Fleet of Stutkas vs Fleet of Flying Fortresses

[alyster]

Durning the WW2 German most famous bomber was Ju-87 Stutka(and most of their bomber fleet used similar dive bombing). Usually the bombers were small, light weight, carring small payloads, but bretty accurate.
Their oponents from west used totaly difrent aproach on bombing. Huge bombers, flying high and droping bombs bretty randomly somewhere above the target. (Planes like B-17, Lancester).
Now both of them had similar task: destroy the enemy country from air(germans in battle of Britain, allies in 1943-44).  What do you guys think, which fleet was better for this sort of task? Or did both made the right pick?


***
Just wanted to add, that allies damage from the air in 1943-44 wasn't that big as many would like it to be. German factories were able to build as many new machinery as needed, but germans just didn't have the feul to use them.

[alyster]

BTW, does any bomber still use diving to bomb nowdays or do they all use the smart bombs now?

[RecceJet]

General Purpose (GP) bombs do not have guidance, so they are not smart bombs. They still get the most accuracy if they are released in a dive, though it won't be a vertical dive!

As for your previous question, I think the Ju-87 had the potential to be a far more effective bomber if it had the necessary fighter escorts. It was poorly defended, and therefore it was only really useful early in the war against countries with poorly equiped airforces. It was more accurate, so it needed fewer sorties to meet mission objectives. The Allied bombers mentioned above flew very high and in great numbers, but even so their accuracy was shockingly poor and very few bombs actually hit their targets. They didn't go out of their way to avoid collateral damage in those days as we do now

[alyster]

Yup, but if talking about Ju-87 itself, then not only limeted fighter escort wasn't the problem, but also the AA guns. France, Poland and Russia just didn't have enough of them, which was the resons Stutka loses weren't so high there, but got higher in Battle of Britan. But the German Flak88  guns weren't so efective against US bombers.
But Stutka had another good side. When going into the dive, it made an awful noise. Frenchmen basicly shit their pants at the time of Blitzkrieg when Stutka went into a dive.   - how could they still wanna be a world power?

[RecceJet]

apples and oranges. You cannot compare a Junkers Ju-87 Stuka to a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, they are totally different airframes. The only real thing they had in common was that they flew and dropped bombs. Their uses were too different from each other to select a winner.

[alyster]

Basicly they are the same: tools that were menth to kill the enemy from air, what makes it fun to compare is that they are so different 
And I don't want to compare themselfs 1on1, but more of their job's results.

[Webmaster]

I think the big difference between them is:

The Ju-87 Stuka was good, because of the tactics, not the aircraft design 

The B-17 FF was good, because of its design, not of the tactics (day bombing over Germany..ouch  )

[alyster]

lol, nice way of putting it 

So, if Luftwaffe would of flown with US planes, then we would of had some real good airforce there?

[Webmaster]

No, although it sounds easy the way I put it, there is actually some more thinking behind it. You can't use a B-17 like a Stuka, so your conclusion doesn't make sense.

The Stuka was very effective the way it was used for pin-point attacks, it was accurate not because of the aircraft design or systems, but because of the dive bombing. It didn't have the range, power, speed or weapons to make it that big of a deal. German pre-war aircraft designs for combat aircraft were poor, and the Stuka was one of the designs from that time.

The B-17 had power, range, robust design. Okay not all perfect maybe. But losses would be less if not deployed at day time over Germany.

For the Stuka, the tactics were designed for the plane.
For the B-17, the plane was designed for the tactics. 

Anyway, it's like comparing apples and uhm...bananas   

[alyster]

About the bananas....I like mix juice

Anyway, I didn't mean to but the B-17 into a dive  tough it would of been fun death drive 

Anyway, nvm what I menth, it never hapened so no meaning of thinking about it.

[Goose]

I voted u-87 cause it acomplished it's intended role. The B-17 did also but to a lesser extent. I'm talkin accuracy here mostly. The 17 wasn't that great the way it was used, high level carpet daylight bombing. The Stuka was effective in it's intended dive bombing role. All this is neglecting air opposition.

[alyster]

Bombing of Hamburg, a city destroied, bombing over Tokyo and Yokohama, which caused about 50% damge to the area. Well, the last 2 were done by B-29, but still the plane is very similar. Stuka could of never done such a stuff.

But also one thing that Luftwaffe was thinking about between Spanish civil war and WW2, was that how much bombs B-17 like bombers need and how litle Ju-87 needs. Third Reich would of been out of resources by the end 1943, if they would of had B-17.