Junkers 87 Stuka Raid – to Scapa Flow!

From his officer career summary it is clear he did not serve with KG30 as either an instructor, crew member or in an advisory role on Ju88s while they were involved in attacks on the shipping at Scapa Flow. His entire wartime career was served on Ju87s in ground attack units. His techinical descriptions can be nothing other than Ju87s. Looking at the whole transcript and the glaring innacuracies I persoanlly believe it was simply a case of not letting the truth get in the way of a good story. Something that should have been edited out as it serves no constructive purpose other than to spread historical innacuracies as we can see…

I was thinking along the same lines. He had a busy enough war so no need at all to make up stories. I suspect the veteran was confused by time.

So perhaps he did remain in Stavanger when his unit went south and as adviser to a Ju88 unit, flew missions to Scapa Flow in them. It is also possible he went to France and has confused attacks on Scapa Flow, with say those Portsmouth or Portland?

Indeed “Stuka” of course was a generic term for dive bomber. I really think a lot seems to have been “lost in translation” along the line in this case.

I found it difficult to tell from the style of the interview, whether Herr Spreitzer was talking first-person or in more general terms of the “happenings” around him.

Could the “310 with 7 canons” refer to Bf110 with 7 automatic weapons (2x 20mm and 4x 7.92mm forward and a 7.92mm rear-defense)? Perhaps that indicated a secondment to a Bf110 equipped unit during the Polish Campaign.

The term Stuka could also be generic for dive bomber – hence a memory of a Ju88 raid on Scarpa – mixed in with his own memories of Ju87 operations of the same time.

Not very clear from the interview, but perhaps the questions were not specific enough to achieve the potential depth of details available.

…geoff

Then the losses move to the Western Front. So the 5 Ju87 losses mentioned against shipping at Scapa Flow simply did not occur, but I think we had come to that conclusion earlier. It’s a shame that such information is peddled and not edited out.

Yes, in theory it could have got there and back. However, the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that it didn’t.

Aah…….looks like the Richard would have got to Scapa and back, as I was reading the extra range over the -B as being 340km, but it’s 340 miles. So, the range of the R appears to be about 1412km, so Scapa was easily in range. Can’t find any evidence that they ever did though………..so far.

Quote- ” A series of long-range antishipping Stuka variants, including the “Ju-87R-1” through “Ju-87R-4”, was introduced into service in the spring of 1940. The “R” stood for “Reichweite (Range)”. The Ju-87R had fuel tanks in the outer wings and could carry two 300 liter (80 US gallon) external tanks, though it was restricted to carriage of a single 250 kilogram (550 pound) bomb. The R-series were otherwise identical to the Ju-87B-2, and the subvariants in the R-series differed only in minor details, such as radio fit and tropicalization. One was tested with the “Dobbas” collapsible cargo container, which looked like a chunk cut out of a very fat airfoil, fitted between the landing gear. It was intended to haul useful kit when Stukas redeployed to another site, or for use in emergency cargo missions. It does not appear that it entered service.

The Ju-87R was built in limited numbers, but some took part in the German invasion of Norway in April 1940. The British Royal Navy (RN) was surprised by the appearance of the Ju-87R, and the type sank the RN destroyers HMS AFRIDI, BISON, and GROM, as well as the anti-aircraft ship BITTERN. BITTERN’s sister ship, the BLACK SWAN, was hit by a Stuka, but the bomb was dropped too low and armed too late, passing through the ship before exploding; the BLACK SWAN survived. “

Below a couple of shot taken 1940 in Norway.


The R version with the two 150 Liter tanks in the wing, plus the two drop tanks, had a range of about 1800 KM.

Was the Ju87Rs range capable of a return flight to Scapa Flow?

I don’t think so.

I reckon it’s about 100-150km short of making it there and back…??

Scapa Flow to Stavanger is almost exactly 500km, so that’s 1000km round trip.

I think the combat radius of the R was about 850km…?

If Stukas had attacked the Navy at Scapa Flow, surely someone from the British side would have mentioned it by now? File under codswallop.

I./StG1 were in Norway earlier:

9.4.40 – 24.4.40 – Stavanger-Sola – Ju 87R
1./St.G.1 at Oslo-Fornebu on 10.4.40
24.4.40 – 20.6.40 – Trondheim-Vaernes – Ju 87R

I’ll look into this more when a get a chance. I’ll try and find these apparent 5 Stuka losses whilst attacking Scapa Flow during the periods the unit was in Norway. The whole thing just sounds sketchy. Was the Ju87Rs range capable of a return flight to Scapa Flow? I have read that when the R series was fully loaded with fuel it could only carry the main bomb and not the two 50kg outer wing bombs. Yet he mentions that the main and 2 x 50kg bombs were carried on these missions.

Possibly an incident earlier in the war when they were recorded as based in Norway ? I notice this is nearly an entire Gruppe attacking, and mentions 2 other attacks plus an aborted 4th.

Scapa Flow was protected by radar, a huge number of AA guns, and several FAA squadrons. Such attacks are unlikely to have gone unrecorded in TNA.

Looking at the number of language “clangers” ( e.g. Focker Wolf 190) and the stilted grammar ,it looks like “ejector” seat could just be a bizarre mistranslation . Perhaps his “310” in Poland was a Henschel 123A?
Certainly the tactic of flying low over the enemy to cause distraction ,particularly of men and horse columns, is documented at the beginning of that campaign. Some of the other anomalies do seem a bit odd through ,despite these possibilities.

September 1940, target ships at Scapa Flow from base at Stavanger, Norway:

“How many Stukas flew the attack? Between 22 – 24 planes, two Squadrons. We have lost 5 Stukas, all shot down by the flak and fallen into the sea.”

During this period he was with I./StG 1. Only 2 aircraft were lost by this unit in September 1940:

5 Sep 1940 – Stab StG 1 – Ju 87 B – WNr.5447 – A5+HA – 100% – St.Pol, France
25 Sep 1940 – I./StG 1 – Ju 87 B – WNr.5461 – 50% – Flügplatz Angers, France

The unit was based at:
May 1940 – July 1940 – France (several bases used) – Ju 87R
July 1940 – September 1940 – Angers – Ju 87R
September 1940 – November 1940 – St. Pol – Ju 87R
November 1940 – 22 February 1941 – Ostende, Belgium – Ju 87R
Then to the Med….

SPREITZER, Karl. (DOB: 26.01.18 in Freiberg/Steiermark). (R).
09.39 Stuka gunner.
05.40 assigned to I./St.G. 1 as a pilot following flight training.
1943 in I./St.G. 2.
01.04.45 Lt., awarded Ritterkreuz, 10.(Pz)/SG 2.
Credited with destroying 11 tanks and 8,000 GRT of shipping in 652 combat missions.
Wounded 3 times, shot down 3 times.
†02.02.2009 in Ranten/Steiermark.

It seems that during May 2008 he had changed occupation to a pork pie baker…

HMS Norfolk seems to have been the only cruiser bombed in Scapa, in March 1940, by a Ju-88.

Seems he only flew the Ju 87 operationally.

I haven’t checked, but I think the Ju 87-R could just about do it – but that is only in theory. And I don’t think any such raid on Scapa happened in Sept 1940.

Nothing like possible, being far too far. But Ju88s yes, so a misprint seems more likely.

At a guess he’s confusing Ju87s with divebombers generally (as a non-German speaker I may, of course, be talking balls here).

Adrian

I’d missed the ejector seat bit!

Possible perhaps. But a mention of en ejector seat in a Ju 87 and the use of the plural ‘aircrafts’ instead of ‘aircraft’ does not inspire confidence. I expect better from James Holland.