ju 87 used as a fighter

Shortround6 said:

There is also an element of luck.

Click to expand...

Of course. At least one victory was credited to an unarmed PR Spitfire. Canadian F/O George Christie of 212 Sqn forced down an Italian Breda bomber on 13 June 1940. It ditched of the coast of Monaco. Unarmed Spitfires were not the answer to enemy bombers either

Cheers

Steve

GrauGeist said:

The SBD downed a variety of Japanese fighters and bombers during it's time and it was even used as a reserve fleet CAP aircraft in the early stages of the PTO.

It's actually ranked among the Allied fighters, for PTO victories.

Click to expand...

IIRC SBDs claims were fairly optimistic and their anti-torpedobomber patrols during the Battle of the Coral Sea were failures, Kates were not Devastators and were too fast for patrolling SBDs but yes, SBD crews got some air-kills but they were clearly heavier armed in 42 than Ju 87Bs in 40-41.

One of the standard evasion/survival tactics used by the Ju 87 was to enter a tight circle. Presumably because of the thick curved wing section of the Ju 87 it had a high Clmax and could turn a tighter circle than attacking enemy fighters and prevent them from getting a 'bead' onto the Ju 87. This also helped the rear gunner to bring his defensive guns to bear. From the Ju 87D onwards the rear gunner had the MG81Z. This was actually a twined pair of guns with long duel belt feeds for amunition (left and right) and as each gun had a cadence of 1700 RPM a total of 3400 RPM was available. This is a different world of hurt to the 1100 rounds available during the BoB from a 75 round magazine loaded guns that required frequent reloads.

The tactic worked best if done near ground level as in a turning flight the attacking fighter gets below the line of fire of the rear gunner. By flying low this is no longer possible and the low speed forces the attacking fighter to deploy flaps and become fearful of a stall and crash to ground. This tactic seems to have been used frequently by Hans Rudel. He often gave a parting shot at the disengaging enemy fighters using his heavy guns as the enemy flew past or disengaged and he seem to have had some success. It was perhaps more a delaying tactic, the enemy fighter would become frustrated and disengage or himself become vulnerable to an escort. The Ju 87G with 30mm and 37mm canon was probably a little cumbersome for this but the version with 20mm guns (e.g. on the Ju87D5) was more sprightly.
The Ju 87 was a gun stable gun platform, easy and quick to aim, which should not be underestimated.

The solution to the limited depression and arc of fire for defensive guns was remote controlled guns. The Arado 240 and Me 210 (both were intended to substantially replace both the Ju 88 and Ju 87 in their roles) introduced these and the at one time planned Ju 187 did so as well. I however think that defensive fire needs to be very potent and only a 20mm gun is sufficient to truly deter an attacking fighter. Such sophisticated gunnery was deployed in only limited numbers.

Ju 87's towards the end of the war used during daylight had about half the attrition as the Fw 190F, presumably due to the combined effect of an observer/rear gunner and escorts (eg Fw 190D). Ju 87 used as night bombers against allied air and army targets had apparently the lowest of attritions: about 0.6% (the same as the B-26 and Mosquito)

I suspect that had the Luftwaffe armed its Ju 87B from the outset with a pair of 20mm canon it might have had some success in the air to air roll. By that I don't mean that it would match fighters but that it would occasionally score kills in head on attacks or when an a enemy fighter had overshot. The SBD's twin 0.5 inch guns surely must have been much more deadly than the Ju 87B rifle calibre guns. During the BoB the MG FF (Oerlikon) was available and although a good air to air weapon it lacked the velocity of the later MG 151/20 and likely its armour penetration and perhaps this is why it was not fitted.

Juha said:

IIRC SBDs claims were fairly optimistic and their anti-torpedobomber patrols during the Battle of the Coral Sea were failures, Kates were not Devastators and were too fast for patrolling SBDs but yes, SBD crews got some air-kills but they were clearly heavier armed in 42 than Ju 87Bs in 40-41.

Click to expand...

At the Battle lf Coral Sea, it was the combined effort of the SBD and F4F elements that accounted for a great deal of losses for the Japanese. They lost the Lexington, but managed to hold down a potentially higher loss inflicted. Also notable, was Ensign Leppla and his gunner's efforts in downing 7 Japanese aircraft in that battle with his SBD.

As it stands, the victories in the PTO by the SBD are 138.

GrauGeist said:

At the Battle lf Coral Sea, it was the combined effort of the SBD and F4F elements that accounted for a great deal of losses for the Japanese. They lost the Lexington, but managed to hold down a potentially higher loss inflicted. Also notable, was Ensign Leppla and his gunner's efforts in downing 7 Japanese aircraft in that battle with his SBD.

As it stands, the victories in the PTO by the SBD are 138.

Click to expand...

Now during the early part of the Pacific War claims were badly inflated, what I wrote was my recollection from Lundstrom's The First Team, I don't have time to check that but according to Hata's and Izawa's Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II IJNAF lost during the Lex York vs Shokaku Zuikaku duel 2 VFs, 9 VBs and 8VTs, that is during the both Japanese and US air attacks on 8 May 42, so if we accept Leppla's and his gunners claims uncritically they shot down over 1/3 of the IJNAF air losses, not much left for the Wildcat pilots, naval AA or other SBD crews.

Juha

To illustrate the point above:
At Salerno the FAA's Seafires had a good deal of difficulty in intercepting the fighter bomber attacks of the Luftwaffe's Fw 190s. Here's what someone who was there has to say about it.

'The poor interception rate was entirely due to our radar suffering the robbing effect of ground clutter, and the ships and thus the aircraft received little or no warning of the low flying approaches of the Fw 190 fighter bombers by radar. With but a couple of minutes warning at most, the Seafires on CAP, at their maximum feasible 240 knots patrol speed to conserve fuel, found it impossible to accelerate to the 350 knots diving approach speed of the Fw 190s and in the poor visibility that prevailed, the enemy got away each time.
If the carriers had been ordered to keep further offshore and away from the ground clutter, the sea level approach of the Fw 190s would have been detected at 20 miles, and this might have been sufficient for a powerful fighter like the Seafire LIIc to accelerate to the Fw's get away speed of about 300 knots in good time.'

My italics. Try something like that in a Ju 87 and the boys of the FAA would have had their own 'Stuka party', even without the warning they so desired. They were already cruising at roughly a Ju 87s maximum level speed.

Cheers

Steve

There should be no doubt, the fighter-bomber concept proved itself for both Allies Axis.