Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Also on the viewpoint suggesting the Stuka became an obsolete ship as the war progressed...i do not think i will ever understand the notion.
I´ve said this before: following the same logic then the B-17s and B-24s are "obsolete" when one assesses their losses prior to the arrival of the long range escorts. Different types of planes, sure: one is a dive bomber designed to provide direct support to advancing army forces while the other two are level bombers.
I do not have the numbers at hand, but i once compared % of losses of B-24s/B-17s endured prior to the arrival of the proper escorts vs those of Stukas and it was clear the Stukas fared better in this department.
Adrian - I agree your thesis up to a point.
The point would be that the Ju 87 did not fly in the same threat environment as the B-24 and B-17. The mission was different, but at no time did the VVS ever match the local air superiority that LuftFotte Reich have over Germany in late 1943 to early 1944.
Taking the contrast even farther, even the B-29 would be obsolete against the Me 262 as it was in Korea for daylight mission against the MiG.
Bill, the Stuka remained operational throughout the entire war in the Eastern Front due to the very simple reason the VVS did never attained the type of resurgence depicted on bolshevik and western allied accounts. It´s pure mythology. You have to believe me.
I do believe you. In my clumsy way I tried to contrast the effectiveness of the Ju 87 and Hs 129 in the East up to the end of the war versus their 'no factor' in the West.
I am aware of two situations in which Stukas encountered US fighters en masse - once in the East on July 25, 1944 near San River - when Jim Brook's 307th FS/315 FG spotted Rudel's Gruppe and virtually wiped out 2. and .3 squadrons, with Rudel's 15 Stuka's jettisoning their bombs and slipping away.
IIRC this was the worst single day for Rudel's Gruppe's in the east and it was inflicted by 15th AF, not VVS.
The second was one my father was involved in on June 6, 1944 when the 355th caught and wiped out 15 SG103 Stuka's on the way to the beach head. I am not aware that Ju 87s ever ventured into Western airspace again.
If for some bizarre reason the build up of the 8th and 15th Air Forces had occurred in the Eastern Front and not in England, then the Stuka would have been withdrawn from service in the sector.
I certainly believe that, and offer the two examples above as rationale to support your statement
Finally, the efforts to detect "obsolete" equipment is focused on Germany, the defeated guys, but let´s not forget the RAF still had Hurricane squadrons in operations as late as in mid 1944...as a fighter and during 1944, the Hurricane could surely be tagged as obsolete since it would be no match against any of the contemporary German fighters.
Once again we are in violent agreement.. and we could point out that they (contemporary German fighters) made life interesting for contemporary Allied Jabos.. and the reverse applied to the FW 190F.
But the F was effective in the West in contrast to the Ju 87 - and it was a very capable fighter in defense at low altitudes - which I think was the reason I ultimately picked that one. I would like my chances one on one better in that aircraft with a Tempest and Lightning being 'good enough' for me... but perhaps more vulnerable to infantry fire on the deck. And I liked its Fighter role better than a P-47D on the deck
The Stuka was never obsolete; i think of this scenario where air-superiority is not attained by the USAAF and RAF in the West, and they still go for Overlord...there are sufficient numbers of German fighters in Normandy to either escort Stukas on mission or to at least tangle with swarms of Allied fighters, then you´d have Stukas screaming on Omaha, Juno, Gold or Sword with perhaps a devasating effect.
I should think it would be no more effective than in Battle of Britain? Offhand I can think of no improvements made to Ju 87 to make it more survivable in West in 1944 from 1940 - what cahnged was lack of fighter cover effectiveness
Bill, also i do not think of any significant improvements that could make the Stuka better than it was; there were some improvements made to the Stukas during war though. When the war commenced, the main version was the B. When the D version entered service there were some modifications made to the oil cooler and also featured a more aerodinamic shape, plus a new engine (Jumo 211-J), new propeller, plus extra armor and better defensive armament with the MG 81 Zwilling installed.
The only way to give Stukas higher survability would have been to have a larger number of JGs deployed in France and/or Low Countries for 1944. This, in my view, could have been attained had the Germans heeded my advice (8) ): disband all ZGs by the end of 1943 and most of the KGs -do not launch the futile Steinbock raids in the beginning of 1944!!-, convert the biggest number possible of bomber pilots to fighter pilots and revamp the aviation industry for producing single-engine fighters mainly. Also this would have saved them fuel enough to put the necessary number of single engined fighters in the air.
Agree with you: what changed was lack of fighter cover effectivenes. This is also the reason why i do not see the Stuka becoming obsolete. What happened was this dramatic change that clearly showed the conditions for proper combat deployment of the Stuka had ceased to exist in Western skies.
This, friend, is only point (obsolete) we disagree. I would classify a ship that is much slower than the Fw 190F - practically defenseless against any fighter (Rudel excluded from this description), and not capable of performing it's prime mission in a high threat environment, as obsolete.
Already stated why i would not consider the Stuka obsolete, even if this line of reasoning is sound.
For example, the level bombing carried out by the fleets of B-24s and B-17s was everything but accurate (The claim the Norden bombsight could put bombs into pickle barrels could perhaps be the wildest and boldest marketing statement ever made by any manufacturer in history).
Many times it would take them several missions flown against the same target to effectively destroy it or to at least cause severe damage. When this was happening during the time there were no long range escorts you have to add the horrendous losses the bomber guys were enduring. Could we assume the fleets of B-17s and B-24s were not capable of fully performing their prime task?
I think to circle back to your original point in obsolescence (Ju 87 vs B-17) we might look at whether you think the Stuka could have been as effective in the West as in East, with even 'parity' in air-superiority?
Excellent question there. With parity in air-superiority i am sure the Stuka can be as devastating as one can think. Surely they´d be taking some losses but with the proper presence of German fighters at least i´d expect them to be withing the sustainable range.
I recall reading somewhere of perhaps the rare cases when Stukas (of StG 2) had the chance to effectively dive and scream on U.S. troops in North Africa -Tunisia- in early 1943 flying in an airspace that was highly contested at the time, meaning the Luftwaffe had no air superiority attained, and the effect was devastating on US soldiers.
Say, a one to one ratio of air cover to both the Stuka's and say, attacking fighters...over France
As i said, in this scenario the Stukas have a greater chance to reach their assigned targets and successfully perform their task.
and contrast that with B-17s and B-24s with proportionately fewer escort fighters over Germany from 1 December through May, 1944.
Which scenario has higher loss percentages?
I couldn´t think of an answer to this Bill. As i said with parity in air-superiority the Stukas can reach targets and have them pounded, not without losses for sure. With fewer escorts for the timeframe you suggest i see a number of B-17s and B-24s still reaching their targets, taking losses as well, but here i would digress on the accuracy of bombing methods: level bombing was highly inaccurate while the dive bombing method of the Stukas ensured a greater accuracy.
I should not continue comparing Stukas against B-17s/B-24s. Too different things. But, there is an episode of the war, in Normandy, around St. Lo, where the fleets of heavy bombers were used to attack enemy troops, namely the elements of the powerful Panzer Lehr that was causing serious losses to the advancing U.S. forces. "Operation Cobra" was called. The very first time they attacked enemy troops was ridiculous, not only the Norden bombsight could not put bombs into pickle barrels, they bombed their own soldiers which got killed and wounded by the hundreds, including a Lt. General of the US Army killed by friendly bombs. It took them several days of attacks to effectively hit the enemy forces.
I know this is off-topic for the thread points to tank-killer planes, not that we´d see the B-17s of B-24s deployed in such role, but it was in my view necessary to get this into the discussion in an attempt to counter the notion of the Stuka becoming obsolete.
So, all in all, the bombing method of the Stuka was way more accurate. So if friendly fighters are present in the area in sufficient numbers, even with losses acknowledged due to enemy action, i see the Stukas hitting in a more effective way.
Or taken another way, would same number of Stuka's (assuming it had the range) escorted by same number of Mustangs, suffer same or fewer losses than B-17?
It's pure speculation on my part but I believe that the available Stukas dwindle to zero very quickly against the same Luftwaffe capabilities over Germany in late 1943/early 1944
So, if you had to choose one that must operate on all theatres, Which a/c would you choose for the role of ground support?
Well, it depends Bill...in an airspace where the enemy has a powerful presence of very capable fighters flown by competitive pilots and can not expect a sufficient number of my own fighters flying around, i´d go for the Fw 190 F hands down...but, if, on the contrary, the airspace even if contested, has a strong presence of my own fighters -not to speak of a scenario of complete air-superiority attained by my air force- i do not hesitate: lets dive and scream.
If it is true we had lived other lives before, chances are i was a Stuka pilot, possibly died during the war.
PS - it's snowing today. Yesterday it was nearly 60 degrees F. My wolfhounds hold me in complete contempt when I say 'outside'.
Aha! And i used to think those great wolfhounds had diplomatic immunity within your land (that thing about them assaulting your kitchen to get those juicy steaks!)
Bill, this is very interesting...i was not aware a flight of Stukas got intercepted in Eastern airspace by USAAF fighters. Thanks for the information!
hey what about the p-61 that the Russians used to destroy german armor? Doesn't that deserve mention, despite it's sluggish speed? it had a cannon in the prop.
Bill and Soren and Dan:
Why would you think the RAF/USAAF failed so miserably when performing the ground support role in Normandy?
The fact they had to call B-17s to deal with enemy armored units should be regarded as sufficient argument to counter the allied tales of P-47s, Typhoons and Tempests "wiping out" entire German armored columns.
My idea is that if the fighter-bombers of both RAF/USAAF had indeed been successfully performing their ground attack missions the bizarre idea of calling B-17s would have never been considered.
Adrian - I need top be careful in how I position this argument. First, I am not sure what the criteria was/is for 'success' of the RAF/USAAF or even LW role in ground support.
I am pretty sure the Brits and Americans did not view the Fighter Groups as 'an artilliary barrage' but rather 'point or interdicting fire'. I rather think the Luftwaffe had the same view for the Ju 87 - namely an accurate and deadly system to destroy hard points and armor beyond the range of artilliary fire.
I am happy to be wrong.
But for the sake of argument, I would never believe squadrons of P-47s could pulverize a several square mile area and blugeon trrops (and armor) into submission. Theri highest and best use for me would be in the 'interdicting' role and full time hrassment of supply lines including light armor and trucks, plus the odd Tiger.
If we wish to take this to the extreme, only one US weapon system was Ever designed (effectvely) to destroy armor efficiently - the A-10 'Hog'
Niklas Zetterling´s works not only came to shatter this generally accepted allied versions....he also pointed to the fact losses of planes and pilots endured by both RAF and USAAF during those missions were way higher than losses inflicted on Panzer units.
Adrian - I am looking around to see if anyone in this dialogue is in disagreement - so far, No... lol.
I believe the Jabos true effectiveness was the harrassment of infantry and road and rail traffic - limiting manuever options for the Wermacht. If you have to wait for dark to manuever you have lost a lot of offensive capability. If you HAVE to move in daylight in columns or en masse - you are at great risk in these environments.
You aren't arguing with a passionate defender of the notion that Tempests, Jugs and Typhoons were Tiger Killers.. but I AM a great believer in their role as interdictors and punishers of ground troops. There was a serious reason that the Battle of the Bulge was initiated and fought for 9 days in terrible weather.
I will understand the notion of different doctrines, but how come a military power such as the USA failed to acknowledge and recognize the brutal effectiveness of the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe symbiosis when on the offensive?
Udet,
Here's something interesting about the American use of B-17's for bombing:
Interview with German FallschirmJäger veteran Heinz Puschmann who served at Cassino, Normandy and again in Italy:
"How did you view the Americans compared to the British?
Different; a different style altogether.
In what respect?
Because when the British fought, the same as the New Zealanders – they'd fight even if they didn't have air support. The Americans – if they didn't have air support, they wouldn't go. That was the same at Casino. When I was talking to that New Zealand captain we were saying that when the British planes came over, we ran for cover. When the German planes came over, the British ran for cover but when the American planes came over, everyone ran for cover!! Two thirds up the hill at Casino were Ghurkhas the Ghurkhas were nearly wiped out by the bombing. They missed Clark's (?) headquarters, they bombed so far back. When the British bombers came, they hit their target. It was different altogether.
"