Historic Aviation > Warbirds

Fleet of Stutkas vs Fleet of Flying Fortresses

<< < (2/6) > >>

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  :P
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  :P 

alyster:
About the bananas....I like mix juice

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

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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page