Why was the Ju 87 Built

[Graeme]

I would assume that the Skua DB's would have had special flaps for dive bombing? Would the Barracuda have needed modifications for diving?

The Skua incorporated 'Zap' flaps, you can make them out on the photo I posted on the previous page. They reduced take-off run, helped to steepen the landing approach and act as air brakes during diving attacks.

The Barracuda had large Fairey-Youngman flaps-large adjustable aerofoils attached to the wing trailing edge but below and aft of it; these could be used to increase lift for take off, allow a steeper and slower approach to landing and, allow a rapid rate of descent in a dive, while limiting the airspeed.

More on the history of Britain's attempts at dive bombing types, from 'Bombing 1939-45' (1990)-by Karl Hecks.

 

[Wildcat]

But it was withdrawn from front line service in the ETO and used in secondary roles like target towing and attack training.

Fellas, the Vengeance was never used in combat in the ETO, the RAF obviously considered it unsuitable (and were opposed to the use of dive bombers - as in Graeme's post) therefore shipped them off to the CBI theater of operations, much the same as the Buffalo. So they were never withdrawn from front line service in the ETO, as they never actually made it there in the first place.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

Im sorry I was talking about the Stuka. We were talking past each other.

But it was withdrawn from front line service in the ETO and used in secondary roles like target towing and attack training.

Yeah as stated I was talking about a different aircraft all together.

 

[AL Schlageter]

Yeah as stated I was talking about a different aircraft all together.

The discussion seemed to have drifted off to the Vengeance, so thought you were referring to it.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No some where I lost track of the convo....

 

[Freebird]

The discussion seemed to have drifted off to the Vengeance, so thought you were referring to it.

Yeah that was me that brought it up, the original thread was (a rather uniformed) question about the Stuka, I would have thought most people knew what a great effect it had in the early war. My question was why the British never made good use of such an obvious asset as dive bombers, I didn't know about the Skua used as a DB. Graeme also had the answer about the Vengance, it seems it never succeeded in the ETO because the RAF never even bothered to try!

 

[plan_D]

I don't know if this would be the reason but the Battle of France gave the Fairey Battle a remarkably bad name and should the vulnerability of one-engined bombers in areas without full air superiority. This may have put the British off building single-engined dive-bombers.

You also have the added problem of Bomber Command being a strategic arm - only 2 Group were the tactical side of combat in NW Europe until the 9th Air Force arrived in 1943.

 

[AL Schlageter]

freebird, when did the RAF gain enough air superiority in the ETO for the Vengeance to operate like the Ju87 did in 1939 and early 1940 in the ETO?

The rhubarbs, rodeos, circuses, ramrods, roadsteads into France and the Low Counties cost the RAF dearly in 1941 > 1943 and early 1944. I don't think the Vengeance would have been successful.

 

[drgondog]

freebird, when did the RAF gain enough air superiority in the ETO for the Vengeance to operate like the Ju87 did in 1939 and early 1940 in the ETO?

The rhubarbs, rodeos, circuses, ramrods, roadsteads into France and the Low Counties cost the RAF dearly in 1941 > 1943 and early 1944. I don't think the Vengeance would have been successful.

I believe Al is exactly right. I think air superiority is the crux issue for any a/c that is slow or less capable than the enemy fighters one is liable to engage.

P-47s (and A-36/51s and Spits, etc) were more vulnerable on the deck, particularly in ETO where cloud cover likely to exist in some form or another...and caught unawares by bad tempered guys sneaking up on them with altitude and speed advantage. So, where would a Vengence 'fit'?

Many to most of the 8th AF losses 'greater than 5 lost' in one Group in air to air combat were during Normandy campaign when 4th (twice) and 353rd and 78th Groups, for example, had their eyes and noses on the deck in low level area support.

On June 6, SG103 had to know they were looking at a risky venture trying to get to the beach head with 20+ Ju-87s - and they got hammered near Janville in a 'Stuka shoot'. IIRC none of them got back and the only survivors were the ones that broke for the deck, crash landed, and ran for the trees.

I think another major issue for something like the Vengence and the A-24/SBD is that the Germans had a LOT more 20mm flak as core TO&E. They were bad enough on 47s and 51s and Tempests zipping along at 350 mph on full deflection shots. How much fun do they have on an a/c that has less deflection and keeps getting closer?

From a personal POV, the LW would have been far better off if they had abandoned all future design specs around dive bombing after the Ju-87 and replaced the Ju 87 with Fw 190s and Hs 129s as fast as possible

 

[Freebird]

freebird, when did the RAF gain enough air superiority in the ETO for the Vengeance to operate like the Ju87 did in 1939 and early 1940 in the ETO?

The rhubarbs, rodeos, circuses, ramrods, roadsteads into France and the Low Counties cost the RAF dearly in 1941 > 1943 and early 1944. I don't think the Vengeance would have been successful.

I believe Al is exactly right. I think air superiority is the crux issue for any a/c that is slow or less capable than the enemy fighters one is liable to engage.

Absolutely correct!

P-47s (and A-36/51s and Spits, etc) were more vulnerable on the deck, particularly in ETO where cloud cover likely to exist in some form or another...and caught unawares by bad tempered guys sneaking up on them with altitude and speed advantage. So, where would a Vengence 'fit'?

From a personal POV, the LW would have been far better off if they had abandoned all future design specs around dive bombing after the Ju-87 and replaced the Ju 87 with Fw 190s and Hs 129s as fast as possible

I was thinking more along the lines of anti-ship operations, beyond land based figter cover, either North Sea or in the Med. The RAF FAA had trouble with TB's level bombers getting hits on the German BB's BC's (Bismarck, "Channel Dash" etc) The Vengance had a 950 mile range, so from the Shetlands could cover most of the Iceland/Shetland gap. Operating from Malta south into the Gulf of Tripoli it would be very difficult for the Me 109's to intercept with its limited range.

You are both right about the DB's operating within range of enemy fighters without fighter cover as being almost suicidal though!

 

[Graeme]

You are both right about the DB's operating within range of enemy fighters without fighter cover as being almost suicidal though!

A thought outlined By Francis Mason in his book "The British Bomber" when summing up the Skua...

"It was becoming all too evident that, in spite of fine achievements by Skua crews, the dive bomber was of doubtful value in the face of heavy ground and air defences-a lesson learned by the Luftwaffe about two months later."

Nevertheless the Konigsberg mission was a wonderful achievement for the crews of the Skua and the FAA in general.

Sinking of the Konigsberg

 

[Njaco]

Well, here's a question. Is dive bombing a failed concept based upon WWII actions? Is conventional bombing and ground attack much more effective? Were they other examples of possible successful DBs after the war or was the Stuka the pinnacle of that concept?

 

[Freebird]

A thought outlined By Francis Mason in his book "The British Bomber" when summing up the Skua...

"It was becoming all too evident that, in spite of fine achievements by Skua crews, the dive bomber was of doubtful value in the face of heavy ground and air defences-a lesson learned by the Luftwaffe about two months later."

Sinking of the Konigsberg

I wonder if part of this was the usual British practice of sending attackers without any escort? The Dauntless got the job done against the most modern Japanese fleet AA defence... But of course if their fighter (wildcat) cover had been available it would have made things much easier!

 

[SeaSkua]

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.

This is such a cool pic, I hope you don't mind if I use it?