PDA

View Full Version : Dive Bomber Angles



RAC_Pips
06-06-2004, 04:54 PM
I know that the Stuka regularly dived at around a 70 degree angle.

And that the IJN Aichi D3A dived at a 50-55 dive angle.

The Australians used the Vultee Vengeance to dive at a lunatic angle of 90 degrees.

What angle did the Dauntless and Helldiver aircraft dive at? And does anyone know if the USN and USMC followed the same practice? Or did it vary between Services?

RAC_Pips
06-06-2004, 04:54 PM
I know that the Stuka regularly dived at around a 70 degree angle.

And that the IJN Aichi D3A dived at a 50-55 dive angle.

The Australians used the Vultee Vengeance to dive at a lunatic angle of 90 degrees.

What angle did the Dauntless and Helldiver aircraft dive at? And does anyone know if the USN and USMC followed the same practice? Or did it vary between Services?

IV_JG51_Razor
06-06-2004, 06:02 PM
Since they were both trained at the same school, by the same instructors, my guess is that they both used the same techniques in employing the dive bomber, whether it was the SBD, or the SB2C.

I have a good book on the Dive bombers of the Navy, by Harold L Buell, called "Dauntless Heldivers" in it, he talks about 'launching' his bombs. I believe that he referred to an angle of about 75 degrees. I'll go back and see if I can't find it in the book.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Latico
06-06-2004, 07:54 PM
In reading the action reports of the pilots from the CV6 the standard dive angle was 70 degrees for US DB's (Dauntlass and Helldiver). When the TB's made bomb runs instead of torpedo, they used a more level glide approach.

Doug_Thompson
06-07-2004, 08:40 AM
I'll be able to give you a definite answer tonight. There's a great book on U.S. Navy dive-bombing put out by the Naval Institute Press a few years ago. In the meantime, I'm 99 percent sure that the 70 to 75 degree figure is correct.

http://uploadit.org/Ibissix/Dor335.jpg

vonSchnitter
06-07-2004, 08:55 AM
According to: "Ground Gunnery Training Manual", Naval Air Station, Pensacola Florida, 1944: pp 30.

Bombing Sights were Bore-Sighted for speed of 240 knots, release altitude 2000 ft, dive angle 65-70 deg.

Cheers
vonSchnitter

Magister__Ludi
06-07-2004, 04:53 PM
Stuka regulary dive bombed at 90 degrees, Ju-88 at 70 degrees.

SkyChimp
06-07-2004, 05:42 PM
It all depends. Dive bombing a stationary ground target ,ay allow for a 90 degree dive. Maintaining a dive angle of 90 degrees on a ship that is moving at 20-30 knots is impossible.

And dropping a bomb in a 90 degree dive was not advisable, even in a Stuka. At 90 degrees, the bomb doesn't seperate away from the plane, and the danger exists of the bomb striking the prop.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Mon June 07 2004 at 05:52 PM.]

SkyChimp
06-07-2004, 08:20 PM
Here's something on Toss Bombing that has a little on dive bombing in it. From May 1947 Naval Aviation News:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/page1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/page2.jpg

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

Magister__Ludi
06-07-2004, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

And dropping a bomb in a 90 degree dive was not advisable, even in a Stuka. At 90 degrees, the bomb doesn't seperate away from the plane, and the danger exists of the bomb striking the prop.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is an often repeated error. Stuka had a special bomb release mechanism that allowed bomb dropping at 90 degrees dive with no danger of striking the prop. However, other dive bombers did not have such device.

_VR_ScorpionWorm
06-07-2004, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

And dropping a bomb in a 90 degree dive was not advisable, even in a Stuka. At 90 degrees, the bomb doesn't seperate away from the plane, and the danger exists of the bomb striking the prop.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is an often repeated error. Stuka had a special bomb release mechanism that allowed bomb dropping at 90 degrees dive with no danger of striking the prop. However, other dive bombers did not have such device.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister___Ludi is correct on this. The Stuka had a bomb rack that swung down to extend the bomb away from the undercarrage. Take a look at MGMs Battle of Britain you can see the release mechanism there. I have also built a 1/48 scale JU87-R2 Stuka and it also carries the bomb rack that extends.(fully functional too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

"Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary force:
You are about to embark upon a Great Crusade toward which we have strived these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking" - Gen. Dwight D. Eiseinhower-Supreme Allied Commander.

www.vultures-row.com (http://www.vultures-row.com)

SkyChimp
06-07-2004, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This is an often repeated error. Stuka had a special bomb release mechanism that allowed bomb dropping at 90 degrees dive with no danger of striking the prop. However, other dive bombers did not have such device.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean other dive bombers didn't have it? The Stuka had a bomb-trapeze that swung the bomb clear of the prop - just like the one on the SBD Dauntless and the D3A Val. The Stuka was hardly unique in this regard. Sounds like an oft-repeated piece of German propaganda http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

And any of the contemporary dive bombers COULD dive at 90 degrees and release a bomb. The US Navy tested that very procedure with the SBD Dauntless - but found it to be dangerous and unnecessary.

The reason is that there is no margin for error. If you were slighty greater than 90 degrees (1 degree was well within the margin of error for most attitude insturments), the bomb would strike the plane seconds after release - even with a trapeze. Even at perfect 90 degrees, the bomb falls with the plane - a dangerous situation because there is no margin for error.

Additionally, diving at 90 degrees is going necessitate a longer, higher-G, pull-out with more altitude loss. That's not a good thing. Higher is safer.

Lastly, maintaining a 90 degree dive on a moving target is impossible. SBD pilots found that dive bombing moving ships at 70-75 degrees was best. And due to the movement of the target ship, often as fast at 30 knots, caused them to have to release at even shallower angles.

So sure, the main contemporary dive bombers were CAPABLE of dropping a bomb in a 90 degree dive. But it wasn't used to any degree, not even by the Germans. IIRC, they mostly used the same dive angles as the US Navy. After all, that's where the Luftwaffe learned dive bombing.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

SkyChimp
06-07-2004, 10:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by _VR_ScorpionWorm:

Magister___Ludi is correct on this. The Stuka had a bomb rack that swung down to extend the bomb away from the undercarrage. Take a look at MGMs Battle of Britain you can see the release mechanism there. I have also built a 1/48 scale JU87-R2 Stuka and it also carries the bomb rack that extends.(fully functional too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's right that the Stuka had a bomb trapeze. Never argued that point.

But he's wrong that other planes didn't have it.

You can see the bomb trapeze on the centerline on this SBD:
http://www.vmf235.com/1945je02.jpg

Here is the D3A Val (I can't find a good photo, but you can see the trapeze on this model):
http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/j/nixval1.jpg

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

RAC_Pips
06-07-2004, 10:31 PM
Yep, both the Vultee Vengeance and the Aichi D3A Val had the bomb trapeze.

And just as a by the by, according to the author Peter Smith (who has written extensively on WWII Dive Bomber's) the Ju87 had a max dive angle of 80 degrees. Normal practice was to dive at 70-75 degrees, dependent on bomb load.

Only the Vultee Vengeance was designed from scratch to dive at 90 degrees. Which would be a mighty hairy thing to do! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

_VR_ScorpionWorm
06-08-2004, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by _VR_ScorpionWorm:

Magister___Ludi is correct on this. The Stuka had a bomb rack that swung down to extend the bomb away from the undercarrage. Take a look at MGMs Battle of Britain you can see the release mechanism there. I have also built a 1/48 scale JU87-R2 Stuka and it also carries the bomb rack that extends.(fully functional too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's right that the Stuka had a bomb trapeze. Never argued that point.

But he's wrong that other planes didn't have it.

You can see the bomb trapeze on the centerline on this SBD:
http://www.vmf235.com/1945je02.jpg

Here is the D3A Val (I can't find a good photo, but you can see the trapeze on this model):
http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/j/nixval1.jpg

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seemed to have missed that part about the other bomber not having it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary force:
You are about to embark upon a Great Crusade toward which we have strived these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking" - Gen. Dwight D. Eiseinhower-Supreme Allied Commander.

www.vultures-row.com (http://www.vultures-row.com)

Magister__Ludi
06-09-2004, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

So sure, the main contemporary dive bombers were CAPABLE of dropping a bomb in a 90 degree dive. But it wasn't used to any degree, not even by the Germans. IIRC, they mostly used the same dive angles as the US Navy. After all, that's where the Luftwaffe learned dive bombing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not all important dive bombers were capable of precise dive bombing at 90 degrees. There many reasons for this, I will say some of them:

1) the planes could not take the stress of pull out (whether controls or airframe)
2) it was too difficult to aim properly because the dive was significantly shorter (dive speed limit was lower at 90 degrees than on other angles)
3) the plane tended to pitch up if the plane was dived up to speed close to dive speed limit; the pilot had to push the plane to keep it in a dive - this also decreases the accuracy

1) and 3) do not apply to Stuka
Stuka was very strong structuraly, the pull out was automatic and done all the time at 7G; such stress on every dive would have crippled most of competing planes; also Stuka was slow to accelerate in dive and very stable on trajectory, it was a hands off plane in dive even at 90 degrees, which is remarcable (only aiming adjustments were needed).

For 2) indeed Stuka had some limitations for 90 degrees dives. I will expand on this later.

Magister__Ludi
06-09-2004, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAC_Pips:

And just as a by the by, according to the author Peter Smith (who has written extensively on WWII Dive Bomber's) the Ju87 had a max dive angle of 80 degrees. Normal practice was to dive at 70-75 degrees, dependent on bomb load.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max dive angle of 80 degrees for Stuka??? I have in front of me pilot's handbook for Stuka B-2, it clearly says that 90 deg dive are possible with the following precautions:

1) do not dive at more than 90 degrees (dive inverted); precautions to be taken so that gusts of wind do not push the plane to a dive angle greater than 90 degrees.
2) dive weight not greater than 4300kg which basically is normal take-off weight for B-2
3) do not exceed 540 km/h (instead of 600km/h at 80 degrees, later versions 650km/h)

And that's it.
If those ww2 historians would have take the basic step of reading the flight manuals before publishing garbage we would have had much better readings today.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Only the Vultee Vengeance was designed from scratch to dive at 90 degrees. Which would be a mighty hairy thing to do! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it was thought to do so using a 0 deg incidence wing, but in production a 4 deg incidence wing was adopted.
Sorry but Vengeance was not capable of 90 deg dive.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Wed June 09 2004 at 05:23 PM.]

Magister__Ludi
06-09-2004, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by _VR_ScorpionWorm:

Seemed to have missed that part about the other bomber not having it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not all dive bombers that had the bombs attached behind the propeller arc had such devices (Ju-88 for example).

SkyChimp
06-09-2004, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Max dive angle of 80 degrees for Stuka??? I have in front of me pilot's handbook for Stuka B-2, it clearly says that 90 deg dive are possible with the following precautions:

1) do not dive at more than 90 degrees (dive inverted); precautions to be taken so that gusts of wind do not push the plane to a dive angle greater than 90 degrees.
2) dive weight not greater than 4300kg which basically is normal take-off weight for B-2
3) do not exceed 540 km/h (instead of 600km/h at 80 degrees, later versions 650km/h)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Diving at 90 degrees and dive bombing at 90 degrees are two different things. Don't intentionally confuse the issue to prove your point.

Yes, the Stuka could dive AND dive bomb at 90 degress. All of the comparitive contemporary dive bombers could. But dive bombing at 90 degrees was discouraged by the Germans, Japanese and Americans. Pips is correct, bombing at 80 degrees was the norm for the Stuka.

Like I said earlier, dive bombing at 90 degrees leaves NO margin for error. The US Navy found that at a typical dive bombing speed, a bomb would strike the plane in around 4 seconds if it were dropped while the plane was at 91 degrees, even with a bomb trapeze. 1 degree is well within the margin of error for attitude instruments.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Sorry but Vengeance was not capable of 90 deg dive.
[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Wed June 09 2004 at 05:23 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, yes, it was.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

SkyChimp
06-09-2004, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Not all important dive bombers were capable of precise dive bombing at 90 degrees. There many reasons for this, I will say some of them:

1) the planes could not take the stress of pull out (whether controls or airframe)
2) it was too difficult to aim properly because the dive was significantly shorter (dive speed limit was lower at 90 degrees than on other angles)
3) the plane tended to pitch up if the plane was dived up to speed close to dive speed limit; the pilot had to push the plane to keep it in a dive - this also decreases the accuracy

1) and 3) do not apply to Stuka
Stuka was very strong structuraly, the pull out was automatic and done all the time at 7G; such stress on every dive would have crippled most of competing planes
; also Stuka was slow to accelerate in dive and very stable on trajectory, it was a hands off plane in dive even at 90 degrees, which is remarcable (only aiming adjustments were needed).

For 2) indeed Stuka had some limitations for 90 degrees dives. I will expand on this later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>




You said: 1) the planes could not take the stress of pull out (whether controls or airframe)

Hmmmm. No plane, not even the Stuka, could exceed its ultimate break loading. It was up to the pilot to get the plane out of the dive safely - or in the case of the Stuka, the plane's responsibility. Neither American nor Japanese dive bombers were known for not being able to get out of dives. They were designed to dive and pull out. So I'm not sure what you are on about here.

===

You said: 2) it was too difficult to aim properly because the dive was significantly shorter (dive speed limit was lower at 90 degrees than on other angles)

Maybe the Stuka dove faster than the American Dauntless and the Japanese Val. But that's not necessarily a good thing. Stable flight and accurate bombing is. Both the Dauntless and the Val limited their dives to under 300mph. At a slower speed, there is more time for lining-up on the target, which leads to increased accuracy.

===

You said: 3) the plane tended to pitch up if the plane was dived up to speed close to dive speed limit; the pilot had to push the plane to keep it in a dive - this also decreases the accuracy

Neither the Dauntless nor the Val made bombing dives near their top dives speeds. Dive bombing speeds on both these planes were limited to increase stability and accuracy. The perforated dive flaps on the Daunltess were extremely effective. The Val's brakes, which were copies of the Stukas brakes, vibrated terribly in a 90 degree dive and had to be modified.

===

You said: Stuka was very strong structuraly, the pull out was automatic and done all the time at 7G; such stress on every dive would have crippled most of competing planes

No one is arguing the Stuka wasn't strong. Just like no one can argue the Dauntless and Val weren't strong. But they were all made of metal and weren't immune to stress.

A 7g pull-out wouldn't have crippled the Dauntless or the Val. Both were rated for 7+ Gs. But continuous 7g pullouts may damage any plane, even those rated for it, including the Stuka, which is precisely what the Stuka's automatic system would have subjected it to. Continuous 7 G pull-outs is certainly going to shorten airframe life. To suggest otherwise is silly.

In addition, the Stuka pilot usually blacked out during the automatic pull-out. NOT a good thing. That might be fine if there were no enemy fighters around, but it's suicide if there were.

And an immediate pull-out after bomb release may or may not be a good thing. Both Japanese and American naval aviation history is replete with accounts of dive bomber pilots that had to continue to dive after bomb release to evade fighters or to try and duck under AA - which would have been impossible in the Stuka but for some kind of system over-ride.

Americans generally taught that the higher the pull-out the better. But in combat, that was often impractical and dangerous. American and Japanese diver bombers could chose when to pull out, the Stuka pilot could not. And the American and the Japanese pilots were still conscious after their pull-outs and could evade fighters. Not always so with the Stuka pilot.

The Stuka was a fine plane if there was complete air-superiority. An unconscious Stuka pilot wouldn't have to worry about getting shot down by an enemy fighter. Dauntlesses and Vals were often flown into the midst of enemy fighters, completed their dives, and then escaped, and sometimes even fought off the fighters. The Stuka would not have survived under such circumstances.



===

You said: ; also Stuka was slow to accelerate in dive and very stable on trajectory, it was a hands off plane in dive even at 90 degrees, which is remarcable (only aiming adjustments were needed).

Dedicated dive bombers are all slow to accelerate into a dive. Their dive breaks were designed to prevent diving at too high speeds. Why would you think that's unique to the Stuka?

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

Ruy Horta
06-10-2004, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
At 90 degrees, the bomb doesn't seperate away from the plane, and the danger exists of the bomb striking the prop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just admit you are fighting a rear guard action...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

The bombtrapeze like you said was fairly common on divebombers, no special technology nor ueberness involved. Lets try and stick to figures, and forget the bias.

I've got some nice Japanese data on their (group) bombing technique, maybe I'll post some of it later.

The Ju 87 could and did dive up to 90dgr in combat, the Ju 88 did not. However, since this is the PF board its rather OT.

IIRC the number mostly quoted for IJN divebombing is 60dgr.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

BlackSqn81
06-10-2004, 12:13 PM
The Stuka was able to dive at greater angles then 90? up to 110? but was not able to drop bombs on angles greater then 90? (like no other plane isn´t, not even the Ju88, the bombs would still hit the plane itself if not the props)
according a book written by a Stuka-pilot (Valentin Mikula "Stuka" &lt;mix of novel/docu) against ships they used the so called "Treppensturz"(=stairdive) , they dove till they saw the ship move out of the line of sight, pulled out, wingover and dove on so having the possibility to change course in dive..
according the same book in moments of great danger (heavy AAA like Malta/big ships) they used powerdives without brakes, he stated the plane handled speeds up to 750km/h in dive very well but the g-load in pull-out was very very high, usually causing the gunner to blackout (why only the gunner i don´t know)...
@Skychimp i don´t know where you did get the info that the pilot blacked out in normaldives? Maybe in Highspeeddives, but surely not in the usual 70?-dives..the author writes several times in his book how he had a lot to do after pullout like changing prop-pitch, radiatorsetting, powersetting apart the usual stuff like avoiding AAA and enemy fighters...i don´t think the Stuka is the one-and-only real divebomber, but sure the pilots weren´t dreaming of x-mas on pull-out

Doug_Thompson
06-10-2004, 02:04 PM
Whether 90 degree dives were possible or not doesn't matter. They weren't desirable.

Somebody's already referred to the book "Dauntless Helldivers." I believe it's that book that mentions that you don't want a dive that's too steep, because you don't want to "flip" onto your back, or be teetering on the edge. That kills bombing accuracy. You want the plane pointed in the right direction and not have weight shifting and the buffeting that goes along with that.

As for dive speeds, the SBD used perforated dive flaps for the purpose of holding diving speed to 250 knots, even in a long dive. The reason the Val had a much shallower dive was because it did not have these sort of flaps. Stukas did have something similar, I'm sure.

http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/pics/do335_7.jpg
Proud Charter Member of the Do-Do Birds Luftwhiners Chorus

SkyChimp
06-10-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackSqn81:
The Stuka was able to dive at greater angles then 90? up to 110? but was not able to drop bombs on angles greater then 90? (like no other plane isn´t, not even the Ju88, the bombs would still hit the plane itself if not the props)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just about any comparitive plane is capable of diving at 90 degrees or greater. But doing so has no tactical value that I can see. A pilot couldn't release a bomb at anything greater than 90 degrees.

The Stuka was a fine dive bomber, surely. But it certainly wasn't better than other contemporary dive bombers, and probably had some deficits that would have proven dangerous if used under the same circumstances as the Dauntless or Val. Dive bombing lonely ships in the Med is a far cry from attacking a carrier task force with raging AA from all angles, and strong fighter CAPs. I don't think the Stuka could have survived in the Pacific under the same circumstances as the Dauntless and the Val had to fight.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

BlackSqn81
06-11-2004, 03:12 AM
eehhmmm divebombing lonely ships in med?? Like the carrier the stukas damaged?? like the trooptransports in heavily defended convoys?? Like the Marat in the Leningrad harbour?? Like the ships in La Valetta (Maltaharbour) one off the thickest AAA-concentration in all war-theaters?? I don´t know if the AAA in med hurts less then in Pacific but there wasn´t less here then there...
I don´t know why you are so sure the Stuka wouldn´t have survive in the far-east, i don´t think the Val or Dauntless are that superior to the german counterpart...

SkyChimp
06-11-2004, 09:17 PM
I didn't say far east, I said Pacific.

IMO, the Stuka had features that would have made it undesirable as a carrier dive bomber.

Its in-line liquid cooled engine would have placed it at great risk when dodging fighters and flak 150 miles of more from its carrier, with land even further away.

It had a very short range that would have necessitated its carrier getting much closer to the enemy than the enemy had to get to it. Either Dauntlesses or Vals could have attacked the Stuka's carrier before their own carrier was in range of the Stuka.

The Stuka's automatic pull-out system, unless give an over-ride, would have been grossly undesirable. When attacking a carrier task force, over which fighters usually roamed, pilots often had to continue a dive after bomb release to avoid flak and fighters.

The Stuka apparently had somne undesireable handling characteristics that would have, and did, make it easy prey for fighters. No dive bomber, not the Val or the Dauntless, excelled as fighters. But both were considered easy to fly, and both were actually used as fighters on occassion, with some success. The Dauntless was routinely used in the "anti-torpedo plane" role and flew CAPs along with fighters.

I'm not critisizing the Stuka. It truly was a flying artillery piece and was a fabulous land-based ground attack weapon. But I don't think it would have compared to the Dauntless of Val in the carrier-bomber role

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

BlackSqn81
06-12-2004, 05:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I didn't say far east, I said Pacific.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

seen from germayn thats pretty much the same area ;-)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It had a very short range that would have necessitated its carrier getting much closer to the enemy than the enemy had to get to it. Either Dauntlesses or Vals could have attacked the Stuka's carrier before their own carrier was in range of the Stuka.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That doesn´t count as a flaw Chimp, thats just a matter of design..the Stuka was designed as shortrange-bomber used most as a CAS, in this case there is no need to stuff another 1000 l of explosive liquid into the bird, better use the weight for bombs, thats why the Stuka could cary the 1800kg rocketassisted bomb neither the Dauntless nor the Val could lift...btw, there is a longrange Stuka (the R-model) with additional fuel and optional droptanks, but with a limited bombload of 250kg (just check the Val/Dauntless)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Stuka's automatic pull-out system, unless give an over-ride, would have been grossly undesirable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don´t know wherefrom you have the idea there wasn´t an override?? It was a very simple one "DO NOT PRESS THE BUTTON"...the pullout-aid was nothing magical radar-guided device, it was just release bomb, press the button on the stick, off you go..nothing more.. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When attacking a carrier task force, over which fighters usually roamed, pilots often had to continue a dive after bomb release to avoid flak and fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This happend not only in the pacific, it was most common in Europe to continue the dive till very low to avoid most of the AAA, i´ve read in several books recalls from former pilots how the powerdived on LaValetta and raced past the harbour at 5-10m to avoid the AAA of the close ships (they couldn´t lower the guns so far to get them).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Stuka apparently had somne undesireable handling characteristics that would have, and did, make it easy prey for fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quote from the Stukapilot:"the Stuka was a wunderful plane to fly, she was just to slow. It had unrivaled flightcharacteristics and was hard to kill. She was a buffalo that no rough handling could hurt. She was hard to get in a dogfight, she could slow down to a minimum using flaps and divebrakes and turn on a stamp" The guy flew the Stuka from BoB till the very end including Africa, Malta, Russia (incl Stalingrad) so i guess he knows what he is talking about..Sure the Stuka was by no means a fighter, but nobody can judge if she could have managed in emergency, because nobody ever tried. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But both were considered easy to fly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like the Stuka read above http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
06-12-2004, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
seen from germayn thats pretty much the same area ;-)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, my friend, it's not.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That doesn´t count as a flaw Chimp, thats just a matter of design..the Stuka was designed as shortrange-bomber used most as a CAS, in this case there is no need to stuff another 1000 l of explosive liquid into the bird, better use the weight for bombs, thats why the Stuka could cary the 1800kg rocketassisted bomb neither the Dauntless nor the Val could lift...btw, there is a longrange Stuka (the R-model) with additional fuel and optional droptanks, but with a limited bombload of 250kg (just check the Val/Dauntless)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing I learned a long time ago is that "words have meaning." By misquoting me, your argument loose steam.

I didn't say short range was a "flaw." It's simply and undesireable characteristic for carrier bomber. And there is most certainly a need to "stuff the plane with more explosive liquid." Whatever positive characteristics that the Stuka may have had as a carrier bomber would have been moot if they could not have been brought to bear over enemy ships as a result of short range. I'm not sure anyone would agree that its a good thing that enemy dive bombers could appear over your carrier before your dive bombers had the ability to appear over their's. Poor range is an absoltue liability in carrier warfare.

The short range of the Stuka was not necessarily a liability in the role it did play. In a carrier bomber role, it would have been a terrible liability.

And BTW, whatever grand bombload the Stuka could carry would most likely have been significantly reduced in a carrier role. Getting off a carrier, even with a catapult, isn't the same has having a nice, long, non-pitching runway.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don´t know wherefrom you have the idea there wasn´t an override?? It was a very simple one "DO NOT PRESS THE BUTTON"...the pullout-aid was nothing magical radar-guided device, it was just release bomb, press the button on the stick, off you go..nothing more..[quote]

I don't know if there was an override or not.


[quote]
Quote from the Stukapilot:"the Stuka was a wunderful plane to fly, she was just to slow. It had unrivaled flightcharacteristics and was hard to kill. She was a buffalo that no rough handling could hurt. She was hard to get in a dogfight, she could slow down to a minimum using flaps and divebrakes and turn on a stamp" The guy flew the Stuka from BoB till the very end including Africa, Malta, Russia (incl Stalingrad) so i guess he knows what he is talking about..Sure the Stuka was by no means a fighter, but nobody can judge if she could have managed in emergency, because nobody ever tried. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rudel, who tested various Stuka models at Rechlin, stated they were unweildy in the air. Stukas were considered easy meat for British fighters in the BoB,a nd could only operate effectively when there was air-superiority. Tha Dauntless was never an easy target for any fighter it met, even the Zero. And again, the Dauntless was specifcally used, with success, in the fighter role.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

BlackSqn81
06-12-2004, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, my friend, it's not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you i know this allready...i wasn´t serious in my reply as you know...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One thing I learned a long time ago is that "words have meaning." By misquoting me, your argument loose steam.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn´t quote you at all i just said you can´t use the fact that is was build as a SHORTrange-bomber and CAS against it...it was never intendet to pass long distances like needed in the pacific..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And there is most certainly a need to "stuff the plane with more explosive liquid." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is most certainly a huge need NOT to do it if you don´t need it!! If you want do to a 50km-hop to sewastopol and blast the fortress to hell, what you need are big big bombs, not long range...another 1000 l of fuel doesn´t make life better when under AAA-fire

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Whatever positive characteristics that the Stuka may have had as a carrier bomber would have been moot if they could not have been brought to bear over enemy ships as a result of short range. I'm not sure anyone would agree that its a good thing that enemy dive bombers could appear over your carrier before your dive bombers had the ability to appear over their's. Poor range is an absoltue liability in carrier warfare.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with you, its not good if you have to expose your carrier due the shortrange of your bombers, BUT thats an arguement thats not valuable against the Stuka...the Stuka never ever was planned to be a carrierbased plane (apart the C-model for the Graf Zeppelin with-surprise-surprise a far greater range)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And BTW, whatever grand bombload the Stuka could carry would most likely have been significantly reduced in a carrier role. Getting off a carrier, even with a catapult, isn't the same has having a nice, long, non-pitching runway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It sure would have been, not only to reduce the "take-off-length" (sorry my engl...) BUT to be able to "stuff" more fuel in it...as i said in my last post (the R-model, much more fuel, much less bombs)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't know if there was an override or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There was no need to override, it was just the pilots decision to use it or not, he had to switch it on to use it..if he didn´t want to he didn´t...it was just a help for the pilot so he didn´t need to pull like hell on the stick himself, nothing more..As far as i know, the germans round Udet where the most advanced to built the divebomber (yes, i know, he dived first in an american biplane, the Curtiss Hawk). Beeing a WWI-fighter-ace himself he sure knew a score about tactics and how to survive in a dogfight...so forcing his most loved bomber to fly against the pilots will was surely not in his mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Stukas were considered easy meat for British fighters in the BoB,and could only operate effectively when there was air-superiority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most slow bombers can only operate effectively in air-superiority, in BoB, they just were outnumbered and to slow to run, under these circumstances you just have no chance to win (remember how Werner Voss died in WWI?? he was alone in the DR1 against a score of faster planes, the DR1 wasn´t bad, but he just couldn´t run when all odds were against him).
I don´t know how the losses in the Pacific were, but i guess they were heavy too for both sides..(like the torpedosquad loosing all planes in a single attack with only 1 survivor??don´t remember the name, was an ensign)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Dauntless was never an easy target for any fighter it met, even the Zero.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Dauntless a had better weight/power-ratio, was faster and had better defensive arms (1mg vs 2mg) and the Zero takes far less punishment then the hurri takes the Stuka opposed (no armour, no selfsealing fueltanks)..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And again, the Dauntless was specifcally used, with success, in the fighter role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They where pressed in the role for lack of more fighters, if you don´t have any bullets, throw rocks..
I do not say the Dauntless wasn´t a good plane (far from it) all i´m opposing is your opinion the german counterpart would have failed..The only hard fact you can state is the range, but that fact doesn´t count for real, you can´t blame a porsche for not beeing a good lorrie..

_

SkyChimp
06-12-2004, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I agree with you, its not good if you have to expose your carrier due the shortrange of your bombers, BUT thats an arguement thats not valuable against the Stuka...the Stuka never ever was planned to be a carrierbased plane (apart the C-model for the Graf Zeppelin with-surprise-surprise a far greater range)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that's the substance of this discussion. "If the Stuka were a carrier plane..."


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I do not say the Dauntless wasn´t a good plane (far from it) all i´m opposing is your opinion the german counterpart would have failed..The only hard fact you can state is the range,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Range. An in-line radial engine. Unweildy flight characteristics that would have, and did, make it very vulnerable against fighters.

==========

One thing is for sure, though. By the end of WWII, dive-bombing was as good as dead. Even the US Navy's last dedicated dive bomber, the Helldiver, was rarely used as a dive bomber, but rather a low altitude, level, carrier attack plane.



Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

Ruy Horta
06-12-2004, 12:05 PM
Quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The A-24s were regarded as "too slow, too short ranged, and too poorly armed." They were relegated to noncombat missions after five of seven airplanes were lost and one was badly damaged on a mission over Buna, New Guinea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

SkyChimp
06-12-2004, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The A-24s were regarded as "too slow, too short ranged, and too poorly armed." They were relegated to noncombat missions after five of seven airplanes were lost and one was badly damaged on a mission over Buna, New Guinea.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ranges flown in the Pacific dwarfed those flown in Europe. The A-24 had a normal range of 950 miles, 1300 miles extended.

Additionally, the USAAF had NO dive-bombing training program - at all. It pilots flew without fighter cover, and were trained only in level and glide bombing.

Success of the SBD in Navy and Marine service lays to rest any notion that the plane anything but excellent dive-bomber.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

BlackSqn81
06-12-2004, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But that's the substance of this discussion. "If the Stuka were a carrier plane..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes it is, but then you have to compare the models that where designed for it (the C-model or the R with long range) then your point about range is dead..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
see above http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>An in-line radial engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
whats so bad about it?? the Bf109, Bf110, the Dora, the Ju88, He111, P38, P39, Spitfire, Seafire, Hurri (and so on) did pretty ok IMHO

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Unweildy flight characteristics that would have, and did, make it very vulnerable against fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like quoted above, several Stulapilots were not so sure about the bad flightcharacteristics, they were pretty happy with it. The major problem was just the lack of speed due to not enough power and the not retractable landing gear.
And as said before the european adversaries were far better armoured and could press an attack longer then the Zero could have done...

SkyChimp
06-12-2004, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
yes it is, but then you have to compare the models that where designed for it (the C-model or the R with long range) then your point about range is dead..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not.

The Ju-87C had a maximum range of around 950 miles (with external fuel tanks).

The SBD-2 had a max range of 1,370
The SBD-5 had a max range of 1,565
And the SBD-6 had a max range of 1,700.

Load them with bombs and all 4 of these planes' ranges will be considerably shorter, but the Ju's range will be the least of the four.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
whats so bad about it?? the Bf109, Bf110, the Dora, the Ju88, He111, P38, P39, Spitfire, Seafire, Hurri (and so on) did pretty ok IMHO
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

None of these planes, with the exception of possibly the Seafire and (Sea) Hurricane, conducted combat operation hundreds of miles from their carriers over open ocean with land out of range. Under these conditions, radials are inherently safer. They are not damage proof. But they don't die when a coolant line is hit, either. Even the British realized that. They flew a lot of radial engined American carrier fighters.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And as said before the european adversaries were far better armoured and could press an attack longer then the Zero could have done...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what it could have done once it was navalized. And an SBD gunner might poke a few holes in a Zero engine and that pilot will likely get back. If that same SBD gunner poked some holes through a Bf-109T coolant line, that pilot better know where his life-raft was.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

owlwatcher
06-12-2004, 02:24 PM
After much thought
Would prefer the SBD.
For carrier operations.
Stuka was a good plane in it's time but it was design for land based operation.
The SBD was designed for CVs.
You could have replaced the SBD for a Stuka.
The range and size would have made the Stuka useless in the Pacific.
The Japs. could have stood out of range of the Stuka and still delivered a full strike.

Ruy Horta
06-12-2004, 03:54 PM
This is a silly thread.

The SBD and Ju 87 are both two seat divebombers, the similarity ends there.

Why not compare the A-36 and Hs 123 and than rejoice in the superiority of former...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

owlwatcher
06-12-2004, 08:49 PM
Reading
"The History of Dive Bombing" by Peter C. Smith
Good read
About AA volune of fire Page 157
He wrote that TF 38 had more AA defence then the whole of Great Britan

actionhank1786
06-14-2004, 01:37 AM
People, i think we're all arguing against ghosts here. Sky chimp has proven some very good (and correct IMO) points. Yes planes could dive at 90 degree angles, hell i'm sure some pilots did. But the planes cant take it forever, drive your car slowly into something a lot, sure it's not so bad the first few times, but eventually somethings going to give. The pilots, often adopted tactics that used shallow dives, to ease aiming, and to take some of the stress off their bodies and the airframes...
Lordy

http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v54/Halfwayhank/Actionsig.png

Actionhank
~Aaron White

Giganoni
06-14-2004, 02:15 AM
Hehehe...hey, I'm sure Japan wouldn't have minded if Germany had a few squads of Stukas operating in the PTO. Regardless if it would have done well or not it would have helped. But as for me, give me the Sonia..the light..and stress light version of an assault/recon plane. Oh well it had good pilot armor and even engine armor on the bottom to protect against ground fire. I do not know what angle it dived at, but supposedly it also straffed. I know, 2 7.7mm or 2 12.7mm don't seem like much but, bet it could chew up those new PF mortar crews well enough.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Ruy Horta
06-14-2004, 08:28 AM
Ki 51 was indeed a nice a/c, indeed offered armor protection for the engine as well. Would be a good candidate for a IJA attack a/c.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

Bewolf
06-14-2004, 01:52 PM
Hmm..this discussion does not make sense to me.
The Stuka was no carrier based dive bomber, never was designed to be. As with the 109T, i don't think it would have been a good, even avarage carrier plane. But..I neither think the Dauntless would have fared real good on the russian front.

The only things making sense to compare are the dive bomber characteristics itself. Simple, what plane produced the better results in direct battle under similar combat conditions.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Ruy Horta
06-14-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
Hmm..this discussion does not make sense to me.
The Stuka was no carrier based dive bomber, never was designed to be. As with the 109T, i don't think it would have been a good, even avarage carrier plane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on what you choose as adversarial types, if I look at the British FAA types of 40-42 than they do not strike me far superior to the German (proposed) counterparts. The Bf 109T did continued good work up to 1944 (Sea Eagles, by Marshall).

Don't get me wrong, the Graf Zeppelin was a ship in a vacuum, but if it had gone according to the plans of the Kriegsmarine she would not have been. She'd be the first of quite a number of carriers, supported by a modern fleet. The start of hostilites in 1939 stopped most of the Kriegmarine's long term plans. It is a wonder the small Kriegsmarine was able to support the Norwegian landing against the RN at all...

But to go back, the Bf 109T, would not have been a poor carrier a/c in terms of performance compared to its contemporaries of the FAA, it might have had its trouble landing though.

Marshall gives a good analysis on the the virtues of this rare type of 109, a nice book for the enthusiast.

Wonder if the Fw 190 might have been adopted if the Germans had more room to maneuvre in this field. The Fw 190 might have been the ideal german carrier type.

Good sturdy gear, strong airframe, radial engine, good alround visibility. Adaptable to use as fighter-bomber or even torpedo bomber.

An all Fw 190 air wing for a 1944 Kriegsmarine carrier.

Just some what if rambling, nothing to take serious, won't enter an argument on the basis of what I wrote either.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

Bewolf
06-14-2004, 05:24 PM
Well..Reviewing the Spitfires carrier version, the Seafire..To all what i know, it did not do very well. The 109T did indeed fine up to 1944, but it had all its carrier equipment removed and thus was quiet a bit lighter then the original carrier design.
And though i hate to give any concessions to the typical amiwhiners, i have to agree that radial engies are way superior in maritime warefare.

The 190 is another story. The only thing that worries me here is its need for a pretty long runway to get airborne. Were the catapults on the Graf Zeppelin powerful enough? If yes, the 190 indeed seems to be an optimal candidate. But as the 190 didn't even come close to carrier ops, this question is mood anyways.

But we are getting off topic here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

SkyChimp
06-14-2004, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
Hmm..this discussion does not make sense to me.
The Stuka was no carrier based dive bomber, never was designed to be.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it was, the Ju-87C.

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/luftwaffe/carrierborne/ju87c/ju87cn2.jpg

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

actionhank1786
06-15-2004, 02:24 AM
"Junkers Ju 87C
Hitler's ambitious Z-plan for the expansion of the Kriegsmarine included the construction of four fleet carriers. These carriers, in cooperation with battleships of the Bismarck or H class, would have been able to challenge the overstretched Royal Navy's supremacy in the North Atlantic sea routes. Thus there was a need to design and build aircraft for the carriers. The famous Messerschmitt Bf 109 had a carrier-borne version, the Messerschmitt Me 109T, to provide air cover for the naval task forces, and the Fieseler Fi 167 was built as a torpedo-attack aircraft. Naturally there was also a need to develop a carrier-borne bomber for airstrikes against hostile vessels. The most obvious method was to convert the existing, reliable Junkers Ju 87 for the new role.
The converted carrier-borne attack aircraft was designated the Junkers Ju 87C. Basically it was a Ju 87B-1 with minor conversions. A device was fitted onto the landing gear for launching by catapult, and an arresting hook was added to the fuselage. The landing gear was stressed to help absorb the shock during landing. The unretractable landing gear was made jettisonable for emergency landing at sea. Armament was probably similar and comparable to that of Ju 87B. The wings could also be folded for better storage in the confined space in a carrier. The Ju 87C, embodying the basic and effective qualities of its land-based cousin, would have been an awesome weapon against any enemy ships without proper air cover.
Construction of Germany's first carrier, KMS Graf Zeppelin, however, was halted in 1940, when it was 80 per cent complete. Work resumed on a revised design in 1942 but was finally abandoned in 1943. The project of Ju 87C died with the abandonment of the ill-fated carrier."

It just screams "put me on a carrier"
Oh all that's from the website http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/luftwaffe/carrierborne/ju87c/ju87c.html

http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v54/Halfwayhank/Actionsig.png

Actionhank
~Aaron White

Bewolf
06-15-2004, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
Hmm..this discussion does not make sense to me.
The Stuka was no carrier based dive bomber, never was designed to be.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it was, the Ju-87C.

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/luftwaffe/carrierborne/ju87c/ju87cn2.jpg

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The JU87C was a conversion of an existing design. The whole plane was not especially designed for carriers.

One should think you know the difference, Skychimp.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.