Why was the Ju 87 Built

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Because it was actually a damn good Dive Bomber.

Like any Dive Bomber it relied on aerial superiority, however the aircraft itself was actually very rugged and a very accurate dive bomber and later a great tank killer.
Click to expand...


???Better than the British "Vultee Vengance"? LOL

The Ju87 was the best in the war, in terms of effectivness widespread use.
 
great and formidable airplane, no questions. But it worked only as a part of the whole Blitzkrieg machine - if something went wrong, like the lackness of the (local) air superiority ,it couldn't be deployed with any significant effectiveness
 
I've often felt the Douglass Dauntless SBD represented the best balance of offensive and defensive characteristics of the early dive bombers. The D3A seemed to share similar offensive attributes to the Stuka in terms of it's primary job (bombing targets) but like the Stuka also proved very vulnerable to enemy fighters and required healthy escorts.

The Stuka though, appears to hold the crown for best platform for actually attacking but balanced against it was the dangerous vulnerability to enemy fighters and the difficulty escorting it. (at least over Britian)

Initially the problem repeated itself vs. the WDAF in North Africa and there were several "Stuka parties" where heavy losses were suffered. Later escorted raids appear to have done much better, the 109's seeming to get a better handle on deflecting enemy fighter attacks.
 
Wildcat said:
Hey don't be laughing at the Vengeance! Didn't see as much action as the Stuka, but was still a fine dive bomber.
Click to expand...

Was it actually used much as a dive bomber? I read that most were used as level bombers or for target towing? How did it perform for the Aus AF? I've always wondered why Britain never made much use of Dive bombers, considering the success of German, US Japanese DB's.
 
freebird said:
Was it actually used much as a dive bomber? I read that most were used as level bombers or for target towing.
Click to expand...

It sure was, it was very effective in Burma with the RAF and Indian Air Force and with the RAAF in New Guinea.

freebird said:
How did it perform for the Aus AF? I've always wondered why Britain never made much use of Dive bombers, considering the success of German, US Japanese DB's.
Click to expand...

It did preform well with the RAAF in New Guinea and I've read nothing but praise from the crews that flew them. The fact that they only had a small operational tour in New Guinea seems to convince many that they didn't perform well there, however it should be noted that it was Gen Kenney of the US 5th AF that ordered their withdrawl from New Guinea, much to the surprise of the RAAF. This was done to make room on already congested airfields for more squadrons of P38's. The fact that other a/c, notably P40's, could and were, performing the same duties but without the need for fighter cover and the fact that they could fight their way to and from the target, spelt the end of the Vengeance in New Guinea.
However from my own research I can't find a single RAAF vengeance being shot down by enemy a/c, in fact the worst single defeat they suffered was on the 24th of Feb 1944 when 2 a/c from 23 sqn RAAF (from a total of 23 dive bombers) were shot down over Hansa Bay for the loss of all 4 airmen (one crew being captured and executed). The target that day was infact the heavy AA guns located there.
24 sqn RAAF is notable in the fact that for a full six month tour of dive bombing operations in New Britain and New Guinea they did not lose a single a/c to enemy action of any kind. Not bad for a so called "dud".
 
freebird said:
I've always wondered why Britain never made much use of Dive bombers, considering the success of German, US Japanese DB's.
Click to expand...

The FAA had some success with dive-bombers throughout the war. The Skua springs to mind, and the Fairey Barracuda was also designed for the task.



Supermarine carried on with the tradition with their Type 322 (Dumbo) but no production ensued.

 

The Vengences suffered one of the lowest operational loss records in Burma/India as well. This was aided though by the fact that not one of these bombers was ever intercepted by Japanese fighters thus none were ever shot down in A2A combat there. Shores (Bloody Shambles III) commented though the plane's record probably owed more to the scarcity of opposition vs. any inherent element of the Vengence's design.

Still....i've never read anything "bad" about the plane so it seems a solid design. The RAF just weren't all that infatuated with the type and there was alot of resistance to it's being employed in it's designed role.
 
Graeme said:
The FAA had some success with dive-bombers throughout the war. The Skua springs to mind, and the Fairey Barracuda was also designed for the task.
Click to expand...

Were they not both used as torpedo bombers though? I've never heard of engagements where they were used as dive bombers, do you know of any? (I'm not disagreeing with you, I just hadn't heard that they could dive-bomb)
 
The Junkers Ju 87 or Stuka as it became universally known (from Sturzkampfflugzeug or German: dive bomber - literally plunging combat aircraft) was a German combat aircraft operational from 1937 and throughout World War II, and easily recognisable by its inverted gull wings, fixed undercarriage and its infamous Jericho-Trompete (Jericho Trumpet) wailing siren — though the siren was only fitted to a few aircraft because of the extra drag induced on the rather slow aircraftThe Stuka's design included some innovative features, including automatic pull-up dive brakes under both wings to ensure that the plane recovered from its attack dive even if the pilot blacked out from the high acceleration, and a wind-powered siren under its nose (later mounted to the front upper section of each fixed landing gear strut) that wailed during dives to frighten its victims. These were named Jericho-Trompeten, or "Trumpets of Jericho", by Junkers and were a form of psychological warfare. Its rugged fixed undercarriage allowed it to land and take-off from improvised airstrips close to the battlefront, giving close support to the advancing German forces. 5,752 Ju 87 of all versions were built between 1936 and August 1944.

Although sturdy, accurate, and very effective, the Stuka suffered from low speed and poor maneuverability, with little defensive armament, making it highly vulnerable to enemy fighters. The Germans learned during the Battle of Britain that air superiority must be obtained before ground attack aircraft could be effectively used. After the Battle of Britain, the Stuka was little used in Western Europe, but it remained effective further south where Allied fighters were in short supply, most notably in the battles of Crete, Malta and Leros.

Stukas were used in vast numbers on the Eastern Front, although the steady rise in Soviet airpower as the war progressed meant that Stuka squadrons suffered very heavy losses by the final stages of the war.

Hans-Ulrich Rudel was the most notable Stuka ace, and the most highly decorated German soldier of World War II. (Hermann Goering was awarded the Großkreuz des eisernen Kreuzes, but not for achievements in battle.)
 
Agreed. One can only assume that the servivabilitly of the vengeance in enemy dominated skies would have been a much different story altogether. However this shouldn't detract from the fact that the Vengeance was employed quite successfully in operations over harsh jungle terrain and through tough enemy AA defences.

Nikademus said:
Still....i've never read anything "bad" about the plane so it seems a solid design. The RAF just weren't all that infatuated with the type and there was alot of resistance to it's being employed in it's designed role.
Click to expand...
I find that most referances refer to the vengeance as being a poor a/c, however I also agree that it was a solid a/c and a good dive bombing platform. Although it did suffer from a few technical glitches, these seem to have been rectified and can't find any evidence that these impeded the vengeance from carrying out its designed role of dive bombing. In fact I have word from an ex RAAF Nav/Air gunner that they considered it a great aircraft.
 

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
It was never withdrawn completely as people say.
Click to expand...

Yes Chris, I realize that it was used in Burma, PTO etc.

I'm just curious if the British made much use of dive bombers in the ETO, I don't know much about Skua Barracuda used as Db's, does anyone know more?

It seems that an effective dive bomber was needed, as TB's would not be as effective against Battleships, the Bismark took a direct torpedo hit on the hull with little effect, luckily (for the Brits!) they got a fluke rudder hit with the second Swordfish.
 
Skuas were responsible for the destruction of the Konigsberg (by dive bombing). The 'hit map' below and text are from Ian Cameron's 'Wings of the Morning' (1962)-certainly one of the best accounts on the exploits of the Fleet Air Arm.




Both the Barracuda and the Albacore were 'capable' of dive bombing, but as you pointed out on the previous page, I doubt that they were used in this capacity.
 
Wow! Thanks for the great info Graeme! What might have been.... I would assume that the Skua DB's would have had special flaps for dive bombing? Would the Barracuda have needed modifications for diving?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why was it?
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
nuuumannn
N
How capable was the Ki-44?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
11K
Irregualr23
I
A
Why sleeve valves on the RR Eagle?
Replies
3
Views
1K
HP52
H
A
Why did British aircraft production stagnate a bit during the war?
Replies
18
Views
3K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Lockheed Ventura - Why didn't the RAF rate it?
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register