Fleet of Stutkas vs Fleet of Flying Fortresses

[Goose]

The B-17 did a good job of leveling the cities. What I'm basing my opinion on is the effectiveness in the intended role of the aircraft. The Stuka was designed to support the army and modified to destroy tanks. It did this admirably well. The Fort was designed for strategic bombing and it turn out not to be all that great as advertised. Effective none the less, but far from stellar. This is why i think the stuka to be more effective when considered in role.

[RecceJet]

The B-17 did a good job of leveling the cities. What I'm basing my opinion on is the effectiveness in the intended role of the aircraft. The Stuka was designed to support the army and modified to destroy tanks. It did this admirably well. The Fort was designed for strategic bombing and it turn out not to be all that great as advertised. Effective none the less, but far from stellar. This is why i think the stuka to be more effective when considered in role.

That is roughly the point I was trying to convey too. The Stuka was more effective in the sense that it was more accurate in ordnance delivery. The Flying Fortress had a far greater range and payload, but its accuracy at a high altitude did not make it effective for pin-point (WW2-equivalent) accuracy the way the Stuka was effective. For this reason my vote goes to the Ju-87

[alyster]

The Stuka was designed to support the army and modified to destroy tanks. It did this admirably well.

Altough, for us Stutka seems only a good tactical bomber, it was still menth to be used for both: tactical and strategical bombing. And it was used well on both untill allies got enough AA-Guns and fighter power. If u don't belive me, go to Warsaw, Poland and ask someone about their old town, they'll awnser u about Luftwaffe bombers

[Goose]

True the JU-87 was used for strategic purposes but it was not designed for it. The reason it was used as such was because there was nothing else ie no strategic bomber aircraft.

[alyster]

The reson germans didn't have a bomber like B-17, is that they didn't see a need for it. German high comand idea of air war was that dive bombers do the job, all the job. They didn't have a need for any other bombers, cause to their mind it was better if one bomber drops one bomb on one factory then one bomber drops 10 bombs on 1 factory from which 1 will hit only.  That's why their He-177 came in so late. It was supose to be ready in 41, but it acualy got ready in 44?.
That idea was right over Poland, that idea was right over France, but that idea sucked over Britain, cause they didn't have air superiority.

BTW here's one for the B-17. 'B' did the job anytime anywhere, Stutka needed strong cover.

[Goose]

Of course the Stuka needed top cover cause it was designed for short range interdiction sorties for the most. Same reason why an A-10 flight would need top cover. The B need to do the job anywhere anytime cause that is what B is for, and it still hold true today. If it weren't so there would be no more B-1/2/52.
It's not that the Germans didn't see the need for a strategic platform, they did. Then the pioneering Luftwaffe officer who was spear heading the development died or something, can't quite remember what happened. His succesors didn't have the foresight and pushed for an air force tailored to support of the army. Hence the JU-87 and bombers with short legs for interdiction mostly. But we digress, the point is the stuka could more effectively do it's job, hit a point target, than the B-17 could do it's own, hit a strategic target.

[alyster]

One man ,from huge amout of Luftwaffe and German High Comand important dudes, who thinks like american is not Luftwaffe, but a dissident.

I'm not saying you're wrong about that Ju-87 was a good tactical bomber, it was. But Ju-87 was also a strategic weapon as much as tactical for Germans. It was just pulled back from strategic bombing cause it's loses got too high due to it small speed and weak armor.

Edit: There is also a book written about A.Speer from what info US got from him after he was captured in 1945(?). Speer says there that with the success of our campains world talked about Stutka bombers. When your air attacks got stronger, world talked about FFs.
Reading what he had to say about the war, it seems like he did no diference from tactical or strategic bombers. Tactical and strategic bombings ,as actions, he understood the difference, but I think he never understood why should these 2 actions be carried out by 2 different planes.
As long as dive bombers come back 99%, I agree with him. And again, Stutka loses weren't high coz of the diving, but speed and armor.

[Goose]

I don't think the guy was a dissident, I would call him visionary, kinda like Billy Mitchel when he sunk them ole battleships after WWI. Speer and the rest though no distinction between the two because that is what they were inculcated to believe. It's all a doctrin thing and the doctrin lost in this case.

[alyster]

That jews were bad was thing they were made to belive, not the art of war.
Lets not forget that Germans were the ones to build up the best airforce for the begining of the war. Luftwaffe had a totaly different structure, more advanced tactics, better trained pilots etc(5000+ aces by western standars).  So I hardly doupt that the countries political and ideal system had anything to do with not haveing B-17 like bombers.

Then again, don't call Speer a stupid man, who can't think on his own. He was a nazi, but not an idiot. Read Adolf Galland or Guido Knopp or who ever about Speer. Speer was the one who was always thinking clearly and planing the moves 3 turns ahead.

And why can't a dive bomber do strategic bombing? Why do I have to use 10 times more bombs on one factory then I need to use?

[Goose]

Never said dive bombing couldn't be used for strategic bombing. One bomb is always better than 10, hence F-117A being used in what can now be termed theater strategic roles. What I'm trying to get at is that the aircraft was not designed for strategic bombing but was utilised in such a manner. This was limited since the design did not permit such operations for example the short range. A true strategic aircraft at the time could reach well behind the front lines. That was how strategic was defined then, referrence "Planning the Air Campaign" by Col. John A. Warden 3rd.

Apples and Oranges being compared when considered in a general sense.

[Webmaster]

What I'm trying to get at is that the aircraft was not designed for strategic bombing but was utilised in such a manner.

Right, Hitler (and I guess some German generals) thought that England would sign a peace treaty anyway once they had violently taken over all of Europe. So that's maybe one of the reason why the Germans lacked proper strategic bombers, or medium-heavy bombers. Not to mention that the luftwaffe would take out the RAF anyway, allowing ground forces to land. ;-)

But back looking at the Stuka, was it really used that strategical? Okay, taking out radar on the shores of England is strategic bombing...but for the rest of the war? They didn't bomb cities, did they?

[Goose]

I think the rest of the war was spent like the career of the aircraft in support of the army flying anti-tank, CAS and interdiction for example take Stalingrad. Same point I'm making; it's strategic use was limited, say theater strategic ie radar sites taken when in a loose sense of the term 'strategic'. I guess it kinda more like interdiction.