The ETO's finest single engined ground attack aircraft

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

geez man how many times do I have to post it..... ?

you obviously want a very detailed explanation. nearly all of you have said a fighter going over to the ground attack role. The Ju 87D's were destined to be front line ground attack units with SG units until some replacement by Fw 190F's. The Ju 87's fitted with a montage of bombs, anti-personell bomblets and the D-5 armed with two 2cm firing M and AP{ rounds enough to do quite a bit of heavy damge to any existing MT column west or ost front. the Ju 87D-3 and D-5 had the proven record. although an old design with revmaped wing and engine it stills erved a needed purpose and was not the easiest thing to to takae down especially in the night roles. Something the Tiffy and Jug were not suited for.....

Klar ? maybe not.........
 


Are you sure you're not responding to a thread about which single engined aircraft would make the best mail delivery plane?
 
he has a point thouhgh, combat record and how it matched up to it's contemparies has a large part to play in deciding the "finest"...........
 
The Topic was:

Which country fielded the best single engined ground attack plane* (that saw at least 6 months of significant combat before the end of the war) and what was that plane?

*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder.

 
your on drugs right ?

what isn't clear to you in my statements.... ? Your favourite runs from Normandie onward while mine is from the spring of 1943 till wars end with a farther reaching track record, offering it's services on boths sides of the conflict, west and ost. many more missions than the jug and the tiffy until the Stuka was run into the ground and left off the tarmac or grass strip rotting. The allied fighter bombers never flew at night but the Stuka Ju 87D's did whcih is another plus going for it...............

and this is hard to understand....geez man
 
Erich is very correct, making a more straight approach to the matter.

Stukas have a record that to a very important extent is PROVED in the ground attack role.

It appears to me some of you do not give any weight to my comments on this thread regarding the failure of the RAF and USAAF fighter squadrons deployed as ground attack planes to destroy German panzer and mechanized columns over Normandy.

You also discard my comment allied pilots over Normandy went mad filing claims of alleged destroyed panzers due to their rockets and bombs. Panzers did not even exist in the German OB for that particular campaign.

You rather resorted to chitchatting/chin-wagging and other silly remarkings.

You asked for a source and i gave it: NIKLAS ZETTERLING, which happens to be a noted researcher, but it seems you did not even bother to consult any books, nor to conduct a web search -i was told some of Mr. Zetterling´s articles on Normandy are available on the net, something i do not know for i hate PC reading-.

Other than the big delays, or even the non-arrival of some German units to the frontlines, the RAF and USAAF planes failed while the Stuka, in the east, proved to be a far more efficient and accurate platform to hit enemy armor.
 
Let's try one more time.

The Topic was:

Which country fielded the best single engined ground attack plane* (that saw at least 6 months of significant combat before the end of the war) and what was that plane?

*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder.
----------

The topic is not interested in which aircraft gave more significant service as a result of a "farther reaching track record" or by whether an aircraft flew "many more missions than the jug and the tiffy."

Why and under what circumstances would a Stuka be a better ground pounder than a P-47? I understand trhat the Stuka's record was quite exaggerated as well. Especially against the Russians. It did not have pinpoint accuracy as a dive bomber. That's a myth. Additionally, we are not just talking about killing tanks.

Let's say you are a commander. You want to inflict the greatest amount of damage on enemy troops, vehicles, armor and fortified positions for supplies. You can choose waves of attacks by equal numbers of either Stukas or Thunderbolts. You would choose Stukas?

Alternatively, if you were an enemy commander wishing to advance your troops, vehicles, armor and supplies, would you rather be harassed by Stukas or Thunderbolts?

To quote a noted member of this forum, "and this is hard to understand....geez man"
 
no now you're talking which is the best, as in the original question, however in the threat title you are asking for the finest, it's one or the other as there are differnces between the best and finest..............
 
Huh? The first post clearly explained and clarified the question. The title is just that, a catchy title. The best. The finest. The most excellent. The very most fabulous. The most awesome.
 
I cite:

"but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder."

Best ground pounder? The Stuka.

It did not only gained at least 6 months of siginificant combat, but the whole 6 years of the war.

Putting the "ground puonding" issue aside for one moment: You doubt the accuracy of the Stukas? A myth? Devote then some of your time to consult the records of the Royal Navy and ask them for their opinion of Stuka diving on their vessels, especially in the mediterranean.

The Thunderbolt and the Typhoon, fitted with bombs, attacking naval targets would have made an interesting view.

Back to ground attack, I can assure you the Stuka destroyed BY FAR, more enemy war material (tanks, artillery, communication lines, etc.) than the Typhoon or the Jug ever came close to achieve.

Myths? I can assure you the allied guys have the most prolific of the mythologies. It is the kind of mythology that has dragged you down.

You have not read that much on the eastern front to verify the destructive capabilities of the Stuka, and that is a major issue.

If you ever get to read more on the subject you might learn the Stukas delivered hell from above to the massive infantry and tank armies of the soviet union, and that Stuka support was essential for the striking victories of the Wehrmacht in the east.

The Typhoons and Jugs over Normandy did not came anywhere close, EVER, to achieve what the Stukas did in the east. If you have any reasonable doubts on this, please ask further.

About your silly remarks on Erich, I can assure you his words are his words and you can expect quite an impact from them.
 
Yeah, it's really hard to hit a ship when you're dive bombing. That proves its accuracy Try hitting the area covered by a tank.

"The Thunderbolt and the Typhoon, fitted with bombs, attacking naval targets would have made an interesting view."

I imagine that the Typhoon and Thunderbolt would have done just fine. Especially with rockets.

"I can assure you the Stuka destroyed BY FAR, more enemy war material (tanks, artillery, communication lines, etc.) than the Typhoon or the Jug ever came close to achieve."

There you go anchoring your assertions in the irrelevant again. Please note (*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder.)

Why don't you just answer the question I posed because it gets to the heart of the matter without resort to historical significance and the like:

Let's say you are a commander. You want to inflict the greatest amount of damage on enemy troops, vehicles, armor and fortified positions for supplies. You can choose waves of attacks by equal numbers of either Stukas or Thunderbolts. You would choose Stukas?

Alternatively, if you were an enemy commander wishing to advance your troops, vehicles, armor and supplies, would you rather be harassed by Stukas or Thunderbolts?
 
That's another thing. Try using the vaunted Stuka in an enviroment of less than complete and absolute air superiority.

It's also a big, slow target with a liquid cooled engine. Try using it in a environment with even moderate ground to air defenses.
 
Bronzewhaler82 (An old member of the site) said it best about the Stuka:

"The Stuka was a fabulous aircraft, unless one of the following was in the area:
1) Enemy Fighters.
2) Anti Aircraft Fire.
3) A Foot Soldier with a Rifle.
4) A General with a Handgun.
5) A Child with a Peashooter.
6) An Old Man on the street with a Dirty Look on his Face."


 
re-read my post. I said D-5 not a Bvariant. In any case any thunderbolt or tiffy in an area of non air superiority may give a better acct of itself in the fighter role than a stuka although the Stukas did shoot down some fighters. Again I point out the fighter bombers and not ground attack a/c that you so dearly love were designednot for attacking ground targets primarily. the Stuka varinats were. you mention that the Ost front stukas were not so successful .........eh ? you have the Freiburg archival records of the SG to prove that correct ?

I have friends in the JUg 9th AF fighter groups with all sorts of wild claims that they made agasint GErman Panzer formations in Normandie......you can easily get my drift and I think we have covered all of this quite well as to the actual effectiveness of the Allies in knocking out German armor there.............bah !

I do not wish to get into an heated argument but in the ETO the Stuka D-7 was wildly used agasint US and Bristish ground targets with much success. The D-7 was armored......ooooooooooh surprise had excellent amrs with the 2cm and the effective rounds to tear most anything up and I realize the jug and the tiffy did as well agasint MT............I can alos plainly see we aren't going to agree for debates sake either....
 
"There you go anchoring your assertions in the irrelevant again. Please note (*This question is not of which aircraft had the most significant impact on the war but of which aircraft that saw at least 6 months of significant combat was the hands down best ground pounder.)"

Bronzewhaler82 (An old member of the site) said it best about the Stuka:

"The Stuka was a fabulous aircraft, unless one of the following was in the area:
1) Enemy Fighters.
2) Anti Aircraft Fire.
3) A Foot Soldier with a Rifle.
4) A General with a Handgun.
5) A Child with a Peashooter.
6) An Old Man on the street with a Dirty Look on his Face."


Aren´t these two quotes worth the inscription on a golden plate?

You really need some WW2 lessons. You ought to read more. I mean it, alllied propaganda stuffed individuals are boring.

You shouldn´t apply for playing a game you do not know how to play.

Read and research more; don´t come back to me until you are a bit more prepared to do so. So far your knowledge, if any, is wanting.

I have no further use of these guys.
 
Speaking of Golden Plate inscriptions:

You shouldn´t apply for playing a game you do not know how to play.

Read and research more; don´t come back to me until you are a bit more prepared to do so. So far your knowledge, if any, is wanting.

What a condescending ass.

By the later stages of the war, the Stuka was obsolete. By all means, please educate us all and answer the following:

Let's say you are a commander. You want to inflict the greatest amount of damage on enemy troops, vehicles, armor and fortified positions for supplies. You can choose waves of attacks by equal numbers of either Stukas or Thunderbolts. Which do you choose and why?

Alternatively, if you were an enemy commander wishing to advance your troops, vehicles, armor and supplies, would you rather be harassed by Stukas or Thunderbolts?

On another note, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your earlier claim that, "Furthermore, it would surprise you to know, it was the aerial attackers who took the biggest casualies, when they were greeted by flak batteries and ground fire from panzergrenadieren of the panzer divisions across Normandy. So instead of panzers, more Allied ground attack planes died during such attacks."

You still haven't explained how it is that you know that more allied fighter-bombers than tanks got the short end of the stick in attacks by those aircraft on German armor. And here's a hint of logic for you. Merely proving that not many German tanks were taken out by allied airpower does not prove your assertion. You do see that don't you?
 
Here's something of interest.

From Antony Beevor, "The Spanish Civil War" (New York: Peter Bedrick Books, 1982) at page 22.

The Luftwaffe training wing, the Lehrgeschwader, conducted extensive high-altitude bombing exercises at Greifswald with disappointing results. Bombing from an altitude of 13,000 feet, experienced crews with no opposing ground fire in He111 and Do17 level bombers placed only 2 percent of their bombs inside a circle with radius of 330 feet. At 6,500 feet, their average increased to between 12-25 percent. The Ju87 dive bomber proceeded to put 25 percent of its bombs in a circle with a radius of only 185 feet.

That's quite accurate. Plenty accurate to get tank crews to abandon their vehicles. When used as the spearhead of an armored assualt, one can see how easily an enemy's armor could be shocked into paralysis making them easy kills for advancing German tanks.

As a defensive tool, an enemy armor advance can be similarly broken up and disoriented.

The above data was most certainly not obtained with a D-5. On the D-5 variant, the dive brakes were deleted since it was used almost exclusively in the schlacht role. It often flew at night only because it was such easy prey for air to air as well as ground to air threats.
 
David, the D-5 as with all Ju 87's was a slow bird but during late 43 till wars end during day ops the SG units provided high cover with Fw 190A's and F's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Could a single engined, single seat fighter be made for the Lycomings xr-7755?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GrauGeist
A
Heaviest armed Japanese single seat, single engine fighter?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
MIflyer
M
1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
8K
Admiral Beez
A
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
yulzari
"Super" A-36 for CAS/ground attack and tactical recon.
Replies
14
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register