Stuka vs. Dauntless vs. Val vs. Skua vs. Il-2?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Lucky13, Sep 16, 2009.

  1. Lucky13

    Lucky13 Forum Mascot

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    36,729
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Nightshift picker
    Location:
    A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland
    Home Page:
    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....:D
     
  2. beaupower32

    beaupower32 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,840
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    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".
     
  3. imalko

    imalko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vojvodina, Serbia
    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."

    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?
     
  4. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,768
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    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.
     
  5. Vassili Zaitzev

    Vassili Zaitzev Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,099
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Substitute teacher; graduate student
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States
    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.
     
  6. lesofprimus

    lesofprimus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,162
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Communications
    Location:
    Long Island Native in Mississippi
    Home Page:
    Agree with all comments....
     
  7. Thorlifter

    Thorlifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    7,909
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    IT Nerd
    Location:
    Dallas, Tx Jubail, Saudi Arabia
    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.
     
  8. proton45

    proton45 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    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....
     
  9. B-17engineer

    B-17engineer Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    14,953
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    model builder
    Location:
    Revis Island.
    #9 B-17engineer, Sep 16, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2009
    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
     
  10. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    with air superiority, the Ju 87 is an unholy terror. With enemy fighters in the area, that thing is an unmarked grave.
     
  11. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,205
    Likes Received:
    2,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  12. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.
     
  13. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,205
    Likes Received:
    2,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    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...
     
  14. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    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.
     
  15. proton45

    proton45 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #15 proton45, Sep 17, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2009
    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?
     
  16. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,205
    Likes Received:
    2,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    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)
     
  17. Marcel

    Marcel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Messages:
    6,977
    Likes Received:
    570
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Bioinformatician
    Location:
    Dordrecht
    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.
     
  18. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,205
    Likes Received:
    2,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    I agree...the battlefield mission was evolving, and multi-role aircraft were becoming an important asset
     
  19. Lucky13

    Lucky13 Forum Mascot

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    36,729
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Nightshift picker
    Location:
    A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland
    Home Page:
    "....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.
     
  20. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,678
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    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
     
Loading...

Share This Page