgement'?

No. That's just one specific example to highlight your consistent problems in understanding what are perfectly unambiguous English statements.

Allow me to ask straightforwardly: Do you concede that "statement" and "judgement" are significantly different concepts?

No need even to mention dive bombers in your reply, that's really a meta-discussion about communication here ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

Hi Joeb,

>I did miss that, so my supposed 'distortion' all comes down to parsing the words 'statement' v. 'judgement'?

No. That's just one specific example to highlight your consistent problems in understanding what are perfectly unambiguous English statements.

Allow me to ask straightforwardly: Do you concede that "statement" and "judgement" are significantly different concepts?

No need even to mention dive bombers in your reply, that's really a meta-discussion about communication here ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

Since the discussion seems to veer toward parsing the difference between Statement and Judgement"

What is your interpretation of this?

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)

And given that the faster more heavily armed fighters (Zeros,Yak3, Mustang, Spitfire and Hurricane) are busy turning human beings into hamburger with various combinations of 20mm, 50. cal, 303, cal, 7.7 mm in large quantities from close range - blowing away wing spars, hitting fuel tanks, etc., including attacks from below where rear facing armamment is mostly worthless.. does it matter which had better armor for oil coolers? They were BOTH Pitiful against fighter opposition!

They were BOTH exceptionally vulnerable and got hammered by opposing fighters.

Where are you going to remotely prove one way or another that one or the other was 'more survivable' when they didn't fly the same missions, didn't fly against the same opposition, the SBD was retired while the Ju 87 was still getting hammered by modern fighters?

But you want to debate "judgement and Statement" with JoeB??

Sheesh!

I couldn't agree more, drgondrg. The argument over English is getting quite pathetic, it seems that people are just clutching at the change to be 'right'. The discussion itself is pretty pointless to say the least, as it's obvious that the Ju 87 was vulnerable to the modern fighters of the day just as much as any other dive-bomber.

In other words; shut the f*ck up, you boring ba*tard, Ho Hun. Just let it go whether you're right or not. If you want to continue your pis*ing up the wall contest do it in PM - it's like a freakin' schoolyard. You tell Glider about educated discussions in one thread and have a pointless argument with JoeB in another ! My advice to you JoeB is to just ignore him, he's clutching at his ego. It's a shame as well because you seemed quite intelligent and willing to learn HoHun, but now you just seem like a small shrivelled penis.

In other words; shut the f*ck up, you boring ba*tard, Ho Hun.

Click to expand...

The insults are completely uncalled for and unnecessary. Flaming each other for some perceived brownie points does not make for intelligent discussion. Only the ignorant pursue this type of internet argument just like face to face conversations.

As for the argument over "English" word meanings, I have to wonder how "pathetic" it would be if the argument was over the meaning of a word in "German", Henning's native language.

Could you even participate on any intelligent level in such a conversation?

Keep some perspective, please.

They were BOTH exceptionally vulnerable and got hammered by opposing fighters.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. It's like trying to prove which fish in a sharks jaws will take longer to swallow. The fish is eaten in the end.

All the best,

Crumpp

Everbody knock it out with the childish bull **** allright!

One more like that and this thread will be closed.

Wait a second...


...no, I didn't see moderator under your name. So, you can shut up as well if you want to involve yourself. HoHun's contribution to the discussion was fine until his argument about language; it makes no difference what his first language is.

I don't need brownie points and I bet HoHun doesn't need you in a pink suit pretending to be his knight in shining armour. If wants to argue over the English language then he can start a thread on it; I wouldn't argue over German because I can barely speak the language and I don't need to. If you want to lick HoHun's bumhole because he can speak another language, feel free but I'd rather not see it.

The fact remains that he is arguing over something pathetic. And I'm sure you're feeling really satisified that you told someone off, well go realease the pressure in your semi and involve yourself somewhere else.

I don't need brownie points and I bet HoHun doesn't need you in a pink suit pretending to be his knight in shining armour.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with Henning and everything to do with common decency to one another. Attempting to rationalize that does lend weight to your point of view.

Hi Pland,

>In other words; shut the f*ck up, you boring ba*tard, Ho Hun. Just let it go whether you're right or not.

Glad to see that you jumped into the gap to liven up things around here

Someone of your eloquence will probably agree that our only means of communication here are words.

If it is irrelevant if I used a certain word, or a different one with a different meaning, I honestly don't see a way of communicating successfully. That means that if Joeb and I can't agree on the meaning of one single word that should be in no way ambiguous, we might as well abandon our attempt at communicating at all.

However, it's not up to you to make this decision.

With regard to the rest of your post, I'll just take you as a textbook example for a "rough diamond"

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)