JU-87 Stuka, Hawker Typhoon, P-47 Fighter bombers

Why does the Stuka have the greatest reputation even though it had half the bombload of the latter two and had poor flying characteristics? Was it a more accurate bombing weapon than the Typhoon and the P-47?

Was it really that destructive and capable of a weapon or was it vastly overrated by the "Blitzkrieg" myth?

 

I believe you are talking about two different creatures. The Stuka was specifically designed to fill the role of aerial artillery as a dive bomber whereas the Typhoon and Thunderbolt were designed as ground attack aircraft to operate independantly and could hold their own.

With the advent of the rockets, the role of the dive bomber became obsolete. The Stuka then was used to fill the same role as that of the ground attack aircraft. It did not possess the rockets but with the 37mm cannon and bombs, it was very accurate in the dive mode. It did have some advance technology built into the aircraft. But with the top speed of 225mph, it was obsolete and at a disadvantage just like all of the dive bombers of other nations. Only in skies free of the enemy did it perform superbly.

Now compare the Stuka with other dive bombers of the world, then she is a class act.

 

Specialist dive bombers, all of them, were greatly overrated in their success in land warfare. The US A-24 (USAAC variant of the SBD) proved a failure due to short range and vulnerability. The French LN 40 likewise. The British used some Vultee A-35 Vengeance dive bombers with modest results in Burma.
These are a few of the other nation examples of dive bombing.
The Stuka proved highly vulnerable to defending fighters. It was also vulnerable to antiaircraft fire defending targets it was attacking. The only reason it soldiered on in the Luftwaffe inventory was simply because they had nothing to replace it with.
The Fw 190 like the two Allied aircraft mentioned proved to be a good ground attack aircraft itself.

 

But they fit the same role, right? They both attack ground targets with bombs but the Typhoon/Thunderbolt did not need fighter escorts.

I had a WW2 professor back in college that claimed that the average Stuka pilot could destroy moving tanks very easily. I'm not sure if this is accurate..it seems too extraordinary.

I look at the JU-87 and it's payload is only 4 small bombs and 1 medium sized one.

Does this include fighter-bombers as well? I read an article about the inaccuracy of the typhoon's rockets, particularly against tanks (there was something like a 4% chance for the average typhoon pilot to hit a stationary target the size of a tank).

And that the rockets really just functioned as a single powerful artillery salvo that could be placed against massed targets.

Fighter-bombers and dive bombers could help, but not actually win tactical engagements on the ground, right?

 

The method used was different and as you have stated the allied planes did not need air superiority whereas the (any) dive bomber did. As it was noted, the Stuka was used because there was nothing else. Still different animals.

Which is why I stated that the Stuka was more accurate, specifically the G model. The ground attack aircraft carried more rockets than bombs because they were not accurate and had more of a chance of hitting their target when leashed enmasse. For example, the Typhoon carried 2 1000 lb (500kg) bombs and 8 unguided 60lb rockets. The Stuka carried 1×500 kg + 4×50 kg bombs.

Plus, the level of expertise of the pilot affects the accuracy

 

So a Stuka that drops his 5 bomb payload (even though it is half of the Typhoon's) generally could do more damage to the enemy than the Typhoon's 2 bombs and its rockets?

 

More potential for a hit. Same concept as with using the 8 rockets but I believe higher accuracy with the Stuka. The majority of the
Stuka were shot down outside of their operation area. Meaning, they were shot down either enroute to their target or returning to their base. The slowness of their speed was their handicap

 

sometimes that slowness saved the two man crew of the Ju quite a few times, no matter one must seriously look at the multi-roles the Ju performed which were many and finally to add it's night time role with the NSGr units in the Ost and west.....literally ground forces in the West in 1945 still felt the Stuka D-5 was a serious pain in the arse.

 

I feel that the P-47 and the Typhoon are the superiors of Stuka or Sturmovik type dedicated dive bombers, because the former had the capabilities to duel enemy fighters. The air element assigned to support a ground element can both be the flying artillery and fighter cover. This reduces the need to support ground units with redundant types of aircrafts each having their special logistic requirements.

 

Attack aircraft are not meant to duel enemy fighters, all they need is self defence capability. While none of the single engined dive bombers were capable of efficient self defence against contemporary fighters, the SBD against the Zero is as close as they got, this is easily explained if you think they had the same or very similar engines to the fighters, but had to have a heavier airframes to withstand the stresses of the dive and the dive brakes added additional weight, and drag for the non fully retractable ones.
The same thing applied to the specialized attack planes though in that case the weight was due to armour as unarmoured attack planes like the Fairey Battle and the French designs suffered horrible losses to light AA.

The real issue is whether the fighter bombers had the precision delivery capability a bomber sometimes requires, they certainly were effective when used in large numbers with "shoot anything that moves" tactics that do not require precise bomb delivery, and which the allies could afford having achieved nearly complete air superiority, but could they effectively attack key hard targets like bridges and ships that require precision like a specialized bomber could?
The only episode of a major warship sunk by figher bombers I can recall is Fiji sunk by a Me 109 off Crete but reports state the cruiser was out of AA ammo so we should probably count it as a fluke.
My opinion is that while a WW2 fighter bomber can replace a true bomber most of of the time it cannot effecively perform all attack bomber roles. This is more true in WW2 than today as the relatively short training periods of pilots did not allow for both roles and if you have specialized pilots you might as well give them specialized planes.
The modern "swing fighters", that are designed to be reconfigured for ground support after the air superiority battle is won are possibly a different story but still look more dictated by the desire to make the most out of a limited number of airframes and pilots than any other consideration. If, hopefully never, we ever go back to a situation were air forces will need big numbers for superpower level confrontations we are likely to see specialized squadrons reappear.
As an aside it's interesting to notice that while the Germans reserved the more promising DB engines for the figters and left the stuka with the Jumo the soviets killed the Mig series as it competed with the IL 2 for engine production.

 

The Stuka or it's varients were most successful in uncontested airspace when they were depolyed in a close airsupport / ground attack role (The FW 190 was also used in the ground attack role when available in sufficient numbers) and that is what their original design criteria was for. It was never intended to be a Air to Air fighter aircraft.
The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka

Here is some pretty cool video from You Tube:
YouTube - WW2 Rudel STUKA JU87 (D-3) G-1 BEST RARE GUNCAM FOOTAGE



The P 47 Design criteria was that of a single seat Air to Air fighter or Pursuit/ Intercept Aircraft and was only relegated to the ground attack role after the P-51 enterend service. It was a formidable fighter for it's time.
The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt

The Hawker Typhoon had a similar lineage as an Intercept Fighter:
The Hawker Typhoon, Tempest, & Sea Fury

All three aircraft were rugged and sturdy aircraft; however, the Stuka appears to be the only one designed specifically for the ground attack role. A better comparison for the Typhoon and P-47 would be the FW 190
The Focke-Wulf FW-190

and the Stuka could be better compared to the Il-2 Shturmovik
The Il-2 Shturmovik

or the Douglass SBD-2 "Dauntless" and the Curtiss SB2C "Hell Diver"
The Douglas SBD Dauntless & Curtiss SB2C Helldiver

or in the more modern sense the Republic/ Fairchild A-10 "Wharthog"
The Fairchild A-10 Warthog

Brad

 

the stuka and sturmovik bombers were dead-ended in design. what followed was the p-47 and typhoon, which, developed into fighters today like the F-18, or the Tornado.

to me, the essential difference is the air superiority of the fighter-bombers. in their own way, they are specialized. they have their own role in the modern battlefield that i think even a necessity of number could not displace.

as for dive-bombers, dead-ended in design, yes, but not in idea. "air artillery" is now in the form of heli gunships and pure ground attack planes, like the buccaneer or the warthog.

the point of all this is, compare an Apache with an F/A-18, and that is the difference between their roles. Of course, the discrepancies were much smaller at the origin, but, like nature, evolution frequently consists of divergent paths.

 

I think it should be emphasised that the Typhoon was designed as an interceptor/fighter to supercede the Hurricane. It was a failure in this role but was developed into a highly effective ground-attack aircraft at the right time ( ie as the Allies moved firmly over to the offensive in NW Europe ).

The Stuka was more accurate as an individual aircraft - Typhoons relied more on attack in numbers to 'drench' a relatively small area with rp's and cannon fire.

 

The Tornado is really a bomber if you exclude the British air superiority variant that still is an unexceptional dogfighter (but if your target is most likely to be a Backfire or a Bear you don't need it, and "interceptors" like the F104 were a lot worse).
But if you look at the large losses and poor bomb delivery accuracy of the F105 and F100 in Nam, where they were mostly used for bombing, and the failure of the F111 as fighter the superiority of fighter-bomber/swing-fighter concept is not that obvious, in the sixties the Navy went for separate designs while the USAF went for the fighter bomber concept, and then had to buy A-7s and specialized the F111 for the attack role. You may not be able to use an A-6 to intercept a Mig-17 but if you have to hit a bridge it's a much better choice than an F-105 or an F-100.

While the sturdy 2000 HP late war fighters like the P-47, Typhoon and F4U were pretty effective for ground support, the more specialized Fw190F and Fw190G variants were possibly more so on a plane vs plane base and more cost effective as the German attack pilots were not extensively trained for air combat as the allied ones. The extreme position is the IL 2, that relied on massed attacks by huge formations to saturate the German AA defences and was designed to be used effectively even by not very experienced crews.

 

The time periods for the Stuka in it's hey day was 1939 to early 1943. Then it had a good reputation for killing ground targets and it had good fighter cover. Plus it got lots of publicity for it's use in the Blitz and was feared.
The time period for the P-47 and Typhoon was 1944-1945. It is not fair to compare weapons from each time period because things evolved so fast in WWII.

It would be like comparing the A-10, or an Apache to a late model F-16. Both can attack ground targets but the F-16 can also defend it's self in the air. The old A-10 can not.

 

I beg to defer. What they 'need' is contingent upon the intentions of the enemy. The P-47 could fly CAS or air superiority on demand, without maintaining two aircraft types.

If you want to knock out a bridge or a pillbox, send a real bomber.

The Stuka and Sturmovik were vaunted tank killers. I propose that the P-47 and Typhoon are their equal as flying artillery but also brings far more capabilities and versatility to a squadron.

With short training periods, standarization of aircraft types would hasten the training process.

A well-matched war is attrition war. If technologically and numerically matching air fleets do battle, the side that can replace its losses, produce more cost-effective aircrafts and squeeze the most out of what they have wins.

Sort of of like what happened in World War II.

 

Look at it this way: a squadron of P-47s could perform any task that can be reasonably asked of it in support of tactical ground units, at all times. In comparison, expending the same quantity of resources on specialized aircraft types produces a force that is only partially capable in any given role while complicating maintainence requirements and training.

In a mission, the mixed squadron can only commit the part of its aircrafts suited to the profile and leave the types aircrafts inapporiate to the mission behind. They will do nothing useful for the remainder of the day sitting in their shelters and basically gathering dust. The streamlined sqaudron of fighter-bombers on the other hand can come out at full strength, and they consume the same fuel, the same spare parts, and are manned by similarly trained pilots.

Often ignored in the history of WWII airpower is that American fighter-bomber TACs routinely took off to seek contact and destroy Luftwaffe fighters to secure the skies for ground units. The TAC would still be responsible for the usual straffing and bombing requests. I don't see the Luftwaffe as having this versatility.

 

This part is interesting:

Teething problems, indeed!

 

I would say that the Typhoon would have been a challenge to fly or even to stand next to on a flight line.

Glad you liked the links

Brad

 

A 2000HP monster like the late P-47s is pretty flexible but fighter bombers are not as good at each role as a specialized figher or attack plane would be, the additional armour a good fighter bomber must have to protect itself against small arms fire is a handicap in air combat against a pure fighter.
If my average "mission package" is made up of half attack planes and half escorts I would rather have good fighters and bombers than jack of all trades even if this means 1/2 my force will not be usable in some instances. There is also a psychological element at work, a fighter bomber is likely to jettison his bombs to engage in air combat (a mission kill for the enemy) while an attack plane may continue the mission.

I disagree here, the time saved by having standard planes is more than offset by the time needed to train for multiple mission types. IMO the disadvantages of having two types is in the logistics not the pilot training, and if we are talking about hundreds of planes having two or three types, especially if with some commonality of engines, is not a huge additional logistic strain.

This is exactly my point, and I suspect it was the Soviet approach, if your average pilot will only survive for around 20 mission the chances of him using his "secondary" skills are slim and the additional training effort will be wasted, not a nice way to look at it but effective.