Lucky13
Forum Mascot
How can an aircraft like the Stuka, that achieved so much under such a long time, and such a vide field in combat, be seen as a failure?
Just curious fellas....
Just curious fellas....
Stuka vs. Dauntless vs. Val vs. Skua vs. Il-2?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
I dont think it was considered a failure. It was a very accurate aircraft and had many many different roles. The airframe was adaptable to many differnt mods. Its just in the wars last few years or so it didnt have as much success due to enemy fighters. Being slow and cumbersum, it was easy prey. Rudel managed to be very successful in it. Looking at the Val and Dauntless, I see the Val as probably the worst of the 3. The dauntless was a work horse in its own right, and Rudel was qoted as saying when he saw a Dauntless in person "man, what I could have done with that".
imalko
Chief Master Sergeant
Who said Stuka was a failure?! Not in my opinion. Stuka was far better then people give her credit for. Just my opinion though. Not wishing to spark another heated discussion on the issue. Stuka has been discussed in detail on the forum before.
"I often visited the Stuka squadrons on their return from bombing over Warsaw, spoke with the crews about their impressions and inspected the damage where aircraft had been hit by flak. It was almost a miracle that some of them got home, so riddled were they with holes- halves of wings were ripped off, bottom planes were torn away, and fuselages disembowelled, with their contorls hanging by the thinest threads. Our thanks were due to Dr Koppenberg and his engeneers who produced such aircraft as the Ju 87 which was still in use in Russia in 1945."
Just a side note - if I'm not mistaken out of the aircraft listed in the title all were used as dive bombers except Ilyushin Il-2. So is it Sturmovik even comparable with other aircraft listed?
"I often visited the Stuka squadrons on their return from bombing over Warsaw, spoke with the crews about their impressions and inspected the damage where aircraft had been hit by flak. It was almost a miracle that some of them got home, so riddled were they with holes- halves of wings were ripped off, bottom planes were torn away, and fuselages disembowelled, with their contorls hanging by the thinest threads. Our thanks were due to Dr Koppenberg and his engeneers who produced such aircraft as the Ju 87 which was still in use in Russia in 1945."
Quote from "The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring", William Kimber Limited, London 1953
Just a side note - if I'm not mistaken out of the aircraft listed in the title all were used as dive bombers except Ilyushin Il-2. So is it Sturmovik even comparable with other aircraft listed?
The problem is people look at how many were shot down in droves. The thing though is that the Stuka is no different than any dive bomber. If you do not have control of the skies, dive bombers are sitting ducks.
Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
I don't consider the Stuka a failure. Any dive bomber would have been blown out of the sky with no air cover, the Val and SBD are no different.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Agree with all comments....
Thorlifter
Captain
I agree with all here. The Ju-87 was extremely successful......When the Luftwaffe ruled the skies. Once it lost control, the Stuka became Ace bait.
proton45
Senior Airman
I think that people frequently misunderstand the comment about the Stuka being an "outdated" design. Just because their where many innovation's in aircraft design that could have been built into a new Luftwaffe dive-bomber, doesn't mean that the Stuka was an ineffective aeroplane by 1942-1945.
That and what "DerAdlerIstGelandet" said about Luftwaffe aeroplane losses....
That and what "DerAdlerIstGelandet" said about Luftwaffe aeroplane losses....
B-17engineer
Colonel
Agree with what these guys said.
Beginning of the war Poland, France etc. it was a great plane, but once the allies regrouped and started launching raids and taking control of the air, the Stuka wouldn't be my first choice. Plus you have to take into consideration that the technology of fighters was becoming much more advanced.
Overall I say IL-2
Beginning of the war Poland, France etc. it was a great plane, but once the allies regrouped and started launching raids and taking control of the air, the Stuka wouldn't be my first choice. Plus you have to take into consideration that the technology of fighters was becoming much more advanced.
Overall I say IL-2
Last edited:
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
with air superiority, the Ju 87 is an unholy terror. With enemy fighters in the area, that thing is an unmarked grave.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Stuka, much like the Val, enjoyed a good deal of success as long as there was air superiority. In those conditions, they excelled at thier task.
Unlike the Stuka and Val, the Dauntless was capable of turning against it's attackers and while not a gunslinger by a long shot, they at least had a chance where the Stuka or the Val would be dead meat.
Unlike the Stuka and Val, the Dauntless was capable of turning against it's attackers and while not a gunslinger by a long shot, they at least had a chance where the Stuka or the Val would be dead meat.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I like the Stuka because it knew what it was. It was a damned good dive bomber. To hell with making a dive bomber that is also a bad fighter.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
That's the beauty of the SBD...it was exceptionally good at dive bombing, and when the enemy attacked it, it was able to fight it's way home in situations that would have seen the loss of the Val or the Stuka.
I've read of a few instances where a Stuka pilot was able to turn and face his attackers, but for the most part, that was the last act of defiance before they were taken out...
I've read of a few instances where a Stuka pilot was able to turn and face his attackers, but for the most part, that was the last act of defiance before they were taken out...
Glider
Captain
All these aircraft were capable of performing well and did so. All were vulnerable to enemy fighters to a greater or lesser degree definately when pulling out of the dive but that was common to all.
The IL 2 wasn't pretty or sophisticated but was designed to take knocks and again needed air cover to do well.
The IL 2 wasn't pretty or sophisticated but was designed to take knocks and again needed air cover to do well.
proton45
Senior Airman
I agree that the "SBD Dauntless" was one hell-a-va well built aeroplane, and it did really well against opposing pursuit fighters...But I wonder how much of this was due to Navy training and/or the presents of top-cover? For instance, the USAAF used 7 SBD-3's (A-24) on a mission against Buna on 7/29/42 and lost all but one divebomber to A6M2's (no top-cover)...
Why was the lightly built A6M2 able to bring down the A-24 (in this case)? Was the earlier (SBD) variant less well armored?
Why was the lightly built A6M2 able to bring down the A-24 (in this case)? Was the earlier (SBD) variant less well armored?
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The A-24 was used on a mission before that, at Bali and had better results. But here's something I find interesting about the A-24 versus the SBD: The A-24 was suffering from mechanical problems and poorer performance than the SBD...including a lack of armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks. So the A-24 was just begging for disaster.
As far as I know, the SBD-3 onwards had armor self-sealing tanks plus later models had the additional .30 cal in the rear. (two .50 cal forward, one or two .30 cal rear)
Actually after the first few years, the Stuka's mission of divebombing was obsolete, not the aircraft itself. This role was taken over by fighterbombers.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I agree...the battlefield mission was evolving, and multi-role aircraft were becoming an important asset
- Thread starter
- #19
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
"....throughout this time the Junkers dive-bomber would be a steadily declining force on the field of battle, overtaken by events, overshadowed by the rise of the fighter-bomber and overwhelmed by the enemy's growing numerical superiority."
...and from a young army officer in the desert....
"Here, while I sit in the desert with an Me 110 circling overhead, the wireless broadcast of 0915 hours is telling us that the great feature of our recent operations here was that the RAF held complete mastery of the air by the simple procedure of preventing the enemy aircraft leaving the ground. This is completely untrue. In this regiment alone we had thirty casualties from air attack alone. It is true that from time to time the RAF makes a sortie and bombs known enemy aerodromes. But Jerry does not rely on them alone. He scatters his aircraft all over the desert, which is full of natural landing grounds and feeds and maintains them if necessary from the air. While our sorties are sporadic Jerry is always in the air watching every movement and attacking every target worthwile with bombs and machine-gun fire - and his needle bullets go through our armour. His army co-operation is fine - whenever he want air support his front line troops wireless 'Stuka' and give a map reference and it comes at once, whereas we have to apply through Brigade to Division and from them through ALO to RAF Command. When (and if) it comes it is two hours late and the whole situation has changed and the bombs are dropped in open desert, or as on more than one occasion, on our own troops."
From the Stuka book I got yesterday.
...and from a young army officer in the desert....
"Here, while I sit in the desert with an Me 110 circling overhead, the wireless broadcast of 0915 hours is telling us that the great feature of our recent operations here was that the RAF held complete mastery of the air by the simple procedure of preventing the enemy aircraft leaving the ground. This is completely untrue. In this regiment alone we had thirty casualties from air attack alone. It is true that from time to time the RAF makes a sortie and bombs known enemy aerodromes. But Jerry does not rely on them alone. He scatters his aircraft all over the desert, which is full of natural landing grounds and feeds and maintains them if necessary from the air. While our sorties are sporadic Jerry is always in the air watching every movement and attacking every target worthwile with bombs and machine-gun fire - and his needle bullets go through our armour. His army co-operation is fine - whenever he want air support his front line troops wireless 'Stuka' and give a map reference and it comes at once, whereas we have to apply through Brigade to Division and from them through ALO to RAF Command. When (and if) it comes it is two hours late and the whole situation has changed and the bombs are dropped in open desert, or as on more than one occasion, on our own troops."
From the Stuka book I got yesterday.
parsifal
Colonel
The SBDs, Vals and Skuas were all used sucessfully as fighters, actually, albeit second line. The Skua in particular was effective at providing fleet defence at a time when officially the FAA air defence fighter was the Gladiator.
This is possibly the one thing that separates the Stuka from its compaetitors. As far as I know the Stuka was never considered a fighter, not even a second line fighter like the SBDs and the others. I suspect this was due to the defensive armamanebnt carried, the slow speed and the relatively poor performance of the Stuka even when divested of the offensive warload
This is possibly the one thing that separates the Stuka from its compaetitors. As far as I know the Stuka was never considered a fighter, not even a second line fighter like the SBDs and the others. I suspect this was due to the defensive armamanebnt carried, the slow speed and the relatively poor performance of the Stuka even when divested of the offensive warload
