Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Was the Ju 87 vulnerable? It would seem only for certain kinds of mission. As a tank buster I believe its loss rate was half that of the FW 190 in the same role. As a low level night harrasment aircraft it had among the lowest loss rate of any bomber of the war.
Lee mallory had overly ambitious objectives for the 1941 offensive over france, but just be aware that there were many other objectives that were achieved. It never ceases to amaze me that because the RAF failed in one of its self imosed objectives, and that one objective was so unrealistic as to be surreal, yet the whole campaign is then judged to be a failure.
The RAF had no choice bu to attack in small packets of bombers in 1941. The RAF had oodles of fighters, but 2 Gp (the tactical day bomber force) consisted of all of five squadrons (of Blenheims) at that time. There were roughly 300 bombers ( Septemeber) undetaking deep penetration strategic ops over Germany, and a few score engaged in Coastal Command. The RAF was not strong in bombers in 1941....
In fact there was a great deal of success to the '41 campaign. The Germans were defeated in the skies over britain. Britain gained air superiority over the Channel, and made seaborne traffic relatively safe, whilst denying or substantially denying Axis freedom of movement over the coastal seas of Western Europe. The RAF gained substanial control of the coastal areas of NW europe and they also gained substantial freedom of movement and operation over the coastal regions (of france). what they failed to do was force or entice the Germans to come up and get themselves killed.
Most of the allied objectives were achieved. One was not. overall, thats still a success in my book. Without those operations, the subsequent offensive ops in 42-3 would not have been possible.
The Ju 87 was used outside of its capabilities in the BoB. And CAS was definetly not what it was doing.The point is that without local air superiority the Ju87 was so vulnerable to enemy fighters that it became unuseable,as in the BoB.
...This was a lesson not lost on the RAF and was one of the arguments used against not just dive bombing but CAS generally in the debates of 1941.
Cheers
Steve
Dive bombing radar stations was surely exactly the sort of thing the Ju87 was supposed to excel at. The Ju87 wasn't outside its capabilities it simply met,for the first time,an organised and integrated air defence system which caused it to be caught without even local air superiority.The Ju 87 was used outside of its capabilities in the BoB. And CAS was definetly not what it was doing.
So drawing a conclusion about whether or not a dive bomber or CAS in general is a worthwhile undertaking based on its loss rate in the BoB has to be faulty.
Germany produced 4,881 Ju-87s during 1939 to 1945. Not all were lost in combat.
Anyone who thinks B-17 survivability was better then Ju-87 survivability might want to look at official USAF loss statistics. We lost 5,548 heavy bombers (B-17 plus B-24) in Europe alone. Army Air Forces in World War II
Germany produced 4,881 Ju-87s during 1939 to 1945. Not all were lost in combat.
True... But they also need to be nimble, and it's not the Ju-87 with 2 x 37mm case!Gun armed tank busters are slow flying aircraft if they want to hit anything.
That mean poor power to weight ratio and high wing loading one. It makes not only a slow, but also an unmanoeuvrable aircraft...So I don't think drag would be an issue. You just need an adequate power to weight ratio for hauling around heavy cannon plus significant cockpit armor.