PDA

View Full Version : Stuka Durability



XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 01:32 PM
Has anybody else noticed how durable the Stuka is now to machinegun fire? The B model Stuka seems to be able to take a hell of a lot of punishment from my 8 303s before it goes down.
Are they supposed to be this well armoured?

-----
In memory of 'The Few'
<img src=http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg>
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 01:32 PM
Has anybody else noticed how durable the Stuka is now to machinegun fire? The B model Stuka seems to be able to take a hell of a lot of punishment from my 8 303s before it goes down.
Are they supposed to be this well armoured?

-----
In memory of 'The Few'
<img src=http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg>
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:08 PM
The Ju-87 (as what all Junkers aircraft are famous for) can take an astonishing amount of damage and still fly on.
Yet people like to beleive the Stuka goes down after a few rifle caliber hits.



<marquee>
= = = = = Sturzkampfgeschwader 77 : Soon coming to an airbase near you. = = = = = </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:10 PM
They were reported as being vulnerable to fighters during the Battle of Britain and Goering had them all removed from service during that part of the war.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:14 PM
Well, I also setup a QMB mission flying an I-16 Type 24 with it's 2 x 20mm cannons.The Ju87 B took everything I could throw at it and was still flying straight and level.
They may of been durable to a 'few rifle calibre bullets' but not to the extent where they're tougher than an IL-2, that was proven during the Battle of Britain.

-----
In memory of 'The Few'
<img src=http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg>
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:18 PM
The manner in which Ju.87 were used during the BoB and the overall situation of the air war during that time (radar, etc.) added up to the casualties the Stukagruppen suffered. The aircraft itself was not to blame, as it stood the test of time and continued to effectively destroy allied hardware right up to the last days of the war. Not many pre-war designs can make that claim.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 03:23 PM
Bully_Lang wrote:
- The manner in which Ju.87 were used during the BoB
- and the overall situation of the air war during that
- time (radar, etc.) added up to the casualties the
- Stukagruppen suffered. The aircraft itself was not
- to blame, as it stood the test of time and continued
- to effectively destroy allied hardware right up to
- the last days of the war. Not many pre-war designs
- can make that claim.
-
-but they were proven vulnerable to enemy fighters from Poland onwards.RAF pilots didn't refer to having "Stuka Parties" without good reason-they were considered the easiest of all LW frontline a/c to bring down during the BoB.







http://www.airplane-world.addr.com/Corgi/aa30701.jpg


No601 County of London Squadron,Tangmere Pilots.
http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk ( <A HREF=)" target=_blank>http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk</a>



http://www.airplane-world.addr.com/Corgi/aa30701.jpg


No601 County of London Squadron,Tangmere Pilots.
http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 04:46 PM
no601_Gilly wrote:
-
-but they were proven vulnerable to enemy fighters from Poland onwards.RAF pilots didn't refer to having "Stuka Parties" without good reason-they were considered the easiest of all LW frontline a/c to bring down during the BoB.


Sure the are vulnerable in FB even now! Surprising unescorted Stukas or Su-2 is a party indeed! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

They are very slow and cannot escape, they only have one defensive mg (and especially B model has very little armor for gunner). Etc, etc....


BUT Stkuas were durable planes. First of all they are huge compared to normal fighters, second they have structural strength to carry nearly 2000kg (4000lbs) of bombs, thrid they have structural strength required for dive-bombing.

Think about Stuka pulling very high G out of interrupted attack with two tonnes of bombs under it, and you will get the picture. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif They were very durable planes. I have some photos were a Stuka came back to base with man sized holes in the wings, and also Rudel chopped of few birch trees with his wings. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:46 PM
you can do a little test

get an p40 and have a go at a stuka and you can remove a wing quite happily

but fire 8 .303 into a stuka and unless you get it just right the best you achieve is a slight leak.

i have practiced with stuka countless times in my mk1 hurri and i dont believe that im that rubbish at shooting things down.

as gilly said the reports of stuka parties were not made up!
but the .303 seems to have little effect on them even if you go for a PK and pepper the cockpit it never seems to work,no pepper the cockpit of an emil and you can have PKs a plenty??

maybe its a .303 issue but the stukas do seem alot tougher than most things

you can say any a/c has its toughness my grandpa flew in battles he said they were tough a/c but they still fell out of the skies when shot at


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
G-BPDU
http://www.southernflightcentre.com/warrior-s.jpg

I fly this!!

http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk
No1-Squadron Royal Air Force/tea boy

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:58 PM
If you try to cause catastrophic structural failure to a Stuka with .303s, you will waste a lot of ammo. Just shoot it in the engine or wingroot until it starts trailing thick, black smoke and then back-off. It will go down. Don't get fixated on causing instant kills. 80% of DM whining can be attributed to this.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:59 PM
no601_Gilly wrote:
-
- Bully_Lang wrote:
-- The manner in which Ju.87 were used during the BoB
-- and the overall situation of the air war during that
-- time (radar, etc.) added up to the casualties the
-- Stukagruppen suffered. The aircraft itself was not
-- to blame, as it stood the test of time and continued
-- to effectively destroy allied hardware right up to
-- the last days of the war. Not many pre-war designs
-- can make that claim.
--
--but they were proven vulnerable to enemy fighters from Poland onwards.RAF pilots didn't refer to having "Stuka Parties" without good reason-they were considered the easiest of all LW frontline a/c to bring down during the BoB.
-
The stuka was very vulnerable. everyone could see that in BoB you are right. but you shouldn't mix 2 different things. The stukas were easy targets! they were slow, couldn't make any evasive manouvers and had bad defensive guns. THAT's the reason why the stuka sucked so much, It doesn't mean it was a waek plane. It was easy to attack and it was helpless. that doesn't mean it broke into pieces as soon as an enemy pilot looked at it in a mean way. Just imagine: you build a plane that can dive in a 90degree angle and pull out of that dive without a problem and all that under heavy AAA fire. you wouldn't build it out of paper wouldn't you? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

2 things we need in FB:
The 110 and the desert!!!
http://exn.ca/news/images/1999/04/23/19990423-Me110coloursideMAIN.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:06 PM
mothyp wrote:
- you can do a little test
-
- get an p40 and have a go at a stuka and you can
- remove a wing quite happily
-
- but fire 8 .303 into a stuka and unless you get it
- just right the best you achieve is a slight leak.
-
- i have practiced with stuka countless times in my
- mk1 hurri and i dont believe that im that rubbish at
- shooting things down.
-
- as gilly said the reports of stuka parties were not
- made up!
- but the .303 seems to have little effect on them
- even if you go for a PK and pepper the cockpit it
- never seems to work,no pepper the cockpit of an emil
- and you can have PKs a plenty??
-
- maybe its a .303 issue but the stukas do seem alot
- tougher than most things
-
- you can say any a/c has its toughness my grandpa
- flew in battles he said they were tough a/c but they
- still fell out of the skies when shot at


I don't really understand what are you expecting.

A wing from a fighter cannot be cut with less than 50-80 0.50 MG hits in real life (1 sec of fire on the wing). A Stuka wing should have lasted for more than 2 sec of fire. Have you put more than 100 MG hits on Stuka wing?

P-40 guns are overmodelled, you can cut anything with just a few hits. Try with Hs-129 and see how easy it is to cut it. That plane was the most armored plane of the entire war, only in the fuselage it had 1.1 tonnes of armor, 200kg more than the most heavily armored Sturmovik. But it also had armored engine cowlings. Henschel produced tanks during the war, they were generous with the armour.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/11/0301:26PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:53 PM
DeerHunterUK wrote:
- Has anybody else noticed how durable the Stuka is
- now to machinegun fire? The B model Stuka seems to
- be able to take a hell of a lot of punishment from
- my 8 303s before it goes down.
- Are they supposed to be this well armoured?

Whether by chance or design, this is correct. The Ju87B2 included in FB should not be regarded as the Battle of Britain model (ie manufactured in 1940). It is clearly described in QMB as Ju87B2 (1941).
The 1940 Ju87B2s used against Britain had little armour protection for either engine or crews. Because of this they were vulnerable to sustained fire from 303s.
From about August 1940 onwards all German aircraft had armour protection progressively added, either in the field or on the production line. This process continued throughout the next six months when many German units re-formed back in Germany with newly- manufactured aircraft.

So a Ju 87B2 manufactured in 1941 had a lot more armour protection than the same model made in 1940. By the beginning of Barbarossa in June 1941, the Ju87B2 was a much more combat- effective machine.

Therefore you should not match up a 1940 eight- gun Hurricane with a 1941 B2 Stuka and expect to hack it out of the sky. For that you need a 1941 Hurricane- with cannon.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 11:51 PM
The stuka may be VULNERABLE, but still its very DURABLE.

Rudel reports coming back from a sortie with 8(yes eight) 37mm holes and hundreds of mg bullet holes from an airacobra all over his stuka.

http://www.uploadit.org/files2/031103-StukaTB.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:22 AM
Good post BerkshireHunt!

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:21 AM
The Generalisation that the JU87Stuka was to be found a vaillure (Like the Bf110 as a Fighter, and the Luftwaffe as a Qonqering force)during BoB, is old post war allied 'historians'propaganda!
First it was not designed to battle superior fighter a/c!
It was not expected to function as a B17 Fliyng fortress, or IL2!
But it was designed to delliver bombs to pinpoint targets at the most steep angle and at that it was the best dive bomber!
It was designed to form the essential part in the very succesfull BlitzKrieg tactic, and it was!
It was outfitted to strike terror (Psychological Warfare)upon it's enemy's, and that it did!
Ofcourse it did suffer cassulty's when engaged by Spitfires and Hurricanes! Show me any WWII two seater bomber plane that did not suffer casulty's when engaged!(even B17's and Il2's did)

But when you read about the Stukas performance one thing is sure it was a nononsens tough a/c!
Look at the design this is no estheticly pleasing showroom balerina it is designed to withstand high G-forces it will encounter during its extreme diving angle climbout, the controls are large so when pieces are shot away it still can fly it did return with undercariage blown away and tail plane shot off!

It was simply modelled to weak in FB as it was, you simply could not escape a target with good AAA, it beeing so slow AAA would at least shoot away your landing gear or take off a wing assoon as you were hit,

Erich Hartmann when on its way to the Russian front was asked to take a Ju87 to fly his last leg to JG52 he did not take off because he hit a small wooden building while taxiyng the Juncker the building was totally chopped to pieces with out the Stuka suffering to much damage!
There are pictures were a Stuka standing on its nose chopped its blades into the earthground with out the proppelor beeing bended!

Read the fascinating book "Junckers Ju87 Stuka" from Peter C. Smith who shows that this dive bomber was very effective at its job, on all its anti shipping fronts the allied navy's had to stay out of its reach sooner or later! that is something else then the disiscion of a Incompetent and overweight LuftwaffeMarshal! who decided that his toys were not working according his egocentrical dreams!

Belief it or not I am happy the Luftwaffe had such a Incompetent leader wich who helped losing the war!


Do the landing lights work aswell?

Is the Siren more terrifiyng now?

does the automatic pullout device work ?

Do the crew black out during clibout like they should? (What do you think the Automatic pullout was fore?)

Is it the only aircraft that can make a stable 90 degree dive?

And can it drop a bomb past the 45 degree dive angle without hitting its own prop like most other a/c wood?


regards,
kees

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 11:13 AM
Funny, I was watching a show on Discovery Wings just the other day and they spoke of the Stuka's strengths and weaknesses. One of the points noted was how the aircraft was very hearty in construction and could take a lot of punishment. Surely it was not an IL2, but it was very good at it's intended purpose.

The Stuka was designed after an American made divebomber developed by Curtis. The Germans took their design and a few aircraft that they bought, and incorporated all the good points of the plane. If you look at it just right, it reminds me of all the Curtis designs of that era, and is probably the reason I have always loved it and the P40.

The documentary made note that the Stuka was not a highly finished plane; the rivets were not recessed for speed, and the control surfaces were not designed for aerodynamic efficiency. The plane was made to take a lot of AAA and dive with a lot of weight strapped under it.

It was truly Luftwaffe doctrine that crippled the aircraft, not the plane itself. As an air superiority pin point divebomber, one would be very hard pressed to find it's rival. That is why they continued to produce it until the last days of the war. As an all-out ground attack aircraft, it left a lot to be desired, and when working in that role, it was easily chewed up by allied forces.

I am glad to see that the Stuka is a little more durable than it was previously. It should be! From everything that I have read and seen about the aircraft, it's ruggedness was one of it's strong points - it's speed was it's worst.

In 1.11 it seems to be made of paper when it just wasn't in real life. With proper air superiority, the plane should become very effective against soft targets, shipping, and hard targets like factories, railways, bridges, etc.

I did read an historical account about the opening of the Barbarossa campaign that it was not too effective against tanks. A StG (Which, the number escapes me now) flew against a Russian tank group. The entire StG was only able to destroy one tank and cripple 2 or 3 more. Perhaps this is why the D-3, D-5 and later G varients were devised. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I am glad Oleg gave us a real Stuka in the patch. But you VVS guys dont have to worry, if you have air superiority, you will be able to harass the Stuka all the way back to their air fields... "We are under attack, need assistance!" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehler.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 03:40 PM
i think everyone have given valid historical points but missed the point of the thread

with ref to the B2 being a '41 a/c i agree but in a thread a few weeks ago this point was coverd ,the knowledgeable chap who posted reckoned there wasnt much diff between the BoB stuka and the B2 as i had posted the same arguement about it being a later stuka and better amroured,he gave me a link to a "stuka" site which showed some interesting facts about various marks,unfortunatley i no longer have the link.

whereas i dont quite agree about not being able to shoot down a stuka ingame with cannons
i do agree with the .303 statement

historically the BoB pilots had no major problems in downing stukas with their .303,where as we do in game,so much so that we would rather engage a multiengine bomber than a lone stuka,no maybe one or two of us may be so lame as to not be able to shoot down a stuka but not 20plus of us,we are all of the same opinion (more or less) that the stuka is a fearsome enemy on its own
this was never the case "historically"
a lone stuka was prey for most pilots

THIS IS NOT STUKA BASHING
so please no rhetoric about how tough it was or its dive characteristics
maybe its a .303 issue?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
G-BPDU
http://www.southernflightcentre.com/warrior-s.jpg

I fly this!!

http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk
No1-Squadron Royal Air Force/tea boy

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:21 PM
It is surprising how peoples can be made to believe that what they see in the movies is reality, and not a fiction. They're probably complaining about the stuka durability because they saw the movie "Battle of Britain" where the Hurricane shot ablaze the stukas with a few .303 hits...
To be sure of what they say, I took a Hurricane Mk-I in the quick combat editor and pitted it against a Ju-87B2.
Interrestingly enough, I managed to set the airplane on fire, the crew bailed out and the airplane exploded after a few seconds. I didn't have to expand all ammunition to do this. I only had to aim at the engine. And I had no difficulty whatsoever to shoot it down, the rear gunner being no threat at all as I attacked from under starting to fire from 150 to 100m . So, the Stuka looks like it is an easy prey for a Hurricane, even if it can stands a lot of battle dammage. Sure enough, like any other plane, if one does not hit a crucial part, it will not be put out of action.
My advice to thoses who have trouble shooting down the stuka is to close in for the kill and aim at the engine. It wont take a long time to bring it down.
But if someone think that he should be able to shot down a plane by spraying lead at it in a random fashion... I can be of no help.
-Knokke

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:40 PM
oh i can see the light!
obviously the 26 members at tangmere have an unfounded opinion that the stuka seems very hard to shoot down because one waltz in QMB has proved us all wrong,
also the tangmere pilots only watch the Battle of Britain and none of us read books such as fighter pilot by paul richie(addmitedly he never encounterd stukas) or other books by actual pilots or historical tomes.
and we are obviously all under performing pilots who cant really hold a candle to anyone in the lobby
we also have no experience in the hurri mk1 because we havent been flying in almost exclusively since march

you are correct we are wrong


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
G-BPDU
http://www.southernflightcentre.com/warrior-s.jpg

I fly this!!

http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk
No1-Squadron Royal Air Force/tea boy

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 05:06 PM
I'm glad to see that you made up your mind and admitted that you simply need more practice at target firing.
Stuka was and in FB IS a very easy prey even for a early mark Hurricane provided that the pilot is able to consistently hitting it. Spraying bullet in a random fashion will not do the trick. Hit the engine and you'll see that your stuka is an easy prey. Keep hitting randoms part of the plane and you'll keep believing that it is to much armored.
So practice your target fire till you can achieve success as your Tangmere pilots did. Obviously, you're still not of the same caliber as they were.
-Knokke

BTW, try flying any model of the 109; It is a good plane to improve aiming skills. After a few hours of practice, you'll be able to hit your target where you intended too. Hurricane doesn't make as good a practice airplane as it's pilots online tends to believe that spraying bullets is the way to do it.



Message Edited on 11/12/0304:13PM by Heinz_Knokke

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 05:24 PM
thanks for the advice Heinz

btw stop by the Tangmere dogfight server on a tuesday or a friday and you can witness our pathetic attempts to spray and pray

but as for flying 109s i readily jump at the chance to use it in our dogfight servers my favourite is the emil but im sure im no good at shooting things down in that aswell

shall we say 20:30 gmt in our BoB server on friday

the tangmere pilots would love learn some shooting skill from you.

S! sir


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
G-BPDU
http://www.southernflightcentre.com/warrior-s.jpg

I fly this!!

http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk
No1-Squadron Royal Air Force/tea boy

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 05:30 PM
LOL

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 05:40 PM
Some have stated they think the 50 cal. have become more deadly but I sure can't see this. It seems to take lots of hits to bring anything down,,,,this may be realistic..I don't know...but there sure are no paper airplanes out there....even the Zero seems rather sturdy. I need to fool around with the convergence setting more I think....


"Nothing difficult is ever easy"

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 06:21 PM
hallo Heinz

I'm from Ghent Belgium and a starting Tangmere pilot
It would indeed be interesting at least for me, to see what u mean ,as i'm not a that good shot either,to learn where to aim at?? I must say (i hope they'll pardon this for me in England)the Tangmere Staff did not really speaks about those things since i joined
So could you ideed join TP site friday? (we could talk over RW)

heel erg bedankt
Tigertooo

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:13 PM
One question for the BoB experts here:

What is the maximum number of Ju-87's claimed to be shot down in BoB by a single Hurricane or Spitfire without cannon armamament?


I will make a bet that I can match this achievement in game. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (And I'm not particularly good pilot)



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:54 PM
I'd just like to see those eight brownings hit a stuka at their point of convergence....alas, no such facility currently exists within FB, so until there is we're stuck with the relatively inaffective 'Dowding Spread'.

One other thing...aren't those in-game stukas 1941, post BofB, versions of the 'B' type? And therefore up armoured after their diasterous encounter with the RAF?

S/Ldr. Ginger,
C.O. - No.601 Fighter Squadron, Auxiliary Air Force.

http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/small/airtoair14.jpg


The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmere-pilots-raf.co.uk/

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 10:22 PM
Die-hard Stuka enthusiasts may chose to ignore this.

Below is a reference from 'The Battle of Britain' - not the film but the book. And its authors? Well only Air Marshal Sir Dennis Crowley-Milling, KCB. CBE. DSO. DFC. AE. - Richard Townsend-Bickers - Gordon Swanborough - William Green - Bill Gunston - Air Vice Marshal J. E. (Johnnie) Johnson, CB. CBE. DSO. DFC. DL. - Mike Spick - Group Captain Sir Hugh Dundas, CBE. DSO. DFC. DL.

And this is what they have to say about the stuka..

"The first Ju87 sorties in strength actually took place on August 8, five days before Adler Tag, suffering severe losses despite Bf 109Es providing top cover. On Adler Tag itself, Ju87s enroute for Middle Wallop airfield were bounced by spitfires of No 609 Squadron, nine of the dive bombers being promptly despatched. But this was only a foretaste of what was in store for the Stukagruppen. Within six days, 41 Ju87s had been lost; it was patently obvious that this was no replay of the Polish and French campaigns, and the Stuka had been revealed for what it was - an inadequately armed and highly vulnerable warplane. To prevent the Stukagruppen from being decimated, the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe had no recourse but to withdraw the Ju87 from the Cherbourg area to the Pas de Calais where it was to sit out the closing phases of the battle. The last Stuka sorties in force against British targets took place on August 16, when I and III/StG.2 lost nine aircraft in an attack on Tangmere, and on August 18, when StG.77 lost 16 aircraft after attacking Ford and Thorney Island. The shock administered by the combat attrition of the Battle was sufficient to disenchant some of the most ardent of Ju87's protagonists within the Luftwaffe."

Fairly conclusive I'd say.


S/Ldr. Ginger,
C.O. - No.601 Fighter Squadron, Auxiliary Air Force.

http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/small/airtoair14.jpg


The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmere-pilots-raf.co.uk/

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 10:35 PM
No601_Ginger wrote:


Don't you understand that people in here agree that Stukas without escort were extremely vulnerable? The thing is that they were very durable planes. These are two different matters.

Durable plane can be vulnerable for attack and weak plane can be invulnerable. Think about Me-262 or Arado Blitz which were extremely easily downed by battle damage but were virtually invulnerable.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 11:07 PM
Ju-87 that flew back to base from over Malta:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/87malta.jpg



Ju-87 damaged in Russia:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/87russia.jpg



I hope these will clarify the matter a bit.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 11:54 PM
yep, please realize that D-model was considerably better armored than first B-versions built in 1940..D-1 and onwards was considerably harder to bring down that early B-models.. I believe the Stuka could probably wirthstand more damage than even IL2, since it is even bit heavier.. not to mention late war IL2 with wooden parts.. they were no longer that much of a flying tanks.. and just look at the pictures of Ju-87s.. those things are HUGE, even bigger than IL-2.. Rifle caliber fire on real JU-87D probably did not do much damage.. and the Tank buster versions even had more armor, to protect them form light flak..

Even Oleg admits this: " Good armor for the crew and power plant. " /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 01:58 AM
Ginger,
My point was that the unarmoured Battle of Britain Stuka is NOT included in FB.
The one we have modelled is indeed a Ju87B2 but it is modelled as the Russians knew it, six months after the BoB. That means with armour protection for gunner/pilot and engine and with self- sealing tanks.

This is true (or at least, it should be) for the He111, 109Es and Ju88s, which are also as the Russians would have encountered them in 1941, with added armour, not as the British experienced.

You cannot really re-create a Battle of Britain scenario in FB with these damage models- not unless you fly on 'Easy' difficulty settings. If you try this you will find all of the above catch fire very easily with one burst from your 303s- which ironically is very authentic for August 1940 but otherwise very unsatisfying from the flight model point of view.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 10:17 AM
we do recreate the BoB scenarios (also battle of france)
but we like making it hard for ourselves
it works quite nicley and removes any arcade feeling when you pop away and only come home with a shared kill,quite true to a lot of accounts from pilots


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
G-BPDU
http://www.southernflightcentre.com/warrior-s.jpg

I fly this!!

http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk
No1-Squadron Royal Air Force/tea boy

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 10:21 AM
BerkshireHunt wrote:
- Ginger,
- My point was that the unarmoured Battle of Britain
- Stuka is NOT included in FB.
- The one we have modelled is indeed a Ju87B2 but it
- is modelled as the Russians knew it, six months
- after the BoB. That means with armour protection for
- gunner/pilot and engine and with self- sealing
- tanks.


You say armour for engine. Can you please give some details? Did Stuka have armoured engine cowlings?

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:10 PM
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju87.html

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alphas/stuka.avi

Alpha

Message Edited on 11/13/03 03:14PM by KG26_Alpha

Message Edited on 11/13/0303:47PM by KG26_Alpha

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 10:02 PM
Thanks for those links KG26_Alpha a.k.a. No1_Dodger, even more conclusive evidence of the Stuka's inherent vulnerability to fighter attacks ....

"There were also a number of attacks on convoys off the British coast. The best known of these was the fight off Eastbourne, which was reported `live' by the BBC. In this battle three ships were damaged, but seven Stukas were shot down for the loss of one Hurricane.

Then the Stukas turned their attention to the British airfields. Attacks on Detling, Lympne, Hawkinge and Tangmere followed. But by now the Fighter Command and taken measure of the Stuka, and the attacks of the next days would make it clear that the Ju 87 was a sitting duck for the Spitfires and Hurricanes of the RAF. On 18 August the so-called "Stuka-slaughter of Thorney Island", when a large formation was caught without fighter cover, cost the Luftwaffe 30 Stukas -- shot down, crash-landed, or damaged beyond repair. This forced the Luftwaffe to pull back the Stukas from the offensive against Britain. They continued operating against shipping in the channel, also at night, but no longer participated in the main effort. The Ju 87s were conserved for the actual invasion."





S/Ldr. Ginger,
C.O. - No.601 Fighter Squadron, Auxiliary Air Force.

http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/small/airtoair14.jpg


The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmere-pilots-raf.co.uk/

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:00 PM
Is easier to get a B-17 smoking than a Ju-87 in a hurricane. Could not believe it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 01:49 AM
Available to the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain (from 'Ju87 Stuka' by Bruce Robertson):

Ju87B1/U1 (Produced 1939)
Series production based on B-0 pre-production machines. Fitted with 1150/1210 hp Jumo 211Da
Ju87B1/U2 (Produced 1939)
As for U1 but revised radio installation
Ju87B2 (Produced 1940)
New production standard- 1210 hp Jumo211Da. Strengthened undercarriage.
Ju87C1 (Produced 1940)
Limited production with folding wings and jettisonable undercarriage for emergency ditching. Later converted to B2 standard.
Ju87R1 (Produced 1940)
Long range anti shipping version of Ju87B with additional radio equipment
Ju87R2 (Produced 1940)
As R1 with revised fuel systems and extra strengthening

Available to the Luftwaffe from the beginning of 'Barbarossa' in 1941:

Ju87B1/U3 (Produced 1941)
Service version WITH ADDITIONAL ARMOUR PROTECTION.
Ju87B1/U4 (Produced 1941)
Modification of B1 with ski undercarriage
Ju87B Trop (Produced 1941)
Basic B1 with survival equipment
Ju87B2/U2 (Produced 1941)
Service version with revised radio installation
Ju87B2/U3 (Produced 1941)
Service version WITH ADDITIONAL ARMOUR PROTECTION.


At the risk of boring some, I say again, the Ju87B2 included in FB is NOT the Battle of Britain variant- it has more armour and should not be expected to erupt into flames when hit with 303s.
This is even more true of the D3 version, which is also included in FB. Listen to what Bruce Robertson has to say about it:-

"The D3 represented a revolutionary change in Stuka tactics- in fact, a reversion to the Junkers armoured ground- strafing concept of 25 years earlier. Initially, it was overloaded with armour. A Luftwaffe modification sheet was issued advising that 660lbs of armour be removed from crew and engine positions of a fully- armoured aircraft to avoid excessive stresses on the machine when carrying maximum load- a 2,200lb bomb or a 1100lb bomb and jettisonable tanks.
However, most units were loath to dispense with crew armour. This included 5mm steel plates along the fuselage sides beneath the cockpit canopy and an 8mm plate bulkhead at the rear to protect the gunner. The pilot's seat was armored and in the cabin behind his head was the thickest plate of all, of 10mm steel. Sensitive engine areas of radiator, oil cooler and coolant piping were also shielded."

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 02:29 AM
More on the most numerous versions of the Stuka which took part in the earliest part of 'Barbarossa' -this time from 'Junkers Ju87 Stuka' by Peter C. Smith:

Ju87B1/U3
A result of the experiences of the Battle of Britain. Produced in 1941 this had extra armour plate protection added to defend both aircrew and engine. Some aircraft were fitted with an armoured after- gun mounting with a bulbous ring similar to those fitted to the Ju88.

Ju87B2/U3
A 1941 designation given to the extra armour plating for both engine and aircrew. These machines also had angled sheet armour plate at the base of the rear cockpit and on either side of the armoured glass in the rotating gun mount. In addition, internal armour plating was fitted below the engine and the cockpit area.



I say again, the versions of the B1 and B2 which took part in the Battle of Britain were completely unarmoured (unless a field mod. kit had been used).

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 03:10 AM
BerkshireHunt::
-- in fact, a reversion to the Junkers armoured ground
-- strafing concept of 25 years earlier.

Yes, that just jolted a memory of when as a kid I saw a side view of a Junkers corrugated metal ground attack airplane in a World War I book. Awsum how I never thought of that again until just now. Thanks. If you have any links to that, ...Thanks.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 07:34 AM
Excellent posts there Berkshirehunt, and as I said earlier...

"One other thing...aren't those in-game Stukas 1941, post BofB, versions of the 'B' type? And therefore up armoured after their disasterous encounter with the RAF?"

The issue isn't whether the ingame version of the Stuka is the up armoured post BofB type, but that some people genuinely believe this version's current damage model (relative to the Hurricane MkI's firepower) is correct for the BofB variant as well...and it is not (as your post, and several others has clearly proved).



S/Ldr. Ginger,
C.O. - No.601 Fighter Squadron, Auxiliary Air Force.

http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/small/airtoair14.jpg


The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmere-pilots-raf.co.uk/

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 06:03 PM
No601_Ginger wrote:
- Excellent posts there Berkshirehunt, and as I said
- earlier...
-
- "One other thing...aren't those in-game Stukas 1941,
- post BofB, versions of the 'B' type? And therefore
- up armoured after their disasterous encounter with
- the RAF?"
-
- The issue isn't whether the ingame version of the
- Stuka is the up armoured post BofB type, but that
- some people genuinely believe this version's current
- damage model (relative to the Hurricane MkI's
- firepower) is correct for the BofB variant as
- well...and it is not (as your post, and several
- others has clearly proved).


How vulnerable do you want them?

Here is a track I just made shooting down 4 Stukas with Hurri IIb. Do you think one should be able to shoot down 8 with one Hurricane for it to be "realistic" for you? How many Stukas did one Hurricane shoot down in BoB???

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/quick0013.ntrk


Please note when wathcing the track that it was quickly made. I just made one QMB flight and recorded it to you, and with practise I would be able to get much more. I missed a lot of rounds and also flew in to the sector of the gunner few times as I was bit sloppy and in a hurry. Shooting down 4 Hurricanes with half of the ammo and no hits to own plane should be fairly easy after some practise at it.


Your claims of Stuka invulnerability in game have no base at all.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 03:38 AM
Quote from the book Stukagruppe 77 by Peter C Smith:

P.61
Oberst Hans Joachim Lehman:
"I had followed all the developments of the ju87 as a technical officer from the very beginnings, through the various modifications to the end when I was General of the Attack pilots.
Through all these different activities, and within the viewpoint of one who flew and tested all the equipment of the Stukawaffe, I have, in the course of my carreer, flown 32 different types of plane, and therefore I think I am allowed to have an opinion as to the best types of Luftwaffe aircraft at that time.
I have therefore come to the firm conclusion that the Ju87 was probably the best type of plane for the Luftwaffe.
Only the Ju52 can be named as equally good.
From a flying point it is established that all Junkers planes were strong, sturdy and reliable machines both in flying aspects and technical aspects.
They were of slow speed, that is undeniable,, but under certain circumstances, that could be an advantage.
In action the Ju87 was able to fly and land despite the gravest damage.
Many of my comrades count themselves lucky they were flying Stukas in such conditions."

P.72:
"...When we all collect to the south the English take on us.
Only weaving helps if you want to escape the eight machineguns of the English fighters.
Our radio operators shoot whenever their guns will bear.
Again and again the English attack from astern.
Again and again I hear the bullets striking my airrcaft but I dont think the engine has been hit, the motor is quiet and runs smooth.
The closer we get to the centre of the channel the fewer English attack us...
... Unbeleivably all aircraft from our squadron have returned.
We praise the sturdyness of the Stukas."


P.98:
"...Intense flak was, and remained, a feature of war on the Eastern Front and Stuka losses from ground fire far exceeded losses to enemy fighter aircraft, which remained largely impotent through the war..."

There are many references to the Ju87 as being a formidable machine, able to withstand a tremendous amount of damage, and that many Stuka pilots felt much safer than flying the faster, more agile but hardly armored fighters.

And if I might add my 2C on the BoB subject:
"The August 17 staggering defeat over the Stukas" was no more than a propaganda stunt from the British in an attempt to end the reputation the Stuka had and to boost morale.

The unescorted Stuka formation was intercepted by no less than four squadrons: 43, 152, 601 and 602.
In this overwhealming force even the Defiant was seen engaged against the unescorted Ju-87s.
Anyone wonder that losses were heavy when seeing the facts?
It has nothing to do with the assumed vulnerability of the Stuka, but with an overwhealming force repeatedly attacking an unescorted formation.


http://members.fortunecity.com/stg77/webpagegraphics/sadd1l.jpg





<marquee>
= = = = = Sturzkampfgeschwader 77 : Soon coming to an airbase near you. = = = = = </marquee>




<marquee>
= = = = = Sturzkampfgeschwader 77 : Soon coming to an airbase near you. = = = = = </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 08:18 AM
I was curious to see if there was really a new problem here in RC01. I don't have any particular national preferences or even aircraft preferences, I pretty much fly everything. Set up a quick mission with 8 Stukas and 2 Emil esocorts set on Average. Downed all with ammo to spare on first try. No problem there. I see Jippo got a similar result. Stuka pilots have no reason to whine either--it is quite capable of downing a Hurri, Mig or Yak1 with its front peashooters.

There's nothing wrong with the Hurri I--it's a great little fighter, just don't expect to do a lot of structural damage. Aim for the engine and you can down anything with a quick burst.

I think it should be pretty clear by now that all references to BoB Stuka encounters are moot when discussing FB. We do not have the underarmored B1 model used in that time frame. The model you see in FB is a direct response to that aerial slaughter. And the 12 gun and Hispano equipped Hurris we have a direct response to the inadequacies of rifle calibre bullets later in the war.

Stukas that don't dodge are sitting ducks and one of the easiest planes to bring down in groups. B2s have weak rear guns, and a huge blind spot. Although still not relevant, this is what made Ju87B1s so vulnerable in BoB even to peashooters.

If I'm in a Stuka and attacked, I fight back. With prop pitch and flaps, you can turn pretty well. At the very least, if you keep turning, your rear gunner will be in a position to fire on pursuers. They can't get in your blind spot if your turning hard. And if you can get a fighter in your sights, you just might take him down.

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 02:00 PM
Jippo01 wrote:


- Here is a track I just made shooting down 4 Stukas
- with Hurri IIb. Do you think one should be able to
- shoot down 8 with one Hurricane for it to be
- "realistic" for you? How many Stukas did one
- Hurricane shoot down in BoB???

Is there a reason why you've read what I've had to say about the Hurricane MkI...then gone off and proved how much better the MkIIB is at shooting down Stukas? Actually, I'm sure you can kill twice as many Stukas with the MkIIC...but again, that would prove absolutely nothing....would it?

I might add that since I've downloaded the new beta patch, the Hurricane appears a much more resilient fighter. I haven't as yet taken it up against the Stuka, but against the He.111 it is noticably better...so thanks for listening Oleg and Team.

http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/small/airtoair14.jpg


S/Ldr. Ginger
C/O. No.601 (County of London) Squadron
http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk