Ju 87D vs Il-2

What i meant was that divebombing is a safer move than attacking a ship in a torpedo run.

 

actually the D-4 version of the Stuka was capable of carrying a torpedo!

http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/stuka.html

So overall i think the stuka is a better a/c but even so it needed a replacement wich it got in those FW-190's!

 

Thanks for the info Ome_Jop

 

Actually, dive bombing is very dangerous and requires a lot of training in order to be done correctly.

 

But you are less likely to be shot down...

 

I never said it was not dangerous corpcasselbury, however, as Ricky just said, is is a hell lot safer than torpedo bombing, flying low and slow is definately not one of the things u want to do, especially if ur running on a carrier bristling with AA and aircraft on ur tail.

 

By AA fire, yes. Fighters are another matter entirely, especially when pulling out of the dive, when even the AA gunners are going to get a good shot at you. But yes, it was safer in many ways than torpedo bombing.

 

Id debate that corpscasselbury, running straight and low is the perfect way for a fighter to gun u down. However, in divebombing, u have altitude and ur allowed to jingle. Again midway is a perfect example.

If u have ever played combat flight simulatir pacific theatre ud know what i mean

 

Dive bombers were at their most vulnerable at 2 stages:

1) before reaching their target, when they had a full bombload (true for all bombers)

2) when pulling out from a dive.

 

Stuka was not a miracle but better than IL-2 and I think IL-2 are usually overestimated.
Stuka was better against single groundtargets and enemy fighters because it was more agile. It was also more accurate and reliable altough it was badly obsolete during the late war.
Some IL-2 were unbalanced because of the rear gunner, so it stalled easily. It was difficult to maneuver. Hurried mass production caused many problems and it was very unreliable. About 1/3 bombs it dropped didn't explode. Bombs were quite often jammed and sometimes when pilot tried to land the bombs exploded and blew the whole airplane. It suffered lots of accidents during landing and take off. It was inaccurate and heavy but it could take more bombs and had better distance though. It could sustain more damage also but it didn't help much because it was a sitting duck for enemy fighters. Low flying sturmovik was easier to shoot down with aa fire. Rear gunner was actually very ineffective, in Finland rear gunners managed to bring down only one fighter and hundreds of il-2 were downed.

Once I heard if a pilot could survive 10 flights with il-2, he was awarded as "a hero of the Soviet Union" ?

I remember that some german pilots tested IL-2 during the war, they were shocked and had very negative opinions about it.

 

Dont forget though that it still managed to destroy a number of german panzers

 

I'd be interested in learning your sources for the information you posted here; every source I've ever seen has high praise for the Sturmovik. And the Stuka was nothing but a death trap whenever it ran into modern fighters, as was first shown in the Battle of Britain.

 

The truth lies more along the middle in here.
It is true that the sturmoviks were fairly cumbersome aircraft to fly but that same defect proved their salvation against AA fire as they were heavily armored. Though the sturmoviks rear was prone to damage by fighters as Heiik noted, later in the war the Russians had numerous fighters to mount an effective escort of the IL2.

 

All dedicated ground-attack aircraft are easy meat for enemy fighters, whether it is the Stuka, the Battle, the A-26 Havoc or the Tornado.

The Il-2 was produced in such vast numbers that it could not help being successful - plus in later years the Soviets could afford to escort their bombers properly, while the Germans were using most of their fighter force trying to stop the USAAF raids and were therefore not really able to employ proper escorts.

 

I´m wondering though. The Il-2 and the Fairey Battle was of similar performance, yet was the first deemed a success while the latter is considered a complete failure.

 

The Battles never (or rarely) had an escort. They had bog-all armour (compared to the Il-2 - obviously they did have some armour!). And lastly, the RAF was more worried about losses than the soviets were!

 

I think the last point there is probably the most important, the loss rates for Il-2s were truly horrendous, even though they operated in more favourable conditions than the Battles (i.e. were far more likely to have fighter escort), however the Soviets were basically indifferent to the losses because they could build the planes and put a pilot in the cockpit faster than the Luftwaffe could shoot them down.

Don't forget that Soviet losses of all types are notoriously difficult to establish even now, and the Soviets under Stalin secretive to the point of hysterical paranoia over their equipment.

"It is easier to hit a torpedobomber during a torpedo run than a divebomber in its dive with AA fire. Its simply easier, there is no aguing about that i believe."

On the subject of Torpedoes vs Divebombing, Torpedo bombing was the most dangerous form of attack available where the attacker is supposed to return, only Kamikaze attacks had a higher fatality rate. The reason is in the mechanics of the attack.

Torpedo bombers required an extremely long run in to the target, during which they could make basically no evasive moves. Whereas a divebomber squadron could make some moves and take advantage of cloud cover and of course altitude as well, a Torpedo squadron had to make their attacks at very low altitudes (Less than 500ft) and their torpedo drops had to be done at a maximum of 150ft (For early war US torpedoes, 100ft) and at a maximum speed of about 100mph.

All the while any escorting fighters have the chance to line up perfect zero deflection shots at leisure, and the ships themselves can open up with everything they've got to either Splash-barrage with heavy ordinance, or try to hit with smaller calibre weapons.

The low altitude means that any mistake, any loss of control for even a fraction of a second and your plane hits the water.

 

Exactly what i was trying to say Simonr, glad u agreed with me there

There is also the problem of collisons. I recall that a fairly large number of sturmoviks on their torpedo run collided in the Black Sea.

 

This is a good point here - divebomber are fairly restricted in the size of bomb they carry. Even the larger practical divebombers (not counting the He177 as practical!) could only use a 1,000lb (or 2,000lb? please enlighten me!) bomb. Yes, they had a better chance of hitting something, but if that something was a battleship, you would need a fair few.
Level bombers can carry 22,000lb bombs...

 

The largest single bomb I'm aware of being carried regularly by dive-bombers was a 2,250lber carried by Ju87Ds I think, so overall around 2,000lbs or roughly 1,000 Kgs seems to be the heaviest single bombs in regular use, although many aircraft could carry more as an overall bombload.