MILAVIA Forum - Military Aviation Discussion Forum

Author Topic: Fleet of Stutkas vs Fleet of Flying Fortresses  (Read 22927 times)

Offline alyster

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Country: ee
Re: Fleet of Stutkas vs Fleet of Flying Fortresses
« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2006, 02:18:27 PM »
Not to mention that the luftwaffe would take out the RAF anyway, allowing ground forces to land. ;-)


Maybe before the Polish campain they didn't think so, but in France they surely started to think so. Op. Sea Lion, in what Luftwaffe will take air superiority, then help the navy to get the agressive side at sea and then finaly alowing troops to invaide England.
Due to the plans in east they didn't have the time to fullfil that plan. When op. Barbarossa started most of the Luftwaffe was transopred to east, only JG2 and JG26 were left to France. That's when the english first got the agressive side in the war. However, the Barbarossa was on top of  "have to do" list, cause russians had their op. Grossa(?) on the planing list which was huge attack against the Reich.


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?


Warsaw's old city was about 99% destroyed by Stutkas.
In England campain Hitler had a phone book or travel quide for England. I don't remember the name anymore, I have to look it up. Anyway, he promisted to take every city which was in there and bomb it to hell. So they did do alot of bombing by that. Cause Luftwaffe couldn't destroy the RAF on the airfields, they tried to demoralise the whole nation by bombing civil targets, like London. Anyway, like I said, it was stoped by upcoming plans in the east.
After Germany attacked Russia, they got in way over their heads. Russians had like 4-5 times more planes, their inustry was away from the front line etc. So doing any strategical bombing there was pointless. When they got into nice range from Moscow then by that time the front line was so wide, that they didn't have enough planes to cover it all and planes were only used where they were needed the most: on the battlefields.
So untill Luftwaffe was the strongest airforce in the world, they used Ju-87 for strategical bombing. When they got too many enemies to fight, they didn't have the time for it anymore.



What about Goose said about the range. Yup, Ju-87 had a problem with range. But range was a problem to all single engine planes at that time. Bf109 had about the same range. If u wanted a 5000km range like the B-17, the u would of had to build a 3 times stronger engine and huge extra feultanks. How will u fit that on Stutka and who would build such a engine? Engine was always the problem for Stutka, even in Spain.
But since Germans wanted to go on using Stutkas, they started to use their "twin engine Stutka" Ju-88. That's how they called it, twin engine Stutka.
 
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes

Offline gman

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Fleet of Stutkas vs Fleet of Flying Fortresses
« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2006, 03:55:53 PM »
I'm new hear, and the topic is old, but I had to say you guys are missing several points.  There was an unstated but real requirement for allied airforces, that being the requirement for COMPLETE air superiority before a landing in Europe could be accomplished.  The Luftwaffe had to be destroyed in combat therefore indiscrimanate bombing was used to force them to fight.  An interesting fact is that B17's and B24's (the real workhorse), shot down and killed more Luftwaffe pilots than the fighters.  When the fighter escorts came along things really went downhill.  In that aspect, the bombing was really secondary.   Secondly, the bombing campaign didn't really get into high gear until they went after the refinerys.

Offline wwj6392

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Fleet of Stutkas vs Fleet of Flying Fortresses
« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2006, 02:04:46 AM »
Different bombers for differnt task. The way the Germans  waged war, blitzkreig, a carpet bomber wouldnt work because it was a rapid offense/ no defense style of war. The americans let the war last longer by building those heavys, but the germans alredy had gun implacements and fighter bombers \couldnt go that far

Offline wwj6392

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Fleet of Stutkas vs Fleet of Flying Fortresses
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2006, 06:32:11 PM »
A Fighter bomber wouldnt last under all that AA fire and fighters. Allies bombers have to go a long way and get hit alot by flak, stukas couldnt handle that! They came in fast, bombed fast, then got their tails out of there. Plus all they were for was to take out defensive posisions and tanks, JU-88's were for taking out cities. One Stuka could take out a Command Post with one bomb where as the B-17 had to use multiple if not tons of bombs to take it out and still could miss it! The stuka are obiously of more important becuase the have alot of uses.

1. Support: Stukas can take out tanks, bunkers, even dug in artillery positions an AA positions.
2.Stratigic: Could take out buildings, command post, even whole cities with relative ease.
3 Morale bombing: Could Massacre civilian populations as seen in Battle of Britian.
4. Mentally: The sirens on the wings scared all soldiers so that infantry, tanks, artillery, etc. were already defeated mentally.

The one thing they lacked was defense they were over-armed with four 20mm guns and under armored.

Offline alyster

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Country: ee
Re: Fleet of Stutkas vs Fleet of Flying Fortresses
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2006, 06:26:13 PM »
10 times the damage. But why do you need such a thing? Unless you want to do something like Bombing of Dresden? That sort of comparison you can make if you want to see which was better B-17 like bomber, Stutka had all other idea. Huge payload? German HQ asked why?


And I wouldn't take the 1943 too seriously neither. There wasn't much to bomb in the west but sea, alot of the Luftwaffe was in the east since '42(in 42 Luftwaffe had 200-300 planes in the west and RAF couldn't do shit!) etc. It was just that Stukas time was bit ealier. Please do remember that planes were needed to cover the vast Eastern front and bomb Stalingrad and Kursk.
What would of RAF done with their B-17s in 1941? Not much more then Germans did with Stutkas in 1943(in west I mean).


wwj6392 has a nice point.
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes

Offline terminator

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 154
  • Country: us
Re: Fleet of Stutkas vs Fleet of Flying Fortresses
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2006, 02:50:27 PM »
i think they are both needed ,like if u want to bomb an entire city=flying fortress ,but if u want acc to destroy single targets=stuka
'711 I shall nerver forget you.......

 



AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com click to vote for MILAVIA