PDA

View Full Version : Why was the stuka so darn slow and other related questions.



Thanatos833
11-29-2006, 10:03 AM
One thing is clear, the Ju-87 "Stuka" was painfully slow even for a bomber, but how did this come to be?

I am guessing it was a combination of the low power to weight ratio common to most bombers along with the non-retractable landing gear and the drag inducing sirens on some versions.

It was one of the slowest planes of the war, slower than any other German bomber I can think of.

It wasn't well armored either, the Il-2 which was built like a tank was still faster than the Ju-87 and the soviet dive bomber, the PE-2 was a lot faster, over a 100 MPH faster.

Why didn't the Germans try to improve it? Like making it twin engined or putting in a bigger more powerful engine? Or giving it retractable landing gear? Was it because it was already good enough in the ground attack role to not warrant any improvement or was it because the Germans turned their attention away from bomber as the war progressed. These questions have always made me wonder.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ???Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

Thanatos833
11-29-2006, 10:03 AM
One thing is clear, the Ju-87 "Stuka" was painfully slow even for a bomber, but how did this come to be?

I am guessing it was a combination of the low power to weight ratio common to most bombers along with the non-retractable landing gear and the drag inducing sirens on some versions.

It was one of the slowest planes of the war, slower than any other German bomber I can think of.

It wasn't well armored either, the Il-2 which was built like a tank was still faster than the Ju-87 and the soviet dive bomber, the PE-2 was a lot faster, over a 100 MPH faster.

Why didn't the Germans try to improve it? Like making it twin engined or putting in a bigger more powerful engine? Or giving it retractable landing gear? Was it because it was already good enough in the ground attack role to not warrant any improvement or was it because the Germans turned their attention away from bomber as the war progressed. These questions have always made me wonder.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ???Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

JG53Frankyboy
11-29-2006, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thanatos833:
One thing is clear, the Ju-87 "Stuka" was painfully slow even for a bomber, but how did this come to be?

I am guessing it was a combination of the low power to weight ratio common to most bombers along with the non-retractable landing gear and the drag inducing sirens on some versions.

It was one of the slowest planes of the war, slower than any other German bomber I can think of.

It wasn't well armored either, the Il-2 which was built like a tank was still faster than the Ju-87 and the soviet dive bomber, the PE-2 was a lot faster, over a 100 MPH faster.

Why didn't the Germans try to improve it? Like making it twin engined or putting in a bigger more powerful engine? Or giving it retractable landing gear? Was it because it was already good enough in the ground attack role to not warrant any improvement or was it because the Germans turned their attention away from bomber as the war progressed. These questions have always made me wonder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the LW used the Fw190A-x/U3 aka Fw190F as replacement

Kurfurst__
11-29-2006, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thanatos833:
One thing is clear, the Ju-87 "Stuka" was painfully slow even for a bomber, but how did this come to be?

I am guessing it was a combination of the low power to weight ratio common to most bombers along with the non-retractable landing gear and the drag inducing sirens on some versions.

It was one of the slowest planes of the war, slower than any other German bomber I can think of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't really get why is this thing circulating around about the Stuka being something especially slow.

It could do around 400 km/h - that's on par with most WW2 bombers, or the Il2, or WW2 dive bombers in the PTO..
Plus, speed is not really the concern for a bomber, it's always slower than a fighter anyway, and because of formation flying and range issues it rarely flies at max speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It wasn't well armored either, the Il-2 which was built like a tank was still faster than the Ju-87 and the soviet dive bomber, the PE-2 was a lot faster, over a 100 MPH faster. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Early Ju-87s were not especially armored, but that was the case with all early-war planes.
The Ju-87D that appeared in 1942, was very well armored OTOH, both the crew and the engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why didn't the Germans try to improve it? Like making it twin engined or putting in a bigger more powerful engine? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ju 88 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It's nickname was the 'The Big Stuka'. The Me 210/410 were also considered as fast dive bombers as the Pe-2.

However, these are bigger, altogether rather different animals, not so well suited for dive bombing, which is rather more of an extra feature rather than specialisation. They're are larger, and present a much larger target to ground AAA. The twin engined layout limit the stresses they can take, and they tend to be too fast in dives, making attacks difficult - there's a reason why a dive bomber looks like as it is. Costs are also greater, you need two engines, more material and labour hours, more crew trained. And does it worth it?

The goal is to deliver a bomb or two with great precision, and the Stuka could fullfill the specific mission profile better, cheaper, so why drop it? The dive bomber was a concept that was born when conventional level bombing was primitive and inaccurate. With the improvement of bombsights, the difference between the two forms of bombing decreased, but dive bombing remained the ultimate preciosion bombing method. It had it's place in the arsenal, as had fighter-bombers, ground attack planes, medium bombers and heavy bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or giving it retractable landing gear? Was it because it was already good enough in the ground attack role to not warrant any improvement or was it because the Germans turned their attention away from bomber as the war progressed. These questions have always made me wonder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the fixed landing gear is a general dive bomber-thing, look at Japanese or USN dive bombers. A dive bomber's problem is that it needs to stay at low speed in dives to assure accuracy and to avoid excessive loads or augering in.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

josephs1959
11-29-2006, 10:29 AM
From what I've read of WWII history. In 1940 Hitler thought that the war was going so well for the Germans that he thought the war would soon be won and didn't feel that tying up recources both economical and natural in research and development for airplane improvements and new types of airplanes (jets and rockets), new rifles, new submarines, new aircraft carriers ect. ect. ect. The fortunes of war are fickle however,and things changed quite quickly. By the time 1943 rolled around the tide had not only changed but the sunami was approaching fast, too fast for the new weapons which were finally approved of to be in production in adequate numbers to stem that tide. Add to that the resources needed to rebuild the infrastructure after the bombing raids. Too little too late. There was a replacement due and a prototype built and ready for production however,The HS 132 you can find out more about it @ List of world war II military aircraft of Germany-Wikipeda/ bombers ground attack.

LStarosta
11-29-2006, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Plus, speed is not really the concern for a bomber, it's always slower than a fighter anyway, and because of formation flying and range issues it rarely flies at max speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, yes, that's why they had Schnellbombers.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg

Saburo_0
11-29-2006, 10:43 AM
http://www.luft46.com/junkers/ju187.html

Ju187 and 287 projects. In short performance wasn't going to be much of an improvement despite retractable gear.

Thanatos833
11-29-2006, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It could do around 400 km/h - that's on par with most WW2 bombers, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm pretty sure it's not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ???Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

Kurfurst__
11-29-2006, 11:17 AM
Squadron Signal gives the Ju-87D-5 model's maximum speed as 410 km/h (255 mph).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
11-29-2006, 11:50 AM
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/airpower.html

"The design originated in 1935 and its nickname 'Stuka' (derived from 'Sturzkampfflugzeug' - dive-bomber) became synonymous with the great successes of the German Blitzkrieg. The Junkers design won a dive-bomber competition in 1936 and the first operational aircraft joined the Luftwaffe a year later. They proved extremely successful in the Spanish Civil War as pin-point bombers. More success followed in the invasion of Poland where the aircraft's unique, angular appearance and dramatic tactics had a profound effect on even the most seasoned of troops. They would drop into a near-vertical dive over roads, railways, strongpoints and troop concentrations, doing as much damage to morale as material.

It was over Dunkirk that the Stuka's reputation first suffered seriously, and in the opening days of the Battle of Britain the losses increased. Faced with a determined and modern fighter defence, the Ju87 was helpless once separated from is fighter escorts and was easy prey for the Hurricanes and Spitfires. After a few weeks of serious losses, the type was largely withdrawn from operations with the exception of a few isolated raids during the Blitz."

The following figures would be for 1940 variants.

Junkers Ju 87
Max Speed: 232 mph (374km/h) at 13,500 ft (4,114m)

Junkers Ju 88
Max Speed: 286 mph (461km/h) at 16,000 ft (4,876m)

Heinkel He 111
Max Speed: 247 mph (398km/h) at 16,400 ft (4,998m)

Dornier Do 17
Max Speed: 265 mph (427km/h) at 16,400 ft (4,998m)

Gloster Gladiator
Max Speed: 257 mph (414km/h) at 14,600 ft (4,450m)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Screensignew.jpg

slipBall
11-29-2006, 11:59 AM
Build a aircraft with fixed gear, let the thousand's of rivithead's protrude above the skins surface, have a swing out seesaw to release the bomb without hitting the prop....that does not help to obtain great speed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/orders.jpg

JtD
11-29-2006, 12:21 PM
Which contemporary dive bombers were considerably faster than the Ju-87?

KG26_Oranje
11-29-2006, 12:24 PM
http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/aero/ju87-4.jpg
Junkers Ju87V 1935.

This is one of the First stuka`s wiht a Junkers Jumo 600+ HP engine.

Just to give u a impression of Starting time of the Stuka.
Many country`s were still flying wiht upgrade WW1 biplane`s.
The aria 1932 till 1945 was a very fast developing time for Aircrafts and many factory`s had stil no clu how there new stuff wil performe in bahtle or just flying.
So compare the il2 to the stuka, u cant.
Two plane`s born under div time`s and for Div purpese.

S! Oranje

Scharnhorst1943
11-29-2006, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Which contemporary dive bombers were considerably faster than the Ju-87? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SB2C Helldiver?

Japanese Judy?

JG53Frankyboy
11-29-2006, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scharnhorst1943:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Which contemporary dive bombers were considerably faster than the Ju-87? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SB2C Helldiver?

Japanese Judy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but these are later ones.......

here are some from around 1940 service datas:
French LN 401
380km/h in 4000m

british Blackburn Skua
369km/h in 1980m

japanese D3A1
386km/h in 3000

US SBC-4 Helldiver (biplane)
381 in 4630m
& SBD-3
394km/h in 4800m


sure these speeds and alts can differ from source to source http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Vipez-
11-29-2006, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thanatos833:


It wasn't well armored either, the Il-2 which was built like a tank was still faster than the Ju-87 and the soviet dive bomber, the PE-2 was a lot faster, over a 100 MPH faster.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compare the weights of IL-2s and JU-87D-3 and onwards.. the weights were similar, and JU-87D was pretty much on par with Sturmoviks considering armour.. if it was such a weak aircraft how come it produced so many Stuka aces (Kuhlmey, Rudel etc)?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________


http://personal.inet.fi/cool/tmu/kuvat/sig.jpg

A.K.A LeOs.K_Vipez

Thanatos833
11-29-2006, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Squadron Signal gives the Ju-87D-5 model's maximum speed as 410 km/h (255 mph). </div></BLOCKQUOTE> That's odd, I read it was 245 MPH, but clearly both the Do-17 and He-111 were faster, the He-173 was a 100 MPH faster.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ???Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

JtD
11-30-2006, 08:34 AM
But they would not survive a prolonged 90?? dive let alone the pullout.

The Stuka was probably the most precise bomb delivery system of the war. That's a pretty good attribute imho.

TheBandit_76
11-30-2006, 09:50 AM
In fact, the stuka was so good, Bill Leverette bagged 7 in one go.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


http://www.oldgloryprints.com/Lightning_Strikes_Seven_Times.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">



http://members.cox.net/sparksco/PacificFighters/BlackAndGoldSig.jpg

For the good old American lifestyle: For the money, for the glory, and for the fun... mostly for the money.

LStarosta
11-30-2006, 09:54 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg

stathem
11-30-2006, 10:25 AM
Stuka Party!!!

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/graemlins/band.gif <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

Longpo
11-30-2006, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
In fact, the stuka was so good, Bill Leverette bagged 7 in one go.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nifty.

LStarosta
11-30-2006, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Stuka Party!!!

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/graemlins/band.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you lipread the singer, he is saying "Death to God, Praise Satan and Oleg".<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg

Irish_Rogues
11-30-2006, 02:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

~

"You are stuck on stupid. I???m not going to answer that question." - Lt. Gen. Russel Honore

JG53Frankyboy
11-30-2006, 03:02 PM
you can blame the escort fighters or the commanding officers if the bombers were sent out without......... but not the bomber http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

flaming_onion
11-30-2006, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Plus, speed is not really the concern for a bomber, it's always slower than a fighter anyway, and because of formation flying and range issues it rarely flies at max speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, yes, that's why they had Schnellbombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to say - what was the Ar234 designed for?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">



"Hey Andrei, hold my vodka and watch this!"

flaming_onion
11-30-2006, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Stuka Party!!!

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/graemlins/band.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it BYO?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">



"Hey Andrei, hold my vodka and watch this!"