did the stukas suck so much?

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Post Reply
vazel
Member
Posts: 173
Joined: 05 May 2005, 18:38
Location: n/a

did the stukas suck so much?

#1

Post by vazel » 28 Jun 2005, 08:11

i was reading a thread on another forum about the effectiveness of the stuka. they weren't kind when it came to the effectiveness of the stuka. can we begin a discussion on the effectiveness of the stuka here? i'm not really convinced what i've read on that other forum as it's a pro-soviet communist forum. :|
Last edited by vazel on 07 Jan 2006, 17:37, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Pips
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 09:44
Location: Country NSW, Australia

#2

Post by Pips » 28 Jun 2005, 08:52

The Ju87 was a very effective tactical weapon. And when used as such it was probably the most lethal dive bomber of the war.
- it sank more ships than even the fabled Dauntless SDB.
- it was an integral part of the Blitzkrieg
- it served with distinction in Norway, France, Balkans, the Mediterranean, and all over Russia.
- it remained in front line service throughout the war

British propaganda would have one believe that the Stuka was finished by 1940, when it came up against the mighty RAF. And that the RAF inflicted such great losses on the Stuka formations that it had to be withdrawn from the battle. That wartime propaganda was so effective that that belief is still held today, and yet it is far from the truth.

Only 59 Ju87's were lost over Britain from 2nd July to 19th August. At that time it was withdrawn from the Battle at Kesselring's urging due to the fact that the Battle was entering a period where level bombers would be the main thrust, not dive bombers. he believed the Ju87 units should be held in reserve for when air supremacy was gained and could be used to stike at the RN when Operation Sealion was implemented.

Did the Ju87 units suffer a setback in the BoB? Yes. Did the Battle prove that the Ju87's were of no more use? No. They continued to provide sterling service throughout the war, finally finishing the war in the guise of Nachtschlacht bombers.


User avatar
Kurt_Steiner
Member
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Feb 2004, 14:52
Location: Barcelona, Catalunya

#3

Post by Kurt_Steiner » 28 Jun 2005, 13:08

Just take a look on the Stukas used in the Western Front in an anti-tank role. I guess that the Russian veterans would say that the Stuka sucked -and that without having Rudel flying the plane ;)

Hop
Member
Posts: 571
Joined: 09 Apr 2002, 01:55
Location: United Kingdom

#4

Post by Hop » 28 Jun 2005, 13:48

The JU 87 was withdrawn from combat during the BoB because their losses were too high.
Only 59 Ju87's were lost over Britain from 2nd July to 19th August.
That's a rather high rate, especially considering that the battle proper didn't start until 13th August, prior to that there were only light probing attacks against convoys in the channel.
At that time it was withdrawn from the Battle at Kesselring's urging due to the fact that the Battle was entering a period where level bombers would be the main thrust, not dive bombers.
Not really. The Luftwaffe were attacking RAF airfields at the time, and the Ju 87 was ideally suited to that task, if it wasn't so vulnerable.

The Stukas were withdrawn because losses were too high, and the Luftwaffe hoped to use them again if the invasion went ahead, when air superiority had been achieved.
he believed the Ju87 units should be held in reserve for when air supremacy was gained and could be used to stike at the RN when Operation Sealion was implemented.
When they would suffer lower losses.

The final incident that provoked the withdrawal of the Ju 87 units was the raid on the 18th August. 109 Ju 87s, escorted by over 150 Bf 109s. The Luftwaffe lost 17 Stukas, with more damaged, and 8 109s trying to protect them. The RAF lost 5 fighters, a ratio of 5 to 1.

There'd been similar incidents for the Stukas. Sometimes a raid got in and out with heavy escort without being intercepted, but when they were caught, the results were often disasterous. On the 16th August, 54 Ju 87s attacked Tangmere, a squadron of Hurricanes got past the escort and shot down 9, and damaged another 6.

The Stuka was too vulnerable. It was too slow, didn't have enough armour or defensive weaponry. If it could avoid interception, as it had in Poland and the BoF, then it could be successfull, but against a strong enemy it was simply too vulnerable. The Luftwaffe were forced to provide very heavy escort for their stukas in the BoB, and still suffered unaceptable losses.

Larry D.
Member
Posts: 4103
Joined: 05 Aug 2004, 00:03
Location: Winter Springs, FL (USA)

#5

Post by Larry D. » 28 Jun 2005, 14:44

The Stuka was the Wehrmacht's primary airborne ground support weapon right through to the end of the war im Osten (on the Eastern Front). It was the direct counterpart of the VVS's Il-2 Sturmovik. The problem wasn't the aircraft, but rather that there weren't enough of them. For those who do not read German, there have by now been enought German language works by Werner Haupt, Franz Kurowski, Alex Buchner, Georg Gunter, Gerd Niepold, and by the non-German authors Paul Adair and Steven Newton, to appear in English that provide the testimonial accounts of Stuka operations in the East in the words of German infantry and Panzer-Grenadiers who were pinned down by numerically superior Russian forces and saved by timely close-support Stuka attacks. Stukas were the best friend the German ground-pounder had in Russia. They opened the way through multi-echeloned Russian positions to make possible German advances, and they busted up Soviet tank and infantry concentrations bringing a halt to their attempts to penetrate German positions. When one considers their vulnerability (ungainly, slow, relative lack of manouverability, etc.), their cumulative losses per sorties flown in Russia were surprisingly light.

M.Rausch
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 28 May 2005, 06:15
Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany
Contact:

#6

Post by M.Rausch » 28 Jun 2005, 18:11

Sorry, but the Ju 87 was not withdrawn from the so-called Battle of Britain. That's a very old wrong idea and contradicted by the Ju-87 Geschwader-histories.

When the targets changed from coastal targets to inner-Britain targets, the Ju 87 groups were redirected to attack the coastal merchant ships, since they lacked speed and range. They effectively suppressed any trade with coastal naval vessels on the British SE and S coasts. They continued to do so till spring 1941, longer than the level bomber campaign lasted.

The Ju 87 groups were withdrawn from the frontline in spring 1941 for refreshment, as preparation for the attack on Russia.

The Ju 87 groups gave themselves fighter protection at the Eastern front, when no fighter were available for this task. The Ju 87 was capable to hold its own against so highly-maneuverable fighters like the I-16 or I-153. That's an interesting point regarding the British claims about the "vulnerability" of the Ju 87.

Another interesting British "spotlight" is a report from the British Air Ministry from March 1941, where British pilots were given advices how to attack German planes. Here a citation directly out of the British report for the Ju 87:

"The Ju 87 has been found to be well armoured behind and below the rear gunner so that attacks from directly astern and below are less effective"

So the lack of armor protection seems to be at least partly another old myth. Already the Ju 87 B-1 and B-2 received in 1940 factory built armor upgrade kits, which could be installed or removed in a few hours. The armor protection consisted of 8 mm thick armor plates between gunner and pilot, below, behind and at the sides of the gunner as well as a new gunner cabin with a different MG mounting and armor glass.

Regards, Michael

User avatar
Pips
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 09:44
Location: Country NSW, Australia

#7

Post by Pips » 29 Jun 2005, 08:30

Just to put things in a more realistic view than advanced by Hop, the details of the 16th August raid were as follows:

St.G 2 hit Tangmere at 1300hrs, destroying two hangers and badly damaging three others as well as the workshop, fire hydrants and pumphouse, all of which received direct hits; stores, sick quarters, the officers mess and the command post were partially hit causing severe structual damage, as well as destroying seven Hurricane fighters, six radar-equipped Blenheim fighters of teh Fighter Interception Unit and a Magister trainer on th ground. Forty motor vehicles were also destroyed.

The attack did cost St.G 2 nine Ju87's shot down and a further three damaged, althpough the Stuka's did shoot one Hurricane down, that of P/O Fiske of 601 Squadron.

As can be seen the Stuka's did substantial damage to Tangmere in spite of the losses suffered. The details of the damage is from the RAF's damage report by the Station Enginerering Officer.

As far as losses generraly goes the Ju87 units were active over both Channel convoys and southeast England from July. Losses suffered over the two month period were:
July 14 - 1; July 20 - 2; July 25 - 1; July 27 - 1; July 29 - 4; August 11 - 1; August 12 - 5; August 14 - 4; August 15 - 7; August 16 - 9; August 18 - 14.

In that two month period the Ju87's.....
sank 1 ainti-aircraft ship - the Foylebank
sank 1 destroyer - the Brazen
damaged five destroyers - Beagle, Boadicea, Bulldog, Boreas, Brilliant
forced the Dover Destroyers to be withdrawn
sank 4 small warships - Warrior II, Kingston Galena, Roding, Gulzar
sank 14 merchant ships
damaged 29 merchant ships
forced Channel convoys to be halted during daylight
damaged 7 airfields - Detling, Hawkinge, Lympne, Tangmere, Lee-On-Solent, Ford, Thorney Island
destroyed 49 aircraft on the ground - 22 at Detling, 15 at Tangmere, 12 at Lee-On-Solent
damaged three radar stations (putting them off air for a short period) - Ventnor, Poling, Dover.

Overall during the two month period the Ju87's suffered a 7.9% loss rate - hardly the massive losses the British claimed. And achieved an remarkable amount in that period.

Hop
Member
Posts: 571
Joined: 09 Apr 2002, 01:55
Location: United Kingdom

#8

Post by Hop » 29 Jun 2005, 21:52

The Stuka was undoubtedly an effective bomber, that's what underlines the importance of it's withdrawal so early in the BoB. If the Stuka hadn't been able to hit targets like airfields, or been uneffective in doing so, then that might be an explanation for it's withdrawal.

But it could successfully bomb, when it wasn't intercepted, and it was withdrawn not because there weren't enough targets, but because losses were too high, too many escorts were needed, and the Luftwaffe hoped it could be used later at much lower cost if the RAF was defeated.

Goering's instruction on the 15th August:

"The fighter escort defences of our Stuka formations must be readjusted, as the enemy is concentrating his fighters against our Stuka operations. It appears necessary to allocate three fighter Gruppen to each Stuka Gruppe, one of these fighter Gruppen remains with the Stukas, and dives with them to the attack; the second flies ahead over the target at medium altitude and engages the fighter defences; the third protects the whole attack from above. It will also be necessary to escort Stukas returning from the attack over the Channel."

M.Rausch
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 28 May 2005, 06:15
Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany
Contact:

#9

Post by M.Rausch » 01 Jul 2005, 13:41

Mr. Hop,

it is simply wrong that the Ju 87 Geschwader were withdrawn from the Battle of Britain. Check the unit histories and you will notice that it is simply not true, that they had been withdrawn.

The Ju87 equipped units attacked the coastal sea traffic till spring 1941 without a break, a claim that they had been withdrawn from the battle is completely wrong and without any factual base.

Or do you want to limit the Battle of Britain on the bombing of airfields, factories and cities?

User avatar
Erich
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 00:28
Location: OR

#10

Post by Erich » 01 Jul 2005, 21:27

again I point out in another thread......purchase NSGr 9's "Ghost bombers"

also NSGr 1 and 2 provided enough evening reign of terror in late 44 through till war's end that US P-61 untis were ordered to try and take them out...........and they didn't do a very good job either

Larry D.
Member
Posts: 4103
Joined: 05 Aug 2004, 00:03
Location: Winter Springs, FL (USA)

#11

Post by Larry D. » 01 Jul 2005, 22:30

Herr Rausch -

I think what Mr. Hop meant was "change in mission" rather than withdrawal. The Sturzkampfgeschwader were retained at their bases in northern France and Belgium after August 1940, but they were no longer assigned daylight targets in the coastal counties of southern England. The Achte Fliegerkorps, to which most of the Sturzkampfgeschwader belonged, was to play a key role in supporting Seelöwe until the operation was indefinitely postponed and von Richthofen's Fliegerkorps ordered from France to Romania in January 1941. From September to December, the Sturzkampfgeschwader flew some dawn and dusk attacks on coastal shipping in the Thames Estuary and along the southeast English coast, but mostly they trained and waited for Seelöwe and then their next assignment. The unit histories for St.G. 2 and St.G. 77 bear this out, as does a careful examination of the daily loss reports for all four Geschwader along with scattered ULTRA intercepts and occasional references in the surviving Heer AOK records for northern France and Belgium for fall 1940.

Hop
Member
Posts: 571
Joined: 09 Apr 2002, 01:55
Location: United Kingdom

#12

Post by Hop » 02 Jul 2005, 00:42

Well, I wrote "withdrawn from combat", perhaps I should have been more specific, and said withdrawn from major combat operations during the battle.

But there is no doubt the Stuka was withdrawn from the main focus of the battle, and what little part it did take after that was on the fringes.

Kurfürst
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 01 Apr 2005, 16:04
Location: Hungary
Contact:

#13

Post by Kurfürst » 05 Jul 2005, 14:13

Hop, could you tell us on what exactly you base this statement that Stukas were withdrawn from combat ? Perhaps it`s a similiar 'fact' as the '185 shot down' RAF claims during the battle, or that it suddenly ended in October 1940, despite LW attacks continoued for furhter 7 months? as appearantly it seems that it`s simply a wrong assessment. I think you trust ww2 british propaganda too much, no offense ment.

M.Rausch
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 28 May 2005, 06:15
Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany
Contact:

#14

Post by M.Rausch » 05 Jul 2005, 15:49

Sorry, but the attacks on the channel and coastal shiplines were more often and saw more planes than any level bombing after the night attacks had stopped. In fact these attacks were the only major combat operations, after the night level bombers attacks had stopped.

User avatar
Kurt_Steiner
Member
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Feb 2004, 14:52
Location: Barcelona, Catalunya

#15

Post by Kurt_Steiner » 11 Jul 2005, 18:31

Tim Smith wrote:How good was the Stuka? Well, it's significant that even after the Stuka's early success, none of the Allied air forces (excluding the naval squadrons) introduced a new dive bomber. The Soviets went for the Il-2 and Pe-2, while the Allies relied on fighter-bombers.
Actually, the Allies used a design heavilly influecned by the Stuka, the Vultee Vegeance. Their deficiencies made it being withdrawm from use in Europe in 1942 and was send to less dangerous places like India and Birmania.

Post Reply

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”