Stuka bombers

[Blick Winkel]

Such a waste of an AIR slot. The bomb loadout is just pitiful, even 1x 250 kg is laughable for how long it takes to reload while it kills 3 infantrymen at most. And then they have their special kind of dive when bombing so it takes longer and they're super vulnerable to AA, and with their BAD resilience and laughable speed they just die to anything. Tank buster versions at least pack a punch, but these... I wish they carried a 500kg or even a 1000kg bomb.

[MrCrisps]

Don't expect too much from an airplane which was considered obsolete as soon as the Battle of Britain. The damage of the bombs are generally low in vanilla thought.

[Blackbeard]

Originally posted by MrCrisps:

Don't expect too much from an airplane which was considered obsolete as soon as the Battle of Britain. The damage of the bombs are generally low in vanilla thought.

the reason it was considered obsolete iirc had been because of the speed, not because of the bombs though

[b4ry]

@OP
You should be thankful to your fellow German players - they were asking for weaker planes :-). Anyway, they should be used just for defence purposes cuz otherwise - as you notice - they are too slow and too fragile.

[Andariel]

They are good against arty in open field. Usually you only need one strafe. Its well-known that they had done only minor damage to entrenched infantry or bunkers (Sedan 1940) except the psychological effect. It was very good for cutting the supply lines, hitting moving reinforcements and ships (Crete 1941) of course. Sadly we have no British ships to sink in this game.

[Fast Johnny]

I dunno, the JU87 with the 37mm gun pods on the wings is a tank killer for sure. Just give it some fighter cover and let it go to work.

[acur1231]

The 1000 bomb was quite rarely used to hit frontline targets, usually being used to destroy bridges or railway stations. Bear in mind that the Stuka was essentially a pre-war/early war ground attack plane design(no armour, no retractable undercarriage, slow) which the Germans used to the end because they never really managed to built large numbers of dedicated ground attack planes(leading to them making the FW 190 a fighter bomber and to the development of the HS 129). From 1940 onwards, it did not have any large amount of success in the West(even in the Med, where they sank a few RN ships, they suffered such heavy losses that by 1943 the allies could sail around the med without much exposure to air attacks). While they did well in the East in 1941, from 1942 onwards they were increasingly vulnerable. While they were good tank busters at Kursk, for example, they suffered heavy losses to VVS fighters. However, they did stop a Red Army offensive practically on their own, saving 2 German armies in 1943, although they suffered extremely heavy losses in that period.

From 1944 to 1945, the Stukas were mostly very vulnerable to AA and allied fighters, and were thus increasingly replaced by FW 190s. The fact that the Stuka was used for such a long time was simply due to the lack of a good replacement that could be produced in large enough numbers to replace them all. Very few of the Stuka pilots who started the war were able to survive until the end, which is a pity, since they served in every theatre the Germans fought in, and thus would have an interesting insight into the war.

The main problem with the Stuka was the lack of armour. While the Soviet IL-2 could take lots of fire and keep flying, the Stuka was vulnerable and slow, and could only operate in conditions were the Germans had air superiority. Thus, as the allied air forces began to challenge that air superiority, the Stukas suffered accordingly.

[Sev]

Yeah.....no.
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/stuka/bstuka.htm
Also armor is not really relevant for survivability, the caliber of AA guns dont care for armor plates who were at that time mainly there to stop/deflect rifle rounds. The 23.600 lost Il-2 and Il-10 (Krivosheev) are a testimony of that.
Neither was the Ju 87 a good tank buster, the battlefield impact was rather minimal.
And in which Battle did Ju87s save two german armies?
All in all was the Ju 87 so long used on the eastern front because they could, the VVS was not really good in intercepting enemy bombers, Ju 87s were used until late 44 together with Hs 123 which also could operate freely without severe losses, in fact so effective that the Germans thought about re-starting a Hs 123 production, unthinkable for the western front, in the east it worked.

[acur1231]

Originally posted by Sev:

Yeah.....no.
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/stuka/bstuka.htm
Also armor is not really relevant for survivability, the caliber of AA guns dont care for armor plates who were at that time mainly there to stop/deflect rifle rounds. The 23.600 lost Il-2 and Il-10 (Krivosheev) are a testimony of that.
Neither was the Ju 87 a good tank buster, the battlefield impact was rather minimal.
And in which Battle did Ju87s save two german armies?
All in all was the Ju 87 so long used on the eastern front because they could, the VVS was not really good in intercepting enemy bombers, Ju 87s were used until late 44 together with Hs 123 which also could operate freely without severe losses, in fact so effective that the Germans thought about re-starting a Hs 123 production, unthinkable for the western front, in the east it worked.

Knew your uneducated "knowledge" would appear. Anyway, the HS 123 nearly revived(but they could not, because the factory had already thrown away the required machine tools) because it was good in bad weather and worked well in the bad conditions on the Eastern Front. It was rugged, and that was what mattered.

The VVS was good at intercepting Stukas, here is a copy and paste wall of text.

In the wake of the defeat at Kursk, Ju 87s played a vital defensive role on the southern wing of the Eastern Front. To combat the Luftwaffe, the Soviets could deploy some 3,000 fighter aircraft. As a result, the Stukas suffered heavily. SG 77 lost 30 Ju 87s in August 1943 as did SG 2 Immelmann, which also reported the loss of 30 aircraft in combat operations. Despite these losses, Ju 87s helped the XXIX Army Corps break out of an encirclement near the Sea of Azov. The Battle of Kiev also included substantial use of the Ju 87 units, although again, unsuccessful in stemming the advances. Stuka units were with the loss of air superiority, becoming vulnerable on the ground as well. Some Stuka aces were lost this way. In the aftermath of Kursk, Stuka strength fell to 184 aircraft in total. This was well below 50 percent of the required strength. On 18 October 1943, StG 1, 2, 3, 5 and 77 were renamed Schlachtgeschwader (SG) wings, reflecting their ground-attack role, as these combat wings were now also using ground-attack aircraft, such as the Fw 190F-series aircraft. The Luftwaffe's dive-bomber units had ceased to exist.

Do note that is is after Kursk and before Bagration.

Please cease and desist your rather pathetic attempts at historiography, it is getting boring.

Lets look at how ridiculous your claims have been. First, you and that friend of your Ulator say that the Soviets only won by massively outnumbering the Germans. Fine. But then you say that they faked production numbers, so I am not sure how they could possibly outnumber the Germans. Then you say that the Stukas could operate in 1943 as they did in 1941. Then how on earth were the Red Army's tank hordes able to(as you have led us to believe) defeat the Germans in a massive Zerg rush, when their communications and rear lines should have been paralysed by Stukas, as they were in 1941. It just does not make sense.

As the renowned historian, Edward Carr said, "By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation". I am afraid that you are so deep in your own interpretation of history, complete with alternate facts that differ significantly from the mainstream, that you fail to notice that your narrative fails to make sense. Arguing with you is a chore, because you seem to live in an alternate universe where the Germans did much better than they did in reality, since you have interpreted it like that for so long that you cannot see fact through your own fiction. You can dispute it if you want, with more of your random history websites of dubious quality, but really, all you do is make yourself look stupid.

[Sev]

Yawn, so you copy pasta a text and thats it?
Coming from someone who has shown in every single thread no sources to back up a single claim thats again rich.

Hs 123 was not only revived because it was robust but it was effective in its role, you dont want to restart a production if the plane has no combat value.
Hur dur its rugged, it gets shot down in droves and is useless but its rugged that is all that matters......oh god.

To the copy pasta well, IF YOU would have followed the link you WOULD have seen the losses of all the units mentioned in your copy pasta work.
StG 2 combat losses in august 43: 25, StG 77: 35
Planes in total at the start of August StG 2: 100, StG 77: 121
End of the month StG2: 73, StG 77: 94. Looks like total annhilation to me and is totaly 50% down from a authorized strength of 124 planes non of the units had to beginn with, yes they took losses, might surprise you but no one else, but they were not grave enough to withdraw the units.
That aside, only because of the renaming from Sturzkampfgeschwader to Schlachtgeschwarder the Ju 87 did not vanish, as a matter of fact it was used in several SGs well within the 44 even to the end of 45, in the I./SG1 for example. You should have just read on the article you posted:

>>>>>Operation Bagration to Berlin 1944–1945
Towards the end of the war, as the Allies gained air supremacy, the Stuka was being replaced by ground-attack versions of the Fw 190. By early 1944, the number of Ju 87 units and operational aircraft terminally declined. For the Soviet summer offensive, Operation Bagration, 12 Ju 87 Gruppen and five mixed Gruppen (including Fw 190s) were on the Luftwaffe's order of battle on 26 June 1944. Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey, a mixed aircraft unit, which included large numbers of Stuka dive bombers, was rushed to the Finnish front in the summer of 1944 and was instrumental in halting the Soviet fourth strategic offensive. The unit claimed 200 Soviet tanks and 150 Soviet aircraft destroyed for 41 losses. By this juncture, the Luftwaffe continued to resist Soviet air attacks but it had little impact on the ground war.

By 31 January 1945, only 104 Ju 87s remained operational with their units. The other mixed Schlacht units contained a further 70 Ju 87s and Fw 190s between them. Chronic fuel shortages kept the Stukas grounded and sorties decreased until the end of the war in May 1945.<<<<<

>>>>>Operation Bagration, 12 Ju 87 Gruppen and five mixed Gruppen (including Fw 190s) were on the Luftwaffe's order of battle on 26 June 1944<<<<<
Do i need to highlight it more for you? Mid 44 still 12 Ju 87 Gruppen active and five mixed.......

Maybe you should read the Dan Zamansky study about the Luftwaffe losses per theater or Bergström about the air war in the east.
Alone the use of Ju 87s to the end of the war in the east concludes that it was the best plane ever OR the VVS was not able to establish a sufficient air superiority to generate such losses on them like in the BoB to force the Luftwaffe to withdraw them. Same with the Hs 123.

Also still no sign of Army saving Stukas.

As usual the only one with non existing knowledge is you, keep it up, i value a good laugh like everyone else.

[Sev]

Originally posted by acur1231:

Originally posted by Sev:

Lets look at how ridiculous your claims have been. First, you and that friend of your Ulator say that the Soviets only won by massively outnumbering the Germans. Fine. But then you say that they faked production numbers, so I am not sure how they could possibly outnumber the Germans. Then you say that the Stukas could operate in 1943 as they did in 1941. Then how on earth were the Red Army's tank hordes able to(as you have led us to believe) defeat the Germans in a massive Zerg rush, when their communications and rear lines should have been paralysed by Stukas, as they were in 1941. It just does not make sense.

As the renowned historian, Edward Carr said, "By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation". I am afraid that you are so deep in your own interpretation of history, complete with alternate facts that differ significantly from the mainstream, that you fail to notice that your narrative fails to make sense. Arguing with you is a chore, because you seem to live in an alternate universe where the Germans did much better than they did in reality, since you have interpreted it like that for so long that you cannot see fact through your own fiction. You can dispute it if you want, with more of your random history websites of dubious quality, but really, all you do is make yourself look stupid.

Ok were to beginn, i make it so simple a 4th grader can grasp it, just for you since the normal sentences dont sink in.
OK they faked production numbers, this is evident since they had not the ressources according to their OWN pre war output lists, that doesnt mean they had not a higher production as the germans.
They had a higher production because of Lend Lease, because only Lend Lease enabled them to not only keep their production runnig but to increase their output.

Now to the Stukas, Stukas were often coined as "flying artillery", acting as direct support for the frontline units called in by Luftwaffe ground teams. They had a higher hit probability to hit bridges and stuff and were used for that but their main job was close air support.

Further have you even looked at the length of the eastern front, the year doesnt matter. In France the Germans had one bomber/ground attacker for every 45 km2 to cover in 41 on the eastern front it was already 488 km2, which makes it more difficult build up centers of gravity, not even taking into account that the Luftwaffe strength was less in 43 in the east as in 41. In 1940 the Luftwaffe could concentrate on only single point, Sedan, this was not the case on the eastern front.

Last point is, not even in 1941 the Stukas did paralyze the Soviet tank "hordes" as you call it, as a matter of fact the Soviet Tank Divisions of 1941 had several fundamental flaws of having not enough logistic trucks, low ready numbers of tanks, no sufficient radio communications etc. all of this has nothing to do with the Luftwaffe, either you have a wrong picture of the eastern front in 1941 in your mind or you just dont understand how military works, personaly im sure its both.

About Edward Carrs snippet: Thats exactly your problem, he nailed it, you read two books which give a broad audience a broad picture and thats it, out of it, together with some movies and wiki articles, you derivate your own imagination how it was and has to bee.
Problem is you are so deluded that you even accuse others of your own faults, paired with your oblivious Dunning-Kruger making you a fool for everyone to see but yourself.

Calling out websites from the guy who uses primary sources for the linked Flugbestandsmeldungen from the archive in Freiburg, while you throw your wiki articles around like its no ones business is beyond comedy for everyone....but you.

I guess than historians like Zetterling, Bergström, Dupuy, C. Lawrence who used and use primary sources are also dubious because their findings challange your point of view, not my problem, but how about comming back when you have grown up instead of making a fool out of yourself .
By the way ask MM what book he used for the German forces of this Game, guess you should tell him his source is dubious.
But as i said we can keep it up, i like to laugh.

[jfoytek]

Acur

I dont know what your deal is, but your being a bit narrowminded about the stuka! Arguably the best bomber of ww2 if not the most effiecent.

Slow: Yes very true it was slow.

It was slow because of its Gull Wing design which kept its wings from snapping off in dives!

That same dives that allowed it to place Ordanance Exactly where it needed to be with pin point precision!

Could the stuka that flew 255 compared to a Hurricane over 500 compete in the air?!? NOPE

But its a dive bomber that was not its job... Its job was to place its Egg exactly where the germans needed it to be delivered and it did it was terrifying precision. It was able to avoid AA it was able to drop ordanance on AA... The game does not simulate the stuka very well....

As the stuka would dive from above visual straight down on the target giving AA no time to react except to attempt to shoot down the bomber as it dove directly ontop of them...

But in the game Stuka's are shot down in transit like there a level bomber....

However: Your assertion that the stuka was a bad plane is basically an opinion that has no relavent facts to back it up. The stuka was far and away the most successful dive bomber to ever fly. And the only one that could truely dive completely verticle...

Additionally the Stuka was the plane that created the concept of Close Air Support to ground troops its the first plane that made it able for the air force to deliver precise attacks in support of ground troops on the front line!!!

To call the stuka a bad plane is just a poor opinion! It had a huge effect on the battle field until the germans lost control of the air, that is when the stuka could no longer be flown because:

It was too slow to operate in the air that was not under control. And why the germans were using 190's in its place.... Not because they were better, they were not better they just had a far better chance of making it back to the airfield because they were fast enough to run away.

But the stuka was far more likely too put the bomb where it needed to be!

[Lucky Stralex]

You historical debaters are some cringeworthy ♥♥♥♥♥. Keep it up.

[Wumpus, Bringer of Death]

Can you guys just make a thread to have these massive arguments on because it kind’ve clogs up other information

[b4ry]

They cannot cuz they have to show who has a bigger penis in each ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ thread.

[meanderthal]

Have no desire to get into a pissing contest about who knows what about the Stuka but thought i would post this link to demonstrate what a Stuka is/was capable of when in the right hands:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FD7MvO7fww&t=73s