Stuka Bombing

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 05 Mar 2005 13:45

Was Stuka a copy of the British Supermarine 224 model ?

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitmich.htm

Image

User avatar
Kurt_Steiner
Member
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Feb 2004 13:52
Location: Barcelona, Catalunya

Post by Kurt_Steiner » 05 Mar 2005 13:56

I dunno, but it looks quite similar to the Blohm und Voss HA 137, IMHO.

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/blohm-voss/bv137.htm

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 05 Mar 2005 14:13

It must be sign of the times that gullwing.

Image

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Question.

Post by Paul Lakowski » 11 Mar 2005 01:44

If you took a basic Ju-87 and plunked in a more powerful engine [say the 1750HP] with out increasing the base weight and armor etc , how much of a speed increase could you expect?

brustcan
Member
Posts: 276
Joined: 30 Mar 2004 04:38
Location: canada

Post by brustcan » 11 Mar 2005 21:15

Huck wrote:
Let's look again at Luftwafffe's bomber losses during BoB:

May-September

Bombers: strength - 1700 / losses to all causes - 1142/ procent of losses from strength - 67%
Dive Bombers: strength - 420 / losses to all causes - 210 / procent of losses from strength - 50%
Hello! The Battle of Britain Started in July and ended on October 31, 1940.
The real bomber losses were:
July: 76 lost to enemy action, 17 on operations, 20 on non-operations
Aug:183 lost to enemy action, 45 on operations, 31 on non-operations
Sept.165 lost to enemy actions, 65 on operations, 19 on non operations
Oct. 64 lost to enemy actions, 78 on operations, 29 on non-operations.

[/quote]
While heavy, the losses Luftwaffe had during BoB were sustainable. Luftwaffe suspended the daylight campaign simply because the invasion was postponed indefinitely, not because of the losses.[/quote]

At the end of September, the Luftwaffe could see no decrease in Fighter
Command, and with the loss rate of the past three months, which the Luftwaffe was unable to sustain, daylight operations were stopped.

[/quote]
Now, about Stuka. As you can see the losses are about the same with the other types of bombers.[/quote]

They were not the same, since the number of Ju-87s was very small, compared to the other Luftwaffe bombers. On Sept. 2, 1939 the Luftwaffe had only 366 Ju-87s. At the start of the Battle of Britain, the number stood at 316. During the month of July, 12 were shot down by enemy action, 4 lost on operations, and 5 more to non-operations. On August 18th, 25 Ju-87s took off for a operation over England, with 14 Ju-87 being shot down. That was the end of Stuka operations, and the plane with withdrawn. August losses were 47 shot down due to enemy action, 4 lost on operations, and 7 to non-operations. In this short period of time the losses were almost 40% of all the Stukas available. Luftwaffe officers considered the Ju-87 OBSOLETE, because of it's low speed, short range, and vulerabilty, and production was to cease in 1939(only 134 produced). Because of it's performance in Poland, Goering had production increased and 611 were built in 1940. Production was reduced in 1941, when the expected replacement dive bomber, the Ju-187 was to start production. When this didn't happen, the Luftwaffe was forced to increase production of the Ju-87 again. During the summer of 1943 Stuka Geschwaders 1-2-3-77 started converting to the FW-190F and by the summer of 1944, only Rudel's III/STG2 and two anti-tank squadrons 10(PZ)SG3 and (PZ)SG77 flew stukas in the daylight. Cheers
brustcan

User avatar
Warlordimi
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: 14 Dec 2004 12:50
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Re: Question.

Post by Warlordimi » 12 Mar 2005 11:46

Paul Lakowski wrote:If you took a basic Ju-87 and plunked in a more powerful engine [say the 1750HP] with out increasing the base weight and armor etc , how much of a speed increase could you expect?
The late Stukas such as D5 were already fitted with the more powerful Jumo211P delivering 1500HP. On the project Ju187-287, the motor was supposed to be a Jumo213 delivering 1700HP. Wind tunnel tests proved that event with this new engine, the plane wasn't capable of reaching the 450 km/h needed!

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Question.

Post by Paul Lakowski » 12 Mar 2005 17:21

Warlordimi wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:If you took a basic Ju-87 and plunked in a more powerful engine [say the 1750HP] with out increasing the base weight and armor etc , how much of a speed increase could you expect?
The late Stukas such as D5 were already fitted with the more powerful Jumo211P delivering 1500HP. On the project Ju187-287, the motor was supposed to be a Jumo213 delivering 1700HP. Wind tunnel tests proved that event with this new engine, the plane wasn't capable of reaching the 450 km/h needed!
Yes but those planes exploited the increased power with increased armor. What about the earlier models without the weight increase?

User avatar
Warlordimi
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: 14 Dec 2004 12:50
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Post by Warlordimi » 16 Mar 2005 09:44

I do not think that the plane could be a lot faster. With it's fiwed undercarriage, it was meant to be a flying brake, steady in a dive, and not getting speed tickets. :wink:

brustcan
Member
Posts: 276
Joined: 30 Mar 2004 04:38
Location: canada

Post by brustcan » 18 Mar 2005 06:25

Topspeed wrote:Was Stuka a copy of the British Supermarine 224 model ?
Hello!
The "bent wing" was very popular, since this allowed , shorter under carriage legs, and still gave enough clearance for the propeller. All aircraft involved in the "Stuka" competition had the wings this way:Ju-87, Ha- 137, He-118, and even the Arado 81 Bi-plane(lower wing). Another example: the United States F4U Corsair. When the Heinkel-70 aircraft came out, it became a real trend setting airplane. The wing was slightly bent, and elliptical. In 1935 Rolls-Royce purchased a He-70(G-ADZF). It was this aircraft the Mitchell saw when he designed the Spitfire prototype, and used the gracefull elliptical wing. Cheers brustcan.

User avatar
Karl234
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: 25 Dec 2004 14:43
Location: Germany

Post by Karl234 » 25 Mar 2005 03:41

brustcan wrote:
Topspeed wrote:Was Stuka a copy of the British Supermarine 224 model ?
Hello!
The "bent wing" was very popular, since this allowed , shorter under carriage legs, and still gave enough clearance for the propeller. All aircraft involved in the "Stuka" competition had the wings this way:Ju-87, Ha- 137, He-118, and even the Arado 81 Bi-plane(lower wing). Another example: the United States F4U Corsair. When the Heinkel-70 aircraft came out, it became a real trend setting airplane. The wing was slightly bent, and elliptical. In 1935 Rolls-Royce purchased a He-70(G-ADZF). It was this aircraft the Mitchell saw when he designed the Spitfire prototype, and used the gracefull elliptical wing. Cheers brustcan.
Ju 87 Stuka was copy of Curtiss Hawk, Udet bought 2 in US before war....

From the looking P-51 Mustang can also be a copy of Me 109 and Thunderbolt a copy from FW 190.

User avatar
Panzerkampfwagen
Member
Posts: 221
Joined: 23 Dec 2010 14:43

Stuka as a tank buster

Post by Panzerkampfwagen » 27 Mar 2011 15:23

As far as i know , the Stukas dropped bombs over tanks and knocked them out. This information is standard and true, i believe. However, i was reading a book on TANKS by Richard Humble and he has provided some information, which i think is incorrect. I would like fellow members to give me some clarifications on his views.

Quoted as printed in the book: "At Kursk, a new menace for the tank emerged for the first time on the Eastern front: the tank busting aircraft. The Germans gave a new lease of life to the ungainly Stuka dive bomber by hanging 37 mm cannon under its wings and using it against tanks , together with the Henschel Hs-129" Pg.96

1. Had the Stuka not been used a tank buster from the Polish campaign itself?
2. Did the Stuka drop bombs to destroy tanks or carry a cannon under its wings? [ Apart from the nose cannon which harassed enemy infantry?]
3. Much before the Kursk campaign, German anti-tank crew found the 37mm cannon useless. Some even called it a door-knocker. Hence, the Germans had started using the 88mm anti-aircraft flak gun to knock out tanks. With this information, i dont think the Germans would have had a 37mm cannon under a Stuka.

Hence, i find this information incorrect. Kindly give me your views, friends.

User avatar
Kurt_Steiner
Member
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Feb 2004 13:52
Location: Barcelona, Catalunya

Re: Stuka Bombing

Post by Kurt_Steiner » 27 Mar 2011 16:20

AFAIK, the Ju 87 G-2 "Kanonenvogel" was armed wit twin Bordkanone BK 3.7, 37mm , and proved extremely successful. Perhaps due to the fact that the BK was fired from above.

User avatar
Panzerkampfwagen
Member
Posts: 221
Joined: 23 Dec 2010 14:43

Re: Stuka Bombing

Post by Panzerkampfwagen » 27 Mar 2011 17:18

I seem to have found the answer to my question. The author is right.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/ ... 9001084866
"Because Stuka was mounted with the same 37mm Cannon as the early war infantry I wonder does this explain why ground forces' 37mm's can't destroy a thing. They can't destroy BT-7 or a truck either.
Unless they hit the engine from above.
"

User avatar
Kurt_Steiner
Member
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Feb 2004 13:52
Location: Barcelona, Catalunya

Re: Stuka Bombing

Post by Kurt_Steiner » 27 Mar 2011 17:21

There you have it. :lol:

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10508
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 11:48
Location: Argentina

Re: Stuka Bombing

Post by tigre » 07 Oct 2023 03:33

Hello to all :D; bumping out.......................................

Sturzflugbremsen (Dive brakes).

With the development of dive fighter aircraft, a new aerodynamic aid has found its way into aircraft construction: the dive brake, which is intended to limit the speed during a dive. It consists of simple resistance surfaces attached to the wing structure or fuselage, which are set to the lowest resistance for normal flight or which are completely retracted into the aircraft.

Before the dive begins, they are extended, i.e. adjusted transversely to the direction of flight and then generate additional resistance through which the fall speed is adapted or reduced to the requirements depending on the size of the brake. Figures 1 and 2 show the dive brake of the Ju-87 mounted under the wing in the retracted and extended state. This results in a reduction in the dive speed of around 150 km/h.

However, the reduction in the falling speed is not due to strength considerations - i.e. the Ju-87, the best-known dive bomber, can be recovered completely safely from the highest falling speed even with the brakes retracted and full flying weight - but rather takes exclusively tactical requirements into account. Only the brake makes it possible to get close to the target without the crew having to suffer from excessive acceleration forces when recovering, thereby impairing their ability to aim.

If an aircraft is in constant motion and is brought into a different flight attitude by operating the rudder, both the aircraft and the human body, i.e. the crew, due to its inertia, strives to remain in the old movement and its direction. The aircraft and crew therefore have to be brought into the new situation by force and are therefore understandably exposed to forces that occur in a similar way with all fast means of transport when taking a curve, starting off, etc.

The stress during the dive recovering increases the greater the speed and the smaller the radius of the circle flown during the dive recovering. If you set a maximum permissible load of 6 G, the fall speed and recovering radius are interdependent variables. The higher the speed, the larger the recovering radius must be if the permissible stress limit is not to be exceeded. The height above the ground at which the recovering begins also depends on the size of the recovering radius, and this means that recovering only needs to begin at a low height if the fall speed is kept sufficiently low.

Source: Sturzflugbremsen. Flugsport, Ausgabe Heft 4/1941.

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”