Airworthy Stuka?(2005 Zombie)

Hi John

Yes a lot of aircraft were and still are used as dive bombers but the major intent of the design of these aircraft was not as a true dive bomber – merely an attack aircraft capable of dive bombing – if you see the distinction?

Kindest regards

John P

Hi

I think another aspect of the postwar use is that Divebombers as a concept largely peaked in WW11 and died out as a breed almost imediately in major airforces post war- dive bombers were an unecessary indulgence when budgets were shrinking .

Just my opinion
John P

I think you’ve summed it up well. I just finished reading an excerpt from “When Thunder Rolled:An F-105 pilot over North Vietnam” by Ed Rasimus which describes Thunderchiefs hitting rail lines in North Vietnam in what certainly sounds like a classic dive bombing maneuver. As airframes progressed, they had the power and strength to do more missions.

And IMHO, the Stuka is no more infamous than any other Axis combat plane. (Granted, the sirens probably scared the daylights out of the locals).
At the end of the day , they were all infamous…simply tools used by “bad guys” to try to capture most of Western Europe and Asia and leading to the deaths of millions.
As aviation fans and historians, it’s well and good that we should get excited about the resurrection and recent flights of types like the Fw-190 and Me-262, but we shouldn’t let our interest in them cloud our memory of the reasons why they were built.

Hi

I think another aspect of the postwar use is that Divebombers as a concept largely peaked in WW11 and died out as a breed almost imediately in major airforces post war- some lived on in third world air forces but the bomber / fighter combination was expected to cover the whole gambit and dive bombers were an unecessary indulgence when budgets were shrinking .

Just my opinion
John P

Sorry Flood, Thanks Gnome,
You’ve picked the point, very well.

I’m not arguing Peter Smith’s point. he made it, it seems to me, as I remember, that it was a worthwhile one. However, I can’t refer to it, and I’m not arguing his case; I don’t have his info, it’s not my idea, I just brought it up for interest. If Peter’s thesis isn’t liked, fine – agrue with him and what he said in his book – but don’t argue with me, it’s not my thesis, I don’t have the data or the passion!

However statistics don’t prove anything except themselves. Indeed, you’re right, Flood, most German aircraft didn’t survive, but that can’t prove or disprove the idea that Stalin particularly hated the Stuka (CF Peter Smith). Peter said so, and it seemed an interesting statement. The allies en masse? Arguable, and I’d agree unlikely.

I don’t know that ‘revered’ would be the term for the Stuka. ‘hated and feared’, and like the thread about 109 wing failure theory, objects of hatred and fear are often downgraded in their effectiveness, as I argue the post war view of the Stuka does: “Oh, a scary aircraft of course, but not very good.” would be a fair summary of the discussion above.

Actually, I would argue it was a very scary aircraft, and vastly more important it was damn good – better in use than anything the Allies had, and a critical Blizkrieg tool. But within moments of discussion the reference to fight vulnerability pops up as if that made Stukas a disaster. Same goes for the SBD, but it won a naval battle or two. The Blizkrieg assumed at least local air superiority, and when that wasn’t achieved (Battle of Britain) more than just the Stuka ‘failed’. However the Stuka continued to be a critical nutcracker right up to 1944, and in the Med one of the few aircraft which tipped the ballance.

In summary:

Scary – yes.

Underrated – absolutely.

Effective? Best dive bomber of all time IMHO.

Denied – yup.

Still famous despite the canards – yes, but not for it’s achievements, but the noise and the swastika.

A real question is why the allies never really liked the Vengance.

Cheers!

JDK and Flood. I’m sitting outside of either of your perspectives and it seems to me you’re arguing past each other – not with each other … you’re slightly missing each other’s point.

JDK you’re saying the Stuka’s (official) importance/recognition was downgraded after the war and there was a general enthusiasm to see few if any examples of it left in existence. Flood’s making the point that, except for the unusual/advanced types this fate was generally the lot of all Axis (loser’s) airraft after the war – ie. that few of any of the earlier types were preserved.

I’d extend that to say that virtually all early types were undervalued, the post-war perod was all about advancement and obsolete types were disregarded. Reflect on the lack of Whitleys, Stirlings, Hampdens .. you name it.

I think that quite probably; you’re both right.

Finally, I’ve never read the book you refer to JDK, but I’d have to say the allies failed in this endeavour. There could scarcely be a more remembered and revered aircraft than the JU87.

Sorry Flood,

I can’t see what you are arguing about. Sure there wasn’t postwar use of the Stuka. But you haven’t referred to the book (I can’t – my copy is in transit) and your other questons have been answered by me, J Boyle, Steve Young and Daz. I’ve better circles to go around in.

BTW when are you going to get out more? Or was your remark meant to be funny?

Cheers!

Ju-88s?
Norway of course.We fishing them up all the time:-)Theres some items there.Ive see some of them in different conditions.Airworthy??Hmm doubfull Im afraid

Third parties: Regia Aeronautica and Rumanian AF as well as use across the whole of Europe.

James! Please see that I was referring to post WWII users – I sincerely doubt that either of these used the Stuka much after the wars end; and since Uncle Joe was the comrade in control of those in charge in Romania then he wouldn’t have allowed much use of his hated Stuka, would he?

Er ~ the fact that it was one of the most famous a/c of W.W.II? as witness Dazs and John B’s points?

And I was referring there to the kind hatred that apparently warrented the sort of special treatment you were talking about previously – witness the whole paragraph:

Maybe what I am saying is that it wouldn’t appear that the Stuka was singled out for destruction anymore than any other outmoded former axis type. What made the Stuka apparently more special than any other type, other than that it was effective at its job?

Flood

It was indeed the RAFM example. I understand they got the engine working again, and were toying with the idea of using the aeroplane during filming. They also converted three Percival Proctors into ‘Proctukas’ with the intention of flying these for filming, but finally settled for large radio controlled models for the scene depicting the attack on the radar towers.

Watching the Battle of Britain extra DVD with the interview the whe chappy that did the production, he states that in 1968 there was an airworthy Stuka that they might of had access to. Is he referring to the potential of the Hendon example to take to the air again, or was there another?

Further to my previous post I forgot to add that it had two common technical failures in service.
1) The cradle which carried the bomb under the fuselage would somtimes failed to swing down as intended so that opperating the bomb release meant there was a very good chance of dropping the bomb through your own prop.
2) The automatic pull out system which was supposed to pulll you out of the dive on bomb release sometimes failed to opperate which meant you had a better than evens chance of ending up in the same hole as your bomb.

APC104. No problem, perhaps I came off a bit harsh, I certainly understand the enthusiam that is generated at the idea of something as rare and significant as a Stuka being recovered conjurs up…I hope we will all have something to smile about before the year is out.

Dave

DaveM2…. I agree with your ‘pretty naive’ comment. I apologise… I was just looking to prompt an answer.

I understand the often unseen competition for some warbirds can be intense. Your own Tim Wallis is a good example of someone that is prepared to pay, sometimes quite astounding sums of money. for a suitable addition to their collection.

I also understand that the greater the demand for the specialist restores time, will lead to an increase the cost the restores can and will charge. As such, it makes sense to retain an element of uncertainty within the warbird market to maintain prices.

I know I for one would remain very tight-lipped about any project I was involved in.

Sigh.

More rubbish than enough.

Third parties: Regia Aeronautica and Rumanian AF as well as use across the whole of Europe.

What made the Stuka apparently more special than any other type, other than that it was effective at its job?

Er ~ the fact that it was one of the most famous a/c of W.W.II? as witness Dazs and John B’s points? The most feared airborne item of the Blizkrieg? The most specifically terrifying and identifiable item after the stormtrooper and the Swastika?

It’s just a point of view. However I stand by the idea that the Stuka is the most downplayed aircraft of W.W.II.

Cheers!

As a point of interest, was the Stuka an easy aircraft to fly (compared to a FW.190/bf-109) ?

Cheers
TNZ

According to Eric Brown’s book it was quite simple. Bad brakes, in common with a lot of WW2 German aircraft (and one or two preserved Rearwins), easy to fly and land and Brown reckons it was the only aeroplane he ever flew that was truly happy in a vertical dive.

I’d love to go play with one.

M

What made the Stuka apparently more special than any other type, other than that it was effective at its job?

Flood

The psychological factor?

Think about it, you’re on the beaches of Dunkirk (or the Russian steppes) and you see this flock of Stukas coming over – you don’t know what they are at first, they just look like planes to an ordinary grunt, but when they pitch over into their dives, and that screaming siren starts, you don’t forget what that sight and sound represents…..

Just my 2p worth, natch 😉

Convincingly. Read the book. Stuka, Crowood, Peter Smith. Basically, Stalin tried to eradicate the Stuka, and Peter argues the western powers tried to deny it’s effect and destroy them. I’m not explaining it as well as he argues, but it’s an interesting idea.

Charley’s point is a good one. The allies didn’t know what to do about the Stuka, but they were happy to degrade it.

Cheers!

Maybe he is talking from an historical point of view, but I was talking physically!
Stukas weren’t used by third parties – had they been in use in post war Spain then maybe there would have been more than two preserved in museums in the 60 years since the wars end (again, not counting recovered wrecks: complete examples). There has been but one complete He111 preserved in all that time, but several of CASA 2111s exist; only two Ju88s – they weren’t utilised by many countries for long after 1945.
Maybe what I am saying is that it wouldn’t appear that the Stuka was singled out for destruction anymore than any other outmoded former axis type. What made the Stuka apparently more special than any other type, other than that it was effective at its job?

Flood

As a point of interest, was the Stuka an easy aircraft to fly (compared to a FW.190/bf-109) ?

Cheers
TNZ

JDK,DaveM2,

Yep got my planes mix up Kermit is CASA-2.111 DB.21-37 G-AWHB, while we are talking about CASA aircraft what happen to David Tallichet aircraft.

Also since we are talking about axis aircraft that survive after the War, their are quite a few buired at NAS Pax River.

RER

How convincingly?

Convincingly. Read the book. Stuka, Crowood, Peter Smith. Basically, Stalin tried to eradicate the Stuka, and Peter argues the western powers tried to deny it’s effect and destroy them. I’m not explaining it as well as he argues, but it’s an interesting idea.

Charley’s point is a good one. The allies didn’t know what to do about the Stuka, but they were happy to degrade it.

Cheers!