MILAVIA Forum
Historic Aviation => Warbirds => Topic started by: alyster on November 15, 2005, 03:14:21 PM
-
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.
-
BTW, does any bomber still use diving to bomb nowdays or do they all use the smart bombs now?
-
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! :P
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 :-\
-
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.:-X - how could they still wanna be a world power?:-[
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ::) )
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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