Davidicus:
Ok, this laid back boy issues a sincere apology.
Cheddar Cheese and Davidicus, if you re-read what i posted here i did not ever say the Stuka -as a dive bomber- could place its bombload right into the upper hatch of tank moving, say, at 30 km/hr; however, it was very capable to place them real close to the moving targets. That was the task. Close enough to cripple or to cause important damage to tanks moving close to each other; furthermore, the shockwave of the explosion of the bombs could simply knock out the tank crews unconscious.
Say you are the driver of a T-34 and that a Stuka sends its regards from above releasing a 250 kg bomb. Let´s think the bomb does not hit your tank; it rather hits the ground and explodes roughly 30 meters away from you. What could happen to you and your comrades inside?
There i did not mention the cases when the bombs indeed hit the tanks or when they exploded a mere fistful of meters away from it, when you would have a cleanly destroyed tank and/or a killed crew.
Again, if there is a myth on the devastating power of the Stukas it was an allied invention. I see no myths in the world of the Stuka.
25% of its bombs only? Within a radius of 185 feet?
Seems too low. While I do not have any numbers at hand, I am confident it had a higher accuracy rate. Dive bombing was proved to be far more accurate than rather releasing the bombs on an horizontal flight. There is no debate on this.
With dive angles ranging from 60 to 90 degrees, the superb pilots trained for dive bombing, fulfilling their combat orders was not difficult. The opinion of a veteran has it that "when you had finally entered the required angle, the bombload was delivered as if by hand".
You could not make the B-17, B-24 or the Lanc a dive bomber to ensure the rough 7 or 8 tons of bombs carried would all hit the mark.
Dive bombing implied the aircraft designed for such role would be either small or medium size. The bombload was of course smaller than those of the four engine bombers.
That is certainly one of the reasons they made a plane for the sole specific role of dive bombing: to ensure the limited bombload would hit the mark on far higher rate.
What would then be the purpose of dive bombers?
You must understand the Stuka was developed for that very specific role, and later on was adapted for tank busting fitted with more powerful cannons. (There i can assure you it was more accurate than the rocket armed typhoons).
The Panzers and the Stukas made a symbiosis. With its rough non retractable undercarriage, the Stuka could keep up with the fast advance of armored columns and it could land on terrains where most planes would have perished, to be immediately refueled and rearmed and to get back in the air for another scream.
As I have said on this thread, the conditions for proper usage of the Stuka had ceased to exist by 1944 in the west. The Germans were not fools and ceased to deploy it in the west where a very numerous and capable enemy was being engaged.
The eastern front still offered some conditions for the Stuka and it was there where it saw service until the end: why? The enemy in the air, if as well numerous, was one of a lower quality.
That the soviets made good fighters by the end is true; what they never had in significant numbers was the properly trained pilots to get the very best out of them.
Actually losses of Stukas in the east were due more to AA/ground fire than to interceptors.