PDA

View Full Version : Why use the Ju-87 and why dive bomb?



dandruff_
03-02-2004, 09:43 AM
hi folks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Why should I dive bomb in my stuka?
I cannot see any good reasons to do it.

Ground attack: I just use bomb delay and fly close to the ground and let the bombs go as I pass the target, usually it is a hit.

I come in with great speed, wich makes me less voulnerable (sp) to AAA (well, at least I think so).
When divebombing the same target, I miss the target more often.

Ship bombing:
Same situation here. Skip-bombing is better for me, I get better results. One problem though is to get away from the blast in time, but I usualy manage that.
Its quite hard to hit the ships when divebombing.

So why use the Ju-87? On greatergreen (online server) you can usually choose if you want to fly me 109, 190 or stuka. My opinion is that it is much better to use the fighters for ground attack. They are quicker, can carry 500kg+ bomb and can protect them self afterwards.

I feel that even the big He-111 is a better close support bomber.
I just come down low in good speed and drop the bombload on f.ex. a tank column. Usually I get more hits with the He-111 and its bigger bombload.
Ok, the He-111 get hit more often by AAA, but still I think the He-111 is a better choice.


So my question is:
Why divebomb with the stuka?
Why use the stuka when you have the He-111 and FW-190 and Me-109 with better ground attack possibilities?

I really WANT to fly the stuka and divebomb though, but the only reason I see is the siren and that divebombing in fact is cery cool http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dandruff

dandruff_
03-02-2004, 09:43 AM
hi folks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Why should I dive bomb in my stuka?
I cannot see any good reasons to do it.

Ground attack: I just use bomb delay and fly close to the ground and let the bombs go as I pass the target, usually it is a hit.

I come in with great speed, wich makes me less voulnerable (sp) to AAA (well, at least I think so).
When divebombing the same target, I miss the target more often.

Ship bombing:
Same situation here. Skip-bombing is better for me, I get better results. One problem though is to get away from the blast in time, but I usualy manage that.
Its quite hard to hit the ships when divebombing.

So why use the Ju-87? On greatergreen (online server) you can usually choose if you want to fly me 109, 190 or stuka. My opinion is that it is much better to use the fighters for ground attack. They are quicker, can carry 500kg+ bomb and can protect them self afterwards.

I feel that even the big He-111 is a better close support bomber.
I just come down low in good speed and drop the bombload on f.ex. a tank column. Usually I get more hits with the He-111 and its bigger bombload.
Ok, the He-111 get hit more often by AAA, but still I think the He-111 is a better choice.


So my question is:
Why divebomb with the stuka?
Why use the stuka when you have the He-111 and FW-190 and Me-109 with better ground attack possibilities?

I really WANT to fly the stuka and divebomb though, but the only reason I see is the siren and that divebombing in fact is cery cool http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dandruff

SeaFireLIV
03-02-2004, 09:45 AM
er... because they used it in reality? And they followed orders?

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/P47duck.jpg

Mave_FI
03-02-2004, 09:48 AM
Stuka's siren sounds so cool http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
That's the reason for me...

Mave / Lufthunden
www.lufthunden.com (http://www.lufthunden.com)

lbhskier37
03-02-2004, 09:54 AM
because if you are good you can put a bomb on a picnic table with that stuka.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

SUPERAEREO
03-02-2004, 09:55 AM
DIVE BOMBING = PRECISION

In RL Stuka crews could take out individual tanks or machine gun positions with just one bomb.

As simple as that.

S!

Magister__Ludi
03-02-2004, 09:56 AM
They used divebombing because it was the most accurate bomb delivery method in ww2. Second in precision were the guided bombs and rockets, third was the tree tops level bombing. Reasonable accuracy had level bombing from altitudes up to 3000-4000m. From 6000m carpet bombing was the only method to give results, at 9000-10000m bombing was not accurate at all, regardless of delivery method.

LilHorse
03-02-2004, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dandruff_:
hi folks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Why should I dive bomb in my stuka?
I cannot see any good reasons to do it.

Ground attack: I just use bomb delay and fly close to the ground and let the bombs go as I pass the target, usually it is a hit.

I come in with great speed, wich makes me less voulnerable (sp) to AAA (well, at least I think so).
When divebombing the same target, I miss the target more often.

Ship bombing:
Same situation here. Skip-bombing is better for me, I get better results. One problem though is to get away from the blast in time, but I usualy manage that.
Its quite hard to hit the ships when divebombing.

So why use the Ju-87? On greatergreen (online server) you can usually choose if you want to fly me 109, 190 or stuka. My opinion is that it is much better to use the fighters for ground attack. They are quicker, can carry 500kg+ bomb and can protect them self afterwards.

I feel that even the big He-111 is a better close support bomber.
I just come down low in good speed and drop the bombload on f.ex. a tank column. Usually I get more hits with the He-111 and its bigger bombload.
Ok, the He-111 get hit more often by AAA, but still I think the He-111 is a better choice.


So my question is:
Why divebomb with the stuka?
Why use the stuka when you have the He-111 and FW-190 and Me-109 with better ground attack possibilities?

I really WANT to fly the stuka and divebomb though, but the only reason I see is the siren and that divebombing in fact is cery cool http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dandruff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If what we're talking about here is real world then using the Stuka made sense because it was extremely accurate. A 111 was not suitable in the close support role nor was it suitable for other operational (battlefield) roles. It was a tactical bomber. As far as exposure to anti-aircraft fire, the Stuka was probably less susceptable that a 111 since it was smaller and in a dive it's very difficult to depress the elevation of a AA gun to match the dive of a Stuka. They'd be in more trouble after pulling out of the dive I would imagine. The popular notion of the Stuka being "obsolete" by the start of the war is a mis-representation. Of course it needed to operate in an enviornment where it had fighter cover. And when it did it was quite devistating. It was the champion tank buster of the war. Pretty good for an "obsolete" aircraft.

In the game we have super aim-bot AAA. In something like online servers you aren't going to have situations develope where the Stuka is going to do much good unless you are participating in one of the online wars such as VEF. Even in a scripted server it's rare when you get an escort. Mostly scripted servers are treated like mildly objective oriented DF rooms.

If you really want to fly the Stuka where it's abilities are evident then I'd say fly VEF. Register by yourself or join a squad that specializes in Stuka work. Having comms is a big plus in online wars as well.

mortoma
03-02-2004, 12:00 PM
Maybe you hust stink at high angle dive bombing are you're better at shallow bombing. Although I rarely fly the Stuka since it's hard to survive a campaign in, I find I can hit better dive bombing
from up high than I can with the normal method. But I'm pretty good at that too. You just have to know how to fly the Stuka and where to aim, that's all

dandruff_
03-02-2004, 01:56 PM
hmm my opinion is that it is more variables that can affect your result when you are dive bombing instead of flying low and bomb.

All i have to think of is to not hit the ground (fairly easy), and keep a steady course towards the target. Then you will hit the target.

When divebombing there is more things to consider.

This is a simulator. The Germans did use the Stuka with fairly success as someone mentioned here. So therefore I feel that something is wrong when I get better results attacking a tank column with a low flying He-111.

I cannot see why I should use the Stuka (f.ex.on an online server). It is better to use the 109`s or 190`s to bomb. Since this is a sim, isnt it something wrong here then? You guys say that you can hit almost everything when divebombing. Well, im a kind of newbie Stuka-pilot and I can hit everything ;) without diving. I just aim at the tank at low altitude and release the bomb at the right moment. Well, I cannot hit exactly everything though :)

So I cannot really compare divebombing and coming in low bombing. Dive bombing is harder and takes more skill. So why should I dive bomb in this sim, like the Germans did?

THe advantage as I see it is not prescission, when dive bombing. It`s worse. You really cannot miss when you skip bomb f.ex. a ship.

Im just curious.

Maybe its because I only have tried stationary tanks, cars and ships. hmm that might be it.

:)

-Dandruff- (still wants to divebomb for a reason)

Agamemnon22
03-02-2004, 02:10 PM
You have to remember that in RL there are mobile air defenses. Even infantry with machine guns can damage airplanes, so flying in straight and level isn't the smartest idea. As well in certain combat areas that is made even more complicated by trees, structures, terrain, etc, that make a low angle bombing run hazardous or force you to manouver such that you cannot line up on the target in time. This is when you would dive bomb. You fly along out of interest and reach of potential ground threats, dive, drop your load and pull out. AA will have a real hard time tracking you, you won't have to avoid tall trees and burnt out buildings while lining up and your bomb will travel much faster than a freefalling one, meaning you don't have to lead moving targets as much. In ship attacks, I suppose the extra kinetic energy helps the bomb penetrate deeper into the hull before going off.

dandruff_
03-02-2004, 02:36 PM
thanks for the good answers guys :)

we really need to get this modelled :P


Dandruff

LilHorse
03-02-2004, 02:41 PM
Maybe you just have a knack for level bombing. Most ppl (myself included) find divebombing much more accurate. So, use what works best for you. But just because the 111 works for you doesn't mean that the Stuka isn't effective. Just check some of the stats of guys who fly Stukas in VEF. Pretty devastating.

jensenpark
03-02-2004, 03:23 PM
Why the Stuka?

For the challenge, and more importantly the realism.

That, and the fact my rear gunner is a real killer! Nothing better than fleeing a chasing Red and having the AI gunner blow him out of the sky.

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg

"Death before unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke

BBB_Hyperion
03-02-2004, 03:42 PM
Why divebomb well i like the siren and Auto pullout routine did cost some enemy planes yet .). I personaly prefer the Ju87 G1 for Tank busting runs. When other targets are involved i take the Heinkel with sc50s you can take out tanks with it too but precision is lower than the Stuka but with some training you get 85 %.

The Stuka as Bomber i use only for fun runs cause the loadouts now almost can be found on a FW as well and the slow speed makes the decision easy. And its a challenge to use the Gunner and fly the Plane at the same Time but great fun when you see ppl complaining about damn ai gunners lol.

We get the D5 soon and this has a Special Revi that calculates drop point for bomb in shallow dives.

Regards,
Hyperion

Bruusteri
03-02-2004, 04:05 PM
Personally I like to fly Stuka (one of my favorits).

I always use 90 degree dive (80-90). This way the gun sight points to the place where the bombs will drop. Now I just have to keep the target at my gun sight. If the angle is less than 90 degrees, you have to point more over the target. With 500kg bombs you don't need to get exactly direct hits (except ships).

Hitting ships is very difficult, because you need a direct hit. If the target ship is lightly armed with AAA, you can do a low level attack.

Most dangerous targets are big air fields (some cities and harbours, might have a stronger AAA defence). If you try to hit them by a low level attack with a Stuka, you are going to be dead most likely.

I often set the bomb delay to 3 secs, even if I dive bomb. When I dive bomb, I drop first set of bombs using dive bombing and the latter set by low flying over the target. This way I can cause more destruction.

The best reasons to use dive bombing is that..
a) Hit better (90 degrees dive, and you know what you are doing)
b) AAA has a tougher job to hit you
c) High speed from the dive makes the escape from the target area easier.

If the enemy fighters attack me, I don't just wait for my death. If I cannot escape them I begin to dog fight them(!). I have some 20 kills (with the forward firing guns + 4-5 for the rear gunner). I just can't wait for that Ju-87D-5 with 20mm cannons :)

BS87
03-02-2004, 04:12 PM
I only need 1 reason, and its the kickass feeling knowing the fear that siren gives to people who are slow to takeoff online.

leet_haxxor
03-02-2004, 04:18 PM
BEXUZ they r fuxored up fb leik flak hits yuo anyway y ROFL espeaciely loolol when yuo fly me262 in leik 900 kmh aend a 85mm flaek hits you.... yeh reight as if they cod hit anything else but plaens liek tb3 moving in 50 kmh LOLOLOL


aenyway tey fuxxored up il2 wit stuffz leik bombdelay = the n00b. y if yuo wnat to hit u3es he111 wit thar leet bombsiht and pwwn thar tnaks froem 6000 metars with 1 bomb LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL it r s3xx aend pwn at dar saem tiem

y as si i said BOMBDELAY = n00bish!!!!!!!
DOent use it it is unrealistic k thnaks

Vamandrac_Steam
03-02-2004, 04:41 PM
The hell kind of giberish is that above me? Anyway I fly the stuka almost all the time (suprise, surprise) If you you are wanting to hit specific targets then a dive bomber is the best plane for the job.

http://darkstar.teamhifi.org/files/Sig3.jpg
Futter für das Fatherland

JR_Greenhorn
03-02-2004, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Agamemnon22:
...your bomb will travel much faster than a freefalling one, meaning you don't have to lead moving targets as much. In ship attacks, I suppose the extra kinetic energy helps the bomb penetrate deeper into the hull before going off.Do you mean in a dive-bombing situation the bomb will fall faster than in free fall? Terminal velocity is terminal velocity, assuming it is reached before the bomb hits the deck. Also, did you mean that dive or skip bombing will provide more kinetic energy? Also, I think its velocity and not kinetic energy that really matters here.


Something to consider with ships is the thickness of the armour. I don't know any numbers off the top of my head, but I would bet that the belt armour thickness is not equal to the deck armour thickness. This should have great effect on the relative efficiencies of dive and skip bombing.


The low-level He 111 vs. Ju 87 dive bombing question favours the Stuka because of the logistics involved--fuel and service for double the engines, more crewmen, etc. Of course this would beg the question of a jabo vs. the Stuka. Then the effectiveness of each plane in the bombing required would be the factor, I guess.


Another thing I wonder about but don't have an answer for is the consistency of the ground surface utilized in skip bombing. In game, the ground is very likely consistent for the purposes of skip bombing, but in real life, the type of ground is inconsistent (i.e. sand, soil, gravel, grass, clay, etc.), as is the way said ground is prepared (hard packed, such as a road; loose packed like a field, etc.). Also the slope of the ground is pretty smooth and consistent in game, but in real life, the ground has much more surface roughness.

Similarly the waves in bodies of water may affect the skipping bomb more than the representation of the water can in game.

Oso2323
03-02-2004, 09:35 PM
My opinion is that it is much better to use the fighters for ground attack. They are quicker, can carry 500kg+ bomb and can protect them self afterwards.

Why use the stuka when you have the He-111 and FW-190 and Me-109 with better ground attack possibilities?


Well the Germans apparently agreed with you: they replaced the Stuka with the FW-190. The FW could defend itself against late-war enemy fighters.

Moustacheo
08-20-2005, 12:48 PM
If you're having trouble with dive bombing, just watch the Stuka training track that comes with FB. Watch it through, then practice using the QMB. As is often the case when learning new maneuvers and such, QMB is your friend.

rockgardenlove
08-20-2005, 01:15 PM
Hi, I just recently got Il2, but I know that from playing CFS2 dive bombing is hard(for me at least).
Anyway, how do you know your attack angle? If you play without the hud.
Thanks

Moustacheo
08-20-2005, 01:22 PM
For your attack angle, you just invert the plane, so that you can see the ground by looking through the top of the canopy. The Stuka (and possibly other planes too, I'm not sure) has angle lines painted on the inside of the canopy so you measure your specific angle if you want to.

Kuna15
08-20-2005, 01:28 PM
There is a certain reason why the Stukas were reffered as "flying artillery" they had precision... unlike level bombers. They were suitable for using against ANY ground target, you name it. Buildings, tanks, infantry whatever. That is why the Stukas were good weapons.

Assuming they were provided with fighter escorts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Unfortunatelly for Junkers pilots, the more war is going on, their bomber becomes.more obsolete. Mainly due to low speed, leaving almost zero chance of escaping interceptors if attacked, and defensive Ju-87 capabilities aren't worth much to debate.

danjama
08-20-2005, 03:02 PM
http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg

danjama
08-20-2005, 03:03 PM
i only posted that because someone tried to earlier and it never showed, but i wanted to know what it was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif it wasnt worth it lol

jugent
08-20-2005, 03:42 PM
The bomber wing was the primary and most important part of luftwaffe.

Before the war the best pilots that left air-academy where ordered to fly bombers. It is the bombers that do the big damage. The fighers are mainly a tool to get the friendly bombers to the target, and to kill the enemy bombers from getting to target.
There where theories between the wars that bombers alone could make countries to capitulate.
They said "Some Bombers will always get through"
In 1940 they said "Some bombers will always get back"

A diving divebomber was a stabile platform. A good stuka pilot could take out moving targets like tanks.

In real life u have to hit a tank directly to put it out of order.

A close hit (10 m radius) may turn it to the side but it can be towed to the rigt position and put into actiona again.

The stuka was the 1940:th answer to precision bombing.

By some unclear reason Oleg hasnt put the stukas strenght in this game.

Dont expect that this game shall mirror how it was in real life in WWII.

According to Ulrich Rudel, and I dont say that he is scientifically correct, a skilled pilot in a stuka with the "anti-tank gun"
could aim at the weak spots of a tank to take it out.
It was no use to shoot at the turret or frontal armour, the wolfram penetrator wouldnt give any damage.

In the game the Stuka feels attached to a rubber-string, it jojo:s up and down and you must shoot and pray, sometimes u hit, mostly not.

Russia didnt got any divebomber in this game I think.

WTE_Warg
08-20-2005, 05:06 PM
I guess I fly mostly online and often use the Stuka in it's intended dive bombing role. I find that it has all the equipment for that role, ie. divebrakes, window markers, floorcut out, etc. If you line up the target, get the angle right then the bombload will only go one way. Straight down. Take one up to about 4000 metres and you usually get a clear run and shot at the target. Safer from AAA as well. After the dive, your a target and you need to beat it back home at really low altitude. Beg to differ on the bombload capacity when compared to the FW190. If you can get away with it, a low level mision with a SC1800 Satan and 3.0 sec delay can bbe pretty effective. Mind you, I'd normally use a FW or Zerostorer for the Jabo work. Hope this helps and it is something that is worthwhile to mastering. Its fun as well. Goodluck.

Xiolablu3
08-20-2005, 05:40 PM
Dive bombing is much more accuarate than level bombing.

If you can bomb as well by level bombing then by all means do it, I cant get anywhere near as close tho.

I find dive bombing the only sure way I can hit my target, especially in fighters with a belly bomb.

LStarosta
08-20-2005, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
There is a certain reason why the Stukas were reffered as "flying artillery" they had precision... unlike level bombers. They were suitable for using against ANY ground target, you name it. Buildings, tanks, infantry whatever. That is why the Stukas were good weapons.

Assuming they were provided with fighter escorts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Unfortunatelly for Junkers pilots, the more war is going on, their bomber becomes.more obsolete. Mainly due to low speed, leaving almost zero chance of escaping interceptors if attacked, and defensive Ju-87 capabilities aren't worth much to debate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagreed. I can drop a bomb into a barrel with a level bomber. Fakt.

Jugent. I'm pretty sure that the sheer shockwave of a 1000lb bomb exploding next to a tank would kill the crew. Or at least make it pretty deaf and injured.

Monty_Thrud
08-20-2005, 06:34 PM
Because its historically correct...welcome

FritzGryphon
08-20-2005, 07:13 PM
Safety from flak, for sure.

Bf-109 and FW-190 can only bomb low level. If you are attacking a large ship or something, you'll be dog meat.

Divebombing Stuka can bomb accurately from 1000m or more, especially the D5 with the Stuvi sight. You can get a good chance of hitting the target, without exposing yourself to much danger.

Also remember that when dive bombing was first developed, there were no fancy gyroscopic bombsights.

Retrofish
08-20-2005, 07:32 PM
I read somewhere that 1C is going to make Pacific airwar sim. It's going to have divebombers too like the Dauntless and the Val, and maybe some torpe...&gt;SNIP&lt;

Xiolablu3
08-20-2005, 07:39 PM
I see a few questions on how to dive bomb accurately.

I am a newbie to this game but find dive bombing quite easy compared to level bombing.

I just throttle to 0%, maybe radiator to open to increase drag, dive almost straight down, say about 75 or 80 degrees, from about 1500-2000m with my gun crosshair on the target, then at about 400-500m release the bomb and immediatley pull out, your bomb will continue on the course you were diving on. I get a hit around 95% of the time.

Be careful not to go too fast if you are in a fighter and rip your wing off though, this is why you must throttle to 0% and do anything u can to create drag if you are much higher than 2000m.(radiator open or combat flaps etc)

If people can level bomb better than dive bomb (although I dont see how) then they should do it, its a LOT safer, less chance to get hit by flak OR get shot on your way back up by a fighter who has seen you.

Dive bombing is PURELY for accuracy, if this accuaracy is not needed dont put yourself at risk, bomb level.

Luftwaffe_109
08-20-2005, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
Unfortunatelly for Junkers pilots, the more war is going on, their bomber becomes.more obsolete. Mainly due to low speed, leaving almost zero chance of escaping interceptors if attacked, and defensive Ju-87 capabilities aren't worth much to debate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must take issue with this, the Stuka was never obsolete during the war. €œObsolete€ means that there were other aircraft that could do the job better. However, the Ju-87 remained the premier dive bomber. It is true that it needed air cover to operate well, but this does not make it obsolete. All bombers need air cover.

Also, Stukas were successfuly used in other roles right up until the end of the war. Besides the day 10th Panzerstaffeln there was also the Nachtschlacht gruppen which were equipped with the Ju 87D-3 and D-5's an gave an excellent account of themselves in the night time role. US P-61 units from the 422nd and 425th Night Fighter Squadrons were detailed to deal with them but proved generally unsuccessful to intercept the slow movers who could easily bank and fly at extremely low levels to bomb and strafe Allied positions.

DmdSeeker
08-20-2005, 09:10 PM
Really you're asking two questions; 1) why dive bomb; and 2) why use the Stuka.

The answer to "Why dive bomb" is purely accuracy. You have to remember that we're talking of the age of plain; non active sights and plain dumb iron bombs. In these conditions; dive bombing is the most accurate delivery. If it isn't for you; then you're doing something wrong (although that does not make invalid other techniques such as skip bombing).

The second question; "why the Stuka"; well; why indeed. In the early war years few fighters could carry a bomb; but it was soon discovered that most could. From that moment; the Stuka did indeed become obsolete. So much so that other planes over took it's role; and the Stuka it's self became the A-10 of it's times with huge cannons in the anti- armour role.

I've even seen a Stuka pilot bewailing the LW's short sightedness in persisting with the Stuka. His argument was that the Allies had found out that the best ground atack planes were a) radial engined (less prone to small arms damage); b) fast (could get out of dodge); and c) agile enough to be capable of self defence (the Stuka wasn't; and for every Stuka lost you lost two men). In short; he was describing the Jug.

To me; the bigger mystery is why the IL-2? All of the Stuka pilot's complaints apply to the IL-2 as well; especially when one considers that the Stuka did at least have some specialisations for it's role such as automatic bomb release and dive recovery. The IL-2 (as far as I know) had none of these; it's was just a coffin waiting to happen.

alert_1
08-21-2005, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In short; he was describing the Jug. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OR Fw190 - that's why Fw190F/G replace Ju87 finally

HellToupee
08-21-2005, 09:30 AM
ju87 was never obsoleet it just cannot operate in anything else than total airsuperiorty, fighter bombers dont have nearly the accuracy, they could barely hit a ship let alone a tank. Modern day comparasion would be the b52s differnt role but they are useless in anything other than total air superiorty interceptors would make short work of them.

jensenpark
08-21-2005, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
i only posted that because someone tried to earlier and it never showed, but i wanted to know what it was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif it wasnt worth it lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean, not worth it? I'm hurt!

That is of course the famous Uncle Duke from Doonesbury - drinking and drugging since 1974. Fashioned after the recentley departed Hunter S Thompson.

jarink
08-21-2005, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
I must take issue with this, the Stuka was never obsolete during the war. €œObsolete€ means that there were other aircraft that could do the job better. However, the Ju-87 remained the premier dive bomber. It is true that it needed air cover to operate well, but this does not make it obsolete. All bombers need air cover.

Also, Stukas were successfuly used in other roles right up until the end of the war. Besides the day 10th Panzerstaffeln there was also the Nachtschlacht gruppen which were equipped with the Ju 87D-3 and D-5's an gave an excellent account of themselves in the night time role. US P-61 units from the 422nd and 425th Night Fighter Squadrons were detailed to deal with them but proved generally unsuccessful to intercept the slow movers who could easily bank and fly at extremely low levels to bomb and strafe Allied positions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definition of "Obsolete":
The condition of being no longer of use due to passage of time. Usually associated with old, outdated designs.

The Stuka was obsolete after 1940. Just because it was virtually Germany's only dive bomber (the Ju-88 could dive-bomb, but that was not it's primary role) does not mean it deserve the moniker of "premier". If we take your definition where a replacement is necessary for a design to be obsolete, then the SB2C Helldiver is still the US Navy's premier dive bomber.

Just because a plane is obsolete did not mean it was completely discontinued from service, especially during wartime, however. You mentioned that Stukas were used as night harrasment bombers. Basically every plane used in that role was used in that role because it was obsolete and useless in it's intended role. Both the Germans and Russians used lots of biplanes for these duties as well, like the Hs-123 and U-2.

As for dive-bombing in general, it was state-of-the-art precision bombing for 1942. The Germans started using munitions like the "Fritz-X" radio-guided bomb in 1943. By the end of WWII, level bombing techniques and the introduction of guided munitions spelled the end of the dive bomber.

Zeus-cat
08-21-2005, 02:38 PM
Fly around a battlefield at low level in real life and several hundred to several thousand enemy infantrymen would be shooting at you. None of those guys are modelled in the game.

Zeus-cat

Kuna15
08-21-2005, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Disagreed. I can drop a bomb into a barrel with a level bomber. Fakt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one say you can not, but thing is, it is not neccesary to ram the barrel after you hit it with the bomb. Or blow your tail off due to your own bomb explosion.

And with your brilliant tactic that scenario is not impossible.

Airmail109
08-21-2005, 04:03 PM
Dive bombing is an absaloute hoot for me. Online whenever i see dive bombers available, i jump up and down with glee.....loadout.....then take off and "blow stuff up" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif! Its even funnier if you knock multiple aircraft out while they are on the ground! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Dive bombing with mates is even funnier.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Moustacheo
08-21-2005, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Fly around a battlefield at low level in real life and several hundred to several thousand enemy infantrymen would be shooting at you. None of those guys are modelled in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How effective was small arms fire? I'd have thought that anyone with anything less than an MG would be wasting their ammo.

Xiolablu3
08-22-2005, 01:32 AM
Not really, you are trying to get a 'volume of fire' up in the air and so the more the better.

Remember that .303 in the Spit is rifle caliber ammo, I know rifle ground fire is not likely to knock the plane down but it can sure be a deterrent.

Plus if real life is anything like the game, rifle calibre fire is good for PKs or knocking out controls.

Basically the more fire the better, whether that be 1 mg or 20 men with bolt action rifles. I was just watching a doc on US small Arms from WW2 and there was a piece on it where a vet was talking..

'NEVER worry about saving your ammo, we need a high volume of fire on the target, whether you hit it or not. We can get LOTS more ammo, however we may not be able to get lots more men like you.'

Sums it up well I thought.

Luftwaffe_109
08-22-2005, 01:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:

Definition of "Obsolete":
The condition of being no longer of use due to passage of time. Usually associated with old, outdated designs.

The Stuka was obsolete after 1940. Just because it was virtually Germany's only dive bomber (the Ju-88 could dive-bomb, but that was not it's primary role) does not mean it deserve the moniker of "premier". If we take your definition where a replacement is necessary for a design to be obsolete, then the SB2C Helldiver is still the US Navy's premier dive bomber.

Just because a plane is obsolete did not mean it was completely discontinued from service, especially during wartime, however. You mentioned that Stukas were used as night harrasment bombers. Basically every plane used in that role was used in that role because it was obsolete and useless in it's intended role. Both the Germans and Russians used lots of biplanes for these duties as well, like the Hs-123 and U-2.

As for dive-bombing in general, it was state-of-the-art precision bombing for 1942. The Germans started using munitions like the "Fritz-X" radio-guided bomb in 1943. By the end of WWII, level bombing techniques and the introduction of guided munitions spelled the end of the dive bomber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you are claiming here is not that the Ju-87, pre se was obsolete, but that dive bombers in general were obsolete, and the Ju-87 by extention.

If this is your contention than I must respectfully disagree, dive bombers continued to have their place on the battlefield. They were simply the best way for precision bombing. Thus, the Ju-87, being a superb dive bomber was not obsolete at any time during the war.

You may think otherwise.

Best Regards

ClnlSandersLite
08-22-2005, 02:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Jugent. I'm pretty sure that the sheer shockwave of a 1000lb bomb exploding next to a tank would kill the crew. Or at least make it pretty deaf and injured. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention shatter the gunsight optics. Kill anyone that was turned out or in a position to see the explosion through viewports, and destroy any exterior equipment (like radio antenna and any gear strapped onto the tank). Probably also blow the track.

It may be a temporary kill, but in a CAS role it is often enough to give the ground pounders a chance. THAT's the point.

Ankanor
08-22-2005, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
To me; the bigger mystery is why the IL-2? All of the Stuka pilot's complaints apply to the IL-2 as well; especially when one considers that the Stuka did at least have some specialisations for it's role such as automatic bomb release and dive recovery. The IL-2 (as far as I know) had none of these; it's was just a coffin waiting to happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL-2 was designed to operate at treetop level. Second, unlike both the JuG and the Stuka, IL-2 was armored. third and this is most important, being slow gives you more time to concentrate on a target. It requires less skills and low ammount of practice. Anyone who could fly an aircraft could fly the Sturmovik. And that's the core of it: many fast produced Sturmoviks manned by many fast-trained pilots. You could say they were expendable from Russian point of view. On average a Sturmovik pilot survived 11 sorties. but then again, the Sturmovik is the most produced aircraft of all time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

About divebombing and the usage of the Stuka: divebombing was the most ingenuous tactics at the time. the bombers arrive at high altitude, only the heavy AAA can be a threat from the ground, and not all targets were defended by heavy AAA. The attack is precise(and we're talking about times when there were no sophisticated bomber sights) and escape was highspeed on treetop level(lesser percentage of post-attack losses). Why the Stuka? Because it was a very stable dive-bombing platform, because it could carry bombload which the fighters initially couldn't. Also, because of the bombload the aircraft would be slower and the aircraft would become a easy prey for the enemy fighters. that's why there was a gunner.

SithSpeeder
08-22-2005, 09:05 AM
I agree with jarink about the 87 being obsolete in anything but early servers. They did a whole expose on History Wings channel on the Ju-87 once--great stuff. What I remember from that discussion was that the plane was designed in the early 30's, when speed was not nearly so important. Between the big fixed landing gear and the exposed rivets across the entire plane, she was not aerodynamic. (again, IMO, this made her obsolete) Obviously, fabrication costs would be less to produce them, though.

If you have air superiority, the bomb loadout in the early part of the war is unparalleled. But later on, the fighter-bombers nearly catch up and are designed for much greater survivability.

I have a kind of fond spot in my heart for the Stuka, as it was the first airplane model my Dad and I put together (probably around age 6 or 7).

* _54th_Speeder *

Luftwaffe_109
08-22-2005, 12:40 PM
Hello SithSpeeder .

It is my opinion that you are understating the effectiveness of the diver-bombers and overstating that of fighter-bombers. While it is certainly true that fighter-bombers stood more chance of surviving against fighters, they were are also more vulnerable to ground fire (unlike the Ju-87 and Sturmovik, for example, which were less vulnerable due to armour) and much less accurate at dropping bombs than specialist dive-bombers. They also could not effectively carry the heavy anti-tank guns that the Ju 87G and Hs 129 could. So by employing fighter-bombers in a dive-bomber role you lose a lot in effectiveness.

Ian Gooderson€s book, Air Power at the Battlefront makes a good case for the deficiencies of fighter-bombers. It examines the reports of the Operational Research teams which examined knocked-out German tanks after the Normandy and later battles in order to determine what their cause of destruction or disabling was.

The book contends that the evidence gathered by the Operational Research teams indicated that very few tanks were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223 Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). During the Mortain battle of 7-10th August, the RAF and USAAF launched sustained attacks on a German armoured column over a period of six hours, claiming 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged in nearly 500 sorties. It was subsequently discovered that there had only been a total of 177 tanks or tank destroyers deployed by the Germans and just 46 of those were lost, of which only nine could be attributed to air attack (seven to RPs and two to bombs). During the German retreat from the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391 armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of which just 33 had been the victim of any sort of air attack. In the retreat to the Seine, large numbers of armoured vehicles were left behind and Typhoon pilots alone claimed 222 destroyed, but only thirteen out of 388 armoured fighting vehicles examined were found to have been knocked out by RP attack. In the Ardennes salient, just seven out of 101 knocked-out armoured fighting vehicles were definitely or possibly attributed to air attack, compared with claims for 90. It should be noted that in the prevailing circumstances of a continuing retreat, there was no question of the German Army having recovered any damaged tanks in these later actions, in fact the battlefields were often littered with undamaged tanks abandoned by their crews.

One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign. In contrast, the RAF's 2nd TAF (including elements of the Air Defence of Britain which took part in the campaign) and the USAAF's 9th Air Force lost over 1,700 aircraft between them.

It would seem that generally fighter-bombers, at least on the allied side (but I would argue also German ones) were ineffective in destroying armoured vehicles. It really does seem that there is no substitute for the precision of a dive-bomber. The fact that they needed fighter escort is neither here nor there. The Flying Fortresses were also shown to perform very poorly without escort, yet no one here is suggesting that they were obsolete.

Best Regards

DmdSeeker
08-22-2005, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Moustacheo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Fly around a battlefield at low level in real life and several hundred to several thousand enemy infantrymen would be shooting at you. None of those guys are modelled in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How effective was small arms fire? I'd have thought that anyone with anything less than an MG would be wasting their ammo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do a google search and see how George Preddy; one of the most promising Mustang aces died...

The point being that the Stuka; and the IL-2; were fitted with in-line water cooled engines. There's some good engineering reasons why water cooling can potentialy produce more power; but water cooling always implies increased vulnerability; it only takes an air gun pellet in the rad to eventually disable it; let alone a bullet.

SithSpeeder
08-23-2005, 07:40 AM
LW109--

Although I would agree that fighter-bombers weren't necessarily terribly effective against armor, that is not what the original poster was asking. I believe he was asking IN GAME, why should one use a Stuka? My response was more in "early war servers", go for it. And as you said, with air superiority (or at least darned good protection), go for it. But dandruff's points were IN GAME ("On greatergreen (online server)"...), he can attack more effectively and survive better not being in a Stuka--to that, I agree.

Also, dive bombers had a role in the war, but I believe they were getting phased out, much like the battleship. The SBDs did great against Japanese ships, but I sure wouldn't want to be in one when being chased by their fighters.

Comparing dive bombers to dive bombers, the Stuka (87B) is the slowest of the group at 350 km/h. The SBD went 407 km/h (similar size, weight, ceiling, and climb, 2.5 times the range, nearly the same bombload), the Val 450 km/h.

On the Eastern Front, the tactics changed from dive-bombing to low-level attacks. "And finally, the use of dive bombing was abandoned entirely by the Ju 87G versions." But guys like Hans-Ulrich Rudel found ways to be effective with it, credited with killing a battleship (Marat), 519 tanks, and 2000+ other vehicles. Just because something is "obsolete" doesn't make it less lethal. Obsolete, to me, is a standard of comparison.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">During W.W.II, several Ju 87s fell into allied hands, but not until at the end of the war the famous British test pilot Eric Brown had the opportunity to fly an Ju 87D-3. He had flown numerous allied dive bombers, such as the Blackburn Skua, the Vultee A-35 Vengeance, the Vought SB2U, the Douglas SBD Dauntless and the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. Therefore he was in an excellent position to compare these aircraft.

To him the Ju 87D-3 - then completely obsolete - imparted an "almost oppressive" sense of vulnerability. The pilot sat high a the greenhouse company, with an excellent view all around, but also terribly exposed. The Ju 87D-3 accelerated well on take-off, but climbed slowly, and was both too slow to escape from fighter attack and too stable to evade it. Briefly, the Ju 87 was an "ideal target", even for the most inexperienced fighter pilot.

On the other hand Brown confirmed that the Ju 87 was ideal for dive bombing, "a genuine 90 deg screamer", in which it felt quite natural to be in a vertical dive. Dive bombing practice in the Ju 87 he found "more enjoyable... than I had ever experienced with any other aircraft of this specialist type."

Before the dive, the aircraft had to be trimmed for cruise conditions, the bomb release altitude was be set, and the cooler flaps closed. Deploying the dive brakes automatically put the Ju 87 into a dive, and engaged a security device which limited the control column movement to 5 degrees from neutral -- enough to give effective control for bomb-aiming, but preventing manoeuvres which could overstress the aircraft. After bomb release the Ju 87 pulled itself out of the dive. The pilot then closed the dive brakes, and climbed away.

Compared with other dive bombers, the Ju 87 left a favourable impression. If it was vulnerable, it was not more so than the Douglas SBD Dauntless, the Aichi D3A Val, or the Blackburn Skua. And it was more accurate than any of those. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YMMV.

* _54th_Speeder *

jarink
08-23-2005, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
Hello SithSpeeder .

It is my opinion that you are understating the effectiveness of the diver-bombers and overstating that of fighter-bombers. While it is certainly true that fighter-bombers stood more chance of surviving against fighters, they were are also more vulnerable to ground fire (unlike the Ju-87 and Sturmovik, for example, which were less vulnerable due to armour) and much less accurate at dropping bombs than specialist dive-bombers. They also could not effectively carry the heavy anti-tank guns that the Ju 87G and Hs 129 could. So by employing fighter-bombers in a dive-bomber role you lose a lot in effectiveness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is carrying large-caliber antitank guns a defining role for a dive bomber? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

In the gun-carrying AT role, the Hs129 was a much better aircraft than the Stuka. It was better armored, somewhat faster and could also carry a much more effective AT armament (5cm or 7.5cm AT cannon are much better at opening up tanks than two 3.7cm guns). I don't think anyone would confuse the Hs129 as a dive bomber. I'm not sure why you brought this up; it really doesn't support your position about Stukas and dive-bombing.

Yes, fighter-bombers are generally less accurate bomb delivery systems than dive bombers. However, as all air forces during the war discovered, survivability was a very important factor that many early aircraft lacked. Why would the Lufwaffe had traded Stukas for FW-190Fs if it was a step back? Hint: Maybe they wanted to keep their pilots alive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign. In contrast, the RAF's 2nd TAF (including elements of the Air Defence of Britain which took part in the campaign) and the USAAF's 9th Air Force lost over 1,700 aircraft between them.

It would seem that generally fighter-bombers, at least on the allied side (but I would argue also German ones) were ineffective in destroying armoured vehicles. It really does seem that there is no substitute for the precision of a dive-bomber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many tanks were destroyed by Stukas from June 1944 to the end of the war in NW Europe? None? Perhaps because the Luftwaffe had withdrawn them from front-line service in the west in the fall of 1940? Why were they withdrawn? Because they were no longer able to perform their intended tasks without murderous losses; i.e., they were obsolete. Yes, they gave sterling service on the Eastern Front, but the air superiority situation was much different there. I would suggest that the Stuka would not be considered obsolete on that front until late 1943.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fact that they needed fighter escort is neither here nor there. The Flying Fortresses were also shown to perform very poorly without escort, yet no one here is suggesting that they were obsolete. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I, a dedicated Fort-lover, would say they were nearly obsolete by the end of the war. It might be best to say that they were obsolescent (outdated, but still useful in their primary role). The design had been surpassed in many ways by several others (B-29, B-32, for example) and continued in use only because they were available in large numbers and Allied air superiority made losses negligible by mid-1944. It's worth noting that after the conclusion of hostilities in Europe, most B-17s were immediately flown back to the states and scrapped. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

It seems we will have to agree to disagree. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mjr_health
08-23-2005, 04:47 PM
Because it is so much fun, and anyone silly enough to follow you in the dive very rarely pull out. He he. Siren is cool , love it. Also you can set the bomb release altitude. I set it for 450m as the default is around 800. Use the bomber site keys. It is usualyy a meter on left side cockpit that has 2 needles . one display hight the other bomb release point.

Luftwaffe_109
08-23-2005, 05:18 PM
Hi SithSpeeder,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, dive bombers had a role in the war, but I believe they were getting phased out, much like the battleship. The SBDs did great against Japanese ships, but I sure wouldn't want to be in one when being chased by their fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I agree, but you could also say that Flying Fortresses were great at strategic bombing, but you wouldn't really want to be in one while being chased by fighters either. Does that make it obsolete?

Hi jarink,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How is carrying large-caliber antitank guns a defining role for a dive bomber? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you can say that this role is quite related to dive-bombing, both their aims being precision destruction of targets and close air-support of ground units. The Stuka could excell at both roles. Fighter-bombers did not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think anyone would confuse the Hs129 as a dive bomber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't really understand this point, the Hs-129 was a dive-bomber, granted used often in the anti-tank gun-carrying role.

And like the Hs-129, the Stuka G proved very good in this role.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, fighter-bombers are generally less accurate bomb delivery systems than dive bombers. However, as all air forces during the war discovered, survivability was a very important factor that many early aircraft lacked. Why would the Lufwaffe had traded Stukas for FW-190Fs if it was a step back? Hint: Maybe they wanted to keep their pilots alive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh I agree with you completely, changes in the circumstances of the war dictated a move away from dive-bombers despite their superiority in that role. It was not because they were obsolete, since fighter-bombers were not as effective in the dive-bombing role. It was simply because they could not operate in such hostile aerial environments.

I must point out, however, that the issue isn't so much survivability. While the fight-bombers certainly had more survivability against other fighters, they lacked it against ground AA fire. It simply happened that the cicumstances of the war dictated that the former became more important, and therefore JABOs were favoured.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps because the Luftwaffe had withdrawn them from front-line service in the west in the fall of 1940? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is simply not true, the Ju-87 continued to attack the British coastal sea traffic until spring 1941, it was not withdrawn. Stukas as you know also served on the Ostfront until the end of the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Because they were no longer able to perform their intended tasks without murderous losses; i.e., they were obsolete. Yes, they gave sterling service on the Eastern Front, but the air superiority situation was much different there. I would suggest that the Stuka would not be considered obsolete on that front until late 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the point I do not understand. So a bomber that receives adequate escort is not obsolete, yet one that doesn't is? Were the Flying Fortresses obsolete during their early raids where they sustained heavy losses? No.

As for those "murderous" losses. During the Battle of Britain the Luftwafffe's bomber losses were:

May-September

Bombers: strength - 1700 / losses to all causes - 1142/ percentage of losses from strength - 67%

Dive Bombers: strength - 420 / losses to all causes - 210 / percentage of losses from strength - 50%

Heavy losses? Yes. Proportionally greater than other bombers? No. Indicating obsoleteness? No. Not to mention of course that Allied bomber losses were perhaps double this.

robotech
08-23-2005, 07:02 PM
Not so much about divebombers but seeing ground target in general. How do you guys spot these ground targets? Even at 1500-2000m I can barely see them. By the time I do see them(which is rarely) it's too late to do a level bombing. In the stuka it's a rushed invert and dive but also sometimes(ok most of the time) I see nothing while the other AI members of the flight are diving onto the target. I find that I have to use the F5 button(i think it's enemy ground padlock) but I feel like i'm cheating. Is the F5 button the trade off b/t RL and game simulations? Or was it this hard in RL to spot targets. If it was, wow I'm impressed the Ju87 pilots could find their targets with pinpoint precision. What do you guys use to find the targets especially in the offline campaigns with moving convoys of vehicles?

jarink
08-23-2005, 07:11 PM
OK, I give up.

The Stuka won the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

ClnlSandersLite
08-23-2005, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robotech:
Not so much about divebombers but seeing ground target in general. How do you guys spot these ground targets? Even at 1500-2000m I can barely see them. By the time I do see them(which is rarely) it's too late to do a level bombing. In the stuka it's a rushed invert and dive but also sometimes(ok most of the time) I see nothing while the other AI members of the flight are diving onto the target. I find that I have to use the F5 button(i think it's enemy ground padlock) but I feel like i'm cheating. Is the F5 button the trade off b/t RL and game simulations? Or was it this hard in RL to spot targets. If it was, wow I'm impressed the Ju87 pilots could find their targets with pinpoint precision. What do you guys use to find the targets especially in the offline campaigns with moving convoys of vehicles? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I use the f5 button as well. My system isn't good enough to have the uber nice graphics and such like some here. Ships are a dirrent story though. I can spot them pretty easilly, grey dot on a blue patch. The only other way I can find them is if they spot me first and are firing at me. Also, if I know where the target is going to be I can use the max zoom and find them. This only works on an objective raid though, won't work for targets of opportunity. Another exception would be trains. With the big black smoke flume, they are also easy to spot.

Philipscdrw
08-24-2005, 06:24 AM
Dive-bombing is a very cheap way to put bombs through the turret of a tank. It just used ordinary bombs and simple aeroplanes. No elaborate radio-controlled gliding jiggery-pokery. But the Ju-87 couldn't survive through WW2, and dive-bombing was replaced with rockets, big cannon, and treetop bombing.