Best dive bomber at US entry into WW2? [Archive]

Seamus Fermanagh

09-18-2005, 19:48

Best Dive Bomber at Beginning of War:

SBD - Dauntlass.

(To be picky, the USA's dive bomber at the start of the war -- 9/1/39, was the Vindicator. The SBD had been ordered by the navy department in mid- 1939, but did not see service until 1940 with the USMC.

The choice is actually very close, as the German Stuka was an excellent bird in this role. I favor the Dauntless because of its greater range, speed, and firepower compared with the Stuka. I also think fixed gear are ugly, but that's just aesthetic.

Stukas performed solidly in anti-ship service, and Dauntlasses performed well in close support. Both aircraft could do either job.

LARS:

U.S. war equipment varied. Our AFVs were distinctly inferior to their German counterparts. Our aircraft were as good as any and better than most. Our small arms were excellent, including the Ma Deuce and the Garand. Our non-rocket artillery was as good as any.

Russian equipment was often crudely manufactured, but their designs tended to be rugged and reliable. Soviet AFVs were outclassed by the Germans, but were the equals, and sometimes the superior of, the US and UK. Soviet aircraft were inferior to all of the other major contenders, but only by a small margin after teh debacle of 1941. Soviet small arms were about average, but, as noted, tended to be very reliable in miserable conditions. Soviet artillery was less effective than US or German guns, but they had plentiful rockets and their mortars were world class.

German success, though aided by excellent tools, was really a matter of tactical doctrine, training, and experience.

Seamus

caesar44

09-18-2005, 19:49

[QUOTE=hoom]At the start of the war != when the US joined in.

~:eek:

PanzerJaeger

09-18-2005, 20:15

The greatest pilot of the war flew a Stuka, most of the time.

Rudel logged 2,530 combat missions, and was granted almost no leave throughout his four years of active duty. Unlike his Allied counterparts, there was no magical number of missions which would mean a furlough home, once attained. For Rudel, as well as for all German pilots, it was a matter of "fly and fight until the war ends, or you are killed": consequently, almost all eventually fell, and today only a tiny handful survive.

Rudel's personal victories as a ground-attack pilot were achieved exclusively against the Soviets, and despite the most primitive conditions imaginable, including operations solely from dirt, mud, and snow covered airfields, his confirmed victories (those witnessed by two or more fellow pilots) include:

518+ Tanks
700 Trucks
150+ Flak and Artillery positions
9 Fighter/Ground Attack Aircraft
Hundreds of bridges, railway lines, bunkers, etc.
Battleship October Revolution, Cruiser Marat, and 70 landing craft
Through direct action, he saved tens of thousands of German infantrymen from certain encirclement and annihilation during the long retreat which began in July 43 and lasted until the war's end, almost two years later.

Decorations

Unlike the situation with the Soviets, German decorations were awarded without regard to rank. And in contrast to the Western Allies, they were never awarded for single acts of conspicuous bravery, but rather for a consistent record of personal gallantry and success in combat.

15 Jan 42: Knight's Cross
Equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor or Britain's Victoria Cross.

14 Apr 43: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves
Higher level of above, awarded rarely.

25 Nov 44: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves & Swords
Won by those who had performed the most extreme acts of personal gallantry on a daily basis. Awarded very rarely: most often posthumously.

29 Mar 44: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves, Swords & Diamonds
Extraordinarily prestigious award... like winning four Congressional Medals of Honor or Victoria Crosses. Back-dated to the time of his escape across the Dnjester when conferred on 25 Nov.

1 Jan 45: Knight's Cross with Golden Oakleaves, Swords & Diamonds
Note that the Golden Oakleaves were awarded once during the entire war, the decoration being instituted in answer to Rudel's continuing feats of unprecedented heroism.

http://members.aol.com/ab763/ju87.jpg
Rudel's aircraft throughout the war: Ju-87 Panzerjäger (Tank Hunter)

Seamus Fermanagh

09-19-2005, 01:21

As for the Stuka , didn't many groups prefer the Hs. 123 over the Stuka , due to its reliability and adaptability ?

The Henschel was one of the last biplanes flown in combat by the Luftwaffe, and most of what the Stuka came to embody in WW2 had been field-tested by Galland and others in Spain using the Hs. 123. It was withdrawn early in the war and superceded by the Stuka. This was probably for the best, since despite its excellent flying qualities it would have been too slow to deal with the greater concentrations of flak as the war went on.

Seamus

Seamus Fermanagh

09-19-2005, 01:30

The greatest pilot of the war flew a Stuka, most of the time.

Think how much he'd have kicked with a Dauntless instead of that foot-dragging stuka!

Not sure I'd label him the greatest, though he was clearly among the super-elite with Barkhorn, Marseille, and others. That he survived that long flying Stukas - even in the East - is testimony to how well he flew and fought.

I've always had a soft-spot for Rob Rosenthal of the 100th, but he never racked up anything like that number of sorties.

Note:

An earlier comment noted the Dauntless was superior to the Stuka because it was carrier capable. To be fair, the Germans never commissioned their carrier -- Der Graf Zeppelin -- but planning included the use of the Stuka as its primary strike aircraft. Though it would have been a bit tougher to land on a carrier with its gull-wing config (Corsairs were tough for the same reason), its wide stable gear and good low-speed flight characteristics would have allowed it to adapt very well to carrier duty. Its' weak point would still have been range.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-19-2005, 04:08

And lets not forget who almost single handidly turned the tide of the Pacific campaign at Midway.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Naval/Dauntless.jpg

Red Harvest

09-19-2005, 05:19

Dur US is teh bestest, sheesh. Thing about WW2 is that US equipment was far from the best, it was just the most numerous. German equipment was pound for pound better than anything the Allies could pump out most of the time. The Soviets could match the Germans with brute force to their sophictication.

~:rolleyes: Far overstated. Why? I don't think anyone had anything to match U.S. strategic aircraft. Considering the U.S. geographic limitations, the concentration on strategic gear is logical. Tactical considerations might win firefights or battles, but strategic considerations win wars.

A problem for the Axis powers, is that they did not have aircraft with the *strategic* capabilities of U.S. aircraft. U.S. planes returned their crews alive for the most part--a problem that was decisive for the Japanese who lacked proper replacement pilot training. The U.S. planes were tough and had long range. U.S. tactics revolved around teamwork and mutual cover. Unlike many Japanese (and VVS planes), they had functioning radios...and they used them.

Pure turn dogfight wise, the U.S. aircraft were often outmatched by Axis and VVS aircraft. But U.S. planes were not designed for turn fighting for the most part.

VVS aircraft were not "brute force" either. They built some good engines, and some superior cannon and machine guns. They put these into strong light airframes with short range that gave them good turn fighting characteristics. Unfortunately this lightweight construction also made them fragile under fire. Since most of the fighting was done forward and the Eastern Front was fought tactically, this was not a great limitation.

Red Harvest

09-19-2005, 05:33

Soviet aircraft were inferior to all of the other major contenders, but only by a small margin after teh debacle of 1941.
The Soviet production aircraft starting about 1943 were very good. But they were tactical weapons, not strategic. Dogfighting wise, had they had enough surviving well trained pilots they would have been extremely effective. As it was, they had lots of extremely green/untrained pilots mixed with survivors who knew what they were doing. The Russians did some very good aircraft design, but it was for a different type of fighting than their opposition (and allies.) You would not want to get stuck in 1vs1 dogfights against an equal pilot flying the newer VVS aircraft of 1943. They also did smart things like inerting tanks with exhaust gases to reduce tank fires and explosions in combat.

The Finns kicked VVS butt with inferior aircraft, the difference was primarily the quality of the pilots.

Papewaio

09-19-2005, 06:05

15 Jan 42: Knight's Cross
Equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor or Britain's Victoria Cross.

Since the CMH and VC are the highest Medal they are the Equivalent of the KC with Oakleaves or Golden Oakleaves.

7,361 KC's were awarded in WWII.

14 Apr 43: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves
Higher level of above, awarded rarely.

The number awarded during WWII, 890

25 Nov 44: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves & Swords
Won by those who had performed the most extreme acts of personal gallantry on a daily basis. Awarded very rarely: most often posthumously.

Knight's Cross with Oakleaves & Swords:
The number awarded during WWII, 160

29 Mar 44: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves, Swords & Diamonds
Extraordinarily prestigious award... like winning four Congressional Medals of Honor or Victoria Crosses. Back-dated to the time of his escape across the Dnjester when conferred on 25 Nov.

27 of these were awarded.

1 Jan 45: Knight's Cross with Golden Oakleaves, Swords & Diamonds
Note that the Golden Oakleaves were awarded once during the entire war, the decoration being instituted in answer to Rudel's continuing feats of unprecedented heroism.

Only the one as mentioned. This puts it on par with 1 VC with bar.

For a total of 8439 KCs compared with:

The number of VCs in WWII was 181 + 1 bar
CMH 464

PanzerJaeger

09-19-2005, 08:58

Yea Pap, there were so many more extraordinary German soldiers than commonwealth ones.

(That was the point you were making, correct? ~;) )

Kraxis

09-19-2005, 10:26

Come on guys... It is extremely hard to compare awards like this. Every single instance was looked at by a board (or some lone dictatorial person) then decided to be enough or not. It wasn't thatthey had a specific piece of paper saying:
For pilots: Must have shot down X enemies or bombed X enemy intallations, destroyed X trucks...

You get the point.

But there is hardly any doubt to the fact the German awards were indeed much harder to get. There were far more German than Commonwealth troops, and they fought more and longer and in bigger concentrations. Meaning the possibilities for German chances at the big awards was certainly bigger. But they ended up with much fewer. So, in conclusion the German awards were harderto get, but that might be to some extent due the inherent fact that you needed to get every single award prior to it (no Iron Cross 1st Class without 2nd Class).

One tting is certain, the Golden award to Rudel was more than just a VC with bar, it was a whole lot more. I'm pretty sure the British would have invented a similar special award if they had ever had a comparable soldier.
So lets drop it from here on.

About the planes... No idea really.
The Val was the most maneuverable, an excellent choice for precision bombing. Numerous are the ships that went down to her bombs. But the bombs were small and the plane was fragile.

The Stuka. Rugged and very stable, arguably one of the most stable planes in a dive. Slower dive too (an advantage), so the pilot could either come in lower or have more time to set up perfectly. This could of course be adjusted to higher speed if needed (less extended divebreaks). Its capacity to take punishment is legendary (Rudel was shot down more than 20 times and had numerous planes scrapped). And it was adaptable, at least compared to its competitors. But it was slow and weak in guns.

The Dauntless. Ahhh... My love for th plane has never ended, it was my favourite in every single Pacific War game. Screw the Helldiver, give me an SBD Dauntless every time. It had the best offensive and defensive armament (2 .50 cal forwards and 1 backwards) and would likely have blasted either competitor from the skies in a 1v1. The same bombload as the Stuka, but the Stuka could in special cases carry a bit more. Range was on her side, though the Val was not that far behind, and the Stuka R was also getting there.
Being faster meant that is was less likely to get ripped apart by fighters, and her ruggedness meant the same even more. And like the two others she was maneuverable. So while fighters would always be a menace in this one it would be less fatal (though if time permitted it would be fatal nonetheless).
It could perhaps have been adapted to carry big guns like the Stuka, but there was no need (and so we will never know), instead bigger bombs were wanted and so enter the Helldiver.

Spino

09-19-2005, 20:16

The Dauntless really is the peach of the bunch listed here.

The Stuka was a definite trend setter and and incorporated a slew of technological advancements (bomb 'sling' on its fuselage, etchings on cockpit glass to determine proper angle of attack, glass window on floor of cockpit to spot and line up targets, dive siren for psychological impact, etc.) but its inline engine seriously affected its durability and was underpowered to boot. The Stuka also possessed a rugged undercarriage which allowed it to operate from rough airfields, something I believe the Val and SBD (for sure) could not do. The Stuka's armament varied but the early war model sported three 7.92mm machine guns (two fixed forward, one swivel for rear cockpit) which left alot to be desired.

The Val is arguably the most maneuverable of the three planes listed here and I believe it also possessed a superior rate of climb. The Val also had excellent range which gave Japanese commanders extra wiggle room for error and planning. However the Val's excellent performance characteristics came at a price; it was underarmed with three light machine guns (7.62mm) and more importantly had zero armor and no self sealing fuel tanks which made it extremely vulnerable to enemy fire.

The SBD Dauntless is clearly the leader of the pack. It not only possessed an excellent, durable radial engine but it was tough and maneuverable to boot. Also thanks to a folding undercarriage I think it's safe to say the SBD was perhaps the most aerodynamic of the bunch which probably helped make it such a stable bomb platform. SBD also sported two 50cal machine guns mounted in the wings and two 7.62mm machine guns on a swivel mount in the rear cockpit which made it more dangerous than its counterparts on both offense and defense. The Stuka may have carried some serious firepower later in the war but by then it was no longer used in a dive bomber capacity.

Papewaio

09-19-2005, 22:09

Come on guys... It is extremely hard to compare awards like this. Every single instance was looked at by a board (or some lone dictatorial person) then decided to be enough or not. It wasn't thatthey had a specific piece of paper saying:
For pilots: Must have shot down X enemies or bombed X enemy intallations, destroyed X trucks...

You get the point.

Incorrect, actually the Germans based theirs on a point based system:

The Knights Cross was awarded to former recipients of the Iron Cross for five to seven additional repeated act of bravery or for particularly successful command in combat, and criteria kept rising during the war. Fighter pilots received their Knights crosses based on a points system that gave one point for killing a single engine aircraft, two points for twin engine aircraft, three points for a four engine aircraft (usually a heavy bomber), and doubled points for night fighter kills. Submarine captains were recommended after sinking 100,000 tons of allied shipping. A total of 7318 Knights Crosses were awarded during world war 2.

But there is hardly any doubt to the fact the German awards were indeed much harder to get. There were far more German than Commonwealth troops, and they fought more and longer and in bigger concentrations. Meaning the possibilities for German chances at the big awards was certainly bigger. But they ended up with much fewer. So, in conclusion the German awards were harderto get, but that might be to some extent due the inherent fact that you needed to get every single award prior to it (no Iron Cross 1st Class without 2nd Class).

How can they be so much harder to get?

Over 3 million Iron Cross 2nd Class were awarded in WWII.
450,000 Iron Cross 1st Class were awarded in WWII.
And almost 8000 KCs

Compared with about 5000 Distinguished Service Medals and 181 VCs + 1 Bar. That is a ratio of 2:1 in just KCs to the highest grade.

You could get a IC 2nd class for:A single act of outstanding combat bravery above and beyond the call of duty

And a IC 1st class for:

The previous award of the EK2 or its Spange, and

3-5 outstanding actions of combat bravery above and beyond the call of duty.
For the Luftwaffe:

The previous award of the EK2 or its Spange, and

Accumulation of 5 points total, 1 point for downing a single-engine aircraft, 2 points for a twin-engine aircraft and 3 points for a four-engine aircraft. All points were x2 at night.
For the Kriegsmarine:

The previous award of the EK2 or its Spange, and

Accumulation of 50,000 tons sunk for Uboots, or

3-5 outstanding actions of combat bravery above and beyond the call of duty.

Germans spun out awards as fast as Russians made tanks.

One tting is certain, the Golden award to Rudel was more than just a VC with bar, it was a whole lot more. I'm pretty sure the British would have invented a similar special award if they had ever had a comparable soldier.
So lets drop it from here on.

Yes how long would have Rudel survived against Radar and Hurricanes?

Red Harvest

09-19-2005, 22:46

PanzerJaeger

09-19-2005, 22:50

Compared with about 5000 Distinguished Service Medals and 181 VCs + 1 Bar. That is a ratio of 2:1 in just KCs to the highest grade.

That has more to do with the ratio of outstanding soldiers between the two sides. :book:

Germans spun out awards as fast as Russians made tanks.

You're kidding right? ~:eek:

Yes how long would have Rudel survived against Radar and Hurricanes?

Just fine, he was also an accomplished fighter ace..

Tribesman

09-19-2005, 23:02

It was withdrawn early in the war and superceded by the Stuka.
But it was later withdrawn from training units and returned to front line duty .Where it remained until there were none left .
This was not done because of a lack of Ju 87s it was done because in some respects it was a better aircraft .
If I recall correctly , when the Luftwaffe were doing trails for ordering the new model of dive-bomber to be adopted , the Stuka came second (after the Fi 187 I think ?) but was adopted because monopanes looked "more modern" .

Papewaio

09-20-2005, 00:08

That has more to do with the ratio of outstanding soldiers between the two sides. :book:

Good point. But I don't think a KC is equivalent to a VC.

You're kidding right? ~:eek:

No I'm not kidding. I don't think Russia had 1 tank for every 6 soldiers now did it?

Redleg

09-20-2005, 00:40

Unlike the situation with the Soviets, German decorations were awarded without regard to rank. And in contrast to the Western Allies, they were never awarded for single acts of conspicuous bravery, but rather for a consistent record of personal gallantry and success in combat.

15 Jan 42: Knight's Cross
Equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor or Britain's Victoria Cross.

14 Apr 43: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves
Higher level of above, awarded rarely.

25 Nov 44: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves & Swords
Won by those who had performed the most extreme acts of personal gallantry on a daily basis. Awarded very rarely: most often posthumously.

29 Mar 44: Knight's Cross with Oakleaves, Swords & Diamonds
Extraordinarily prestigious award... like winning four Congressional Medals of Honor or Victoria Crosses. Back-dated to the time of his escape across the Dnjester when conferred on 25 Nov.

1 Jan 45: Knight's Cross with Golden Oakleaves, Swords & Diamonds
Note that the Golden Oakleaves were awarded once during the entire war, the decoration being instituted in answer to Rudel's continuing feats of unprecedented heroism.

Written by an individual who is obviousily baised toward the German Reich. The Knights Cross which the author states is par with the Congressional Medal of Honor - a weak comprassion and shows how little the author understood the United States Congressional Medal of Honor - and I would assume the VC also.

Most place it somewhat equal to slightly less then equilvent to Congressional Medal of Honor. Also the Knights Cross was also award to individual acts of extreme Heroism, however Germany did have the condition that a previous valor award the Iron Cross must have been awarded for a seperate act.

I just love when those who only study German War history attempt to make comparrisons of the German Medals for Heroism to the Allied Medals. If you want to check out the number of Iron Crosses awarded to say the Bronze Star medal - you might indeed find out that the Germans handed out medals like Candy during the war. Germany used several different levels in awarding the Knights Cross - so to compare to only one level for the Congressional Medal of Honor and if I remember it correctly there is only one level for the Victoria Cross also, is indeed a weak comparsion.

You would have to lump up all the Knights Crosses together to make an adequate comparrsion about how the awards were awarded. You will find that many of the Medal of Honor winners in the United States Military during WW2 were also recieptants of other valor medals also.

Knights Cross 7,318 to Germans
Knights Cross w/oakleaves 882 to Germans
Knights Cross w/oakleaves and swords 159 to Germans

Compared to

Medal of Honor 464

It seems the Germans liked to award the Knights Cross more often then the United States award the Medal of Honor. Now if you begin to compare the number of awards to the number of people in the Military during the War - plus the number of battle fought - you still find that the Germans passed out their medals more then the Allied Forces. The United States lumped all levels of great heroism into one award - the Germans placed them in several levels.

Now don't get me wrong - I am not trying to negate or downplay the individual heroism of many of the German soldiers that fought in the World War - but when one begins to look at the statistics on medals - the picture painted is often not what is reality on the Battlefield. Nor am I trying to say American and for that matter allied soldiers were more brave and heroic - what I am saying is that the using of medals to compare bravery of soldiers is comparing apples to oranges. The different sides have different criteria for what constitutes the valor necessary to get the award.

lars573

09-20-2005, 03:21

There are sort off 2 levels to the Victoria cross. Baically if you already have a VC and get another your existing VC gets a bar or something along those lines. Also I think the VC is even harder to get than the medal of honour. As the VC requires witnesses in order for it to be awarded. You could stop an entire enemy division by yourself and if no one saw it no Victoria cross.

Papewaio

09-20-2005, 03:43

Only 1 VC + bar was awarded during WWII.

Beirut

09-20-2005, 03:44

As I've read it, there are only four men in history who received the VC with bars. (A double VC as it were.)

Our last living VC winner, "Smokey" Smith, died just a few months ago. During a WWII battle he took on and defeated two Panzer tanks and drove off their infantry support.

Ma man!

PanzerJaeger

09-20-2005, 03:45

It seems the Germans liked to award the Knights Cross more often then the United States award the Medal of Honor. Now if you begin to compare the number of awards to the number of people in the Military during the War - plus the number of battle fought - you still find that the Germans passed out their medals more then the Allied Forces. The United States lumped all levels of great heroism into one award - the Germans placed them in several levels.

You are basing that on the assumption that both sides had relatively equal numbers of heroic soldiers. Thats the falacy of your claim.

Germany handed out more medals because more Germans earned them. Your attempt to find some relativity between the number of brave German soldiers and the number of brave Americans does not hold water.

Now don't get me wrong - I am not trying to negate or downplay the individual heroism of many of the German soldiers that fought in the World War - but when one begins to look at the statistics on medals - the picture painted is often not what is reality on the Battlefield.

That is exactly what you are doing. If you actually took the time to read what German soldiers went through to get their awards, you would not be making stupid statements like "they handed them out like candy". My grandfather died for his.. a real cake walk that was. ~:rolleyes:

what I am saying is that the using of medals to compare bravery of soldiers is comparing apples to oranges.

Then why did you do it earlier in your post?

Gregoshi

09-20-2005, 03:53

Let's not turn this into another pissing contest - pardon the expression. The topic is dive bombers I believe...

Papewaio

09-20-2005, 03:54

General Freyburg (http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-vc/freyberg-vc.htm)

During the Second World War the Victoria Cross was awarded 182 times, Charles Upham of the New Zealand Military Forces received his VC for bravery in Crete between May 22nd and 30th, 1941 and a bar for gallantry in the Western Desert July 14th, 1942.

Yes another Kiwi... and the only Bar in WWII. ~;)

The largest number of Victoria Crosses won in a single action was on January 22nd 1879 at Rourke’s Drift during the Zulu War. Following this action, 11 men were awarded the VC.

Papewaio

09-20-2005, 04:02

You are basing that on the assumption that both sides had relatively equal numbers of heroic soldiers. Thats the falacy of your claim.

Germany handed out more medals because more Germans earned them. Your attempt to find some relativity between the number of brave German soldiers and the number of brave Americans does not hold water.

That is exactly what you are doing. If you actually took the time to read what German soldiers went through to get their awards, you would not be making stupid statements like "they handed them out like candy". My grandfather died for his.. a real cake walk that was. ~:rolleyes:

Then why did you do it earlier in your post?

Because your quote stated that KCs outrank the highest medals that can be earned by the Allies and they handed KCs out at a ratio of 20 to one compared with Congressional medals of Honor. That is handing out candy.

3 million Iron Crosses means they handed them out 1 to every half dozen that served.

If German soldiers were so brave and honourable why were they defending the Nazis?

Think of it this way if the 8000 KCs had done the right thing and fought against the Nazi regieme how much faster would have the Nazi reich fallen and less people would have died? 50 million died in WWII. Japan would have fallen quicker if Germany had gone down quicker.

PanzerJaeger

09-20-2005, 04:10

:wall:

The idiocy has become beyond ridiculous. However, im not going to ignore a moderator. If you want your BS refuted, start another thread.

Gregoshi

09-20-2005, 04:34

The different sides have different criteria for what constitutes the valor necessary to get the award.
Sounds like an interesting topic - why don't one of you start a new thread on this subject? The numbers given above need some context. What did it take to win these medals and what was the validation process prior to handing them out. But, can we please take this medals discussion to its own thread to give it some justice? Thanks.

Also, if we are going to recognize another patron's bias, let's also recognize our own bias. Fair is fair.

Edit: PJ beat me to the punch - yes a new thread is the ticket.

lars573

09-20-2005, 04:35

Because your quote stated that KCs outrank the highest medals that can be earned by the Allies and they handed KCs out at a ratio of 20 to one compared with Congressional medals of Honor. That is handing out candy.

3 million Iron Crosses means they handed them out 1 to every half dozen that served.

If German soldiers were so brave and honourable why were they defending the Nazis?

Think of it this way if the 8000 KCs had done the right thing and fought against the Nazi regieme how much faster would have the Nazi reich fallen and less people would have died? 50 million died in WWII. Japan would have fallen quicker if Germany had gone down quicker.
Pape you need to take a step waaaaay back and think about what your saying for a second. If those KC's had done your "right thing" they wold have been shot or thrown in a concentration camp, with their families right behind them. Not to mention that they were German citizens doing their duty to their country. Just as our ancestors were doing their duty to their country by shooting at them. Your post was insulting and hurtfull to all German war vets. They have to deal with enough crap without you dropping trow and adding to it.

Anyway the problem with German war medals was how the recipients qualified for them. Any German soldier that was resonable talented at his job could expect to earn an Iron cross or two after a while. That is why they handed them out like candy. Hell the German version of the VC was the Ironcross but after WW1 so many men had met it's qualifications that they had handed out like million of them and it lost meaning. So the knighs cross was created to take it's place as the highest honour.

Redleg

09-20-2005, 04:45

Sounds like an interesting topic - why don't one of you start a new thread on this subject? The numbers given above need some context. What did it take to win these medals and what was the validation process prior to handing them out. But, can we please take this medals discussion to its own thread to give it some justice? Thanks.

Also, if we are going to recognize another patron's bias, let's also recognize our own bias. Fair is fair.

Edit: PJ beat me to the punch - yes a new thread is the ticket.

I just might - give me a couple of days to gather all the relevative information about United States Military Awards and how many were awarded during WW2. THe statistics just might surprise us all.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-20-2005, 05:30

Nice hijacking.

Kraxis

09-20-2005, 09:52

Back on track please... I will respond in the other thread.

Spino

09-20-2005, 16:06

The Pe-2 Dive Bomber configuration should probably be in here as well. It was contemporary. It was a fast twin-engined dive bomber (faster than any of the other three listed.) It was dangerous to fighters as well, as the Luftwaffe soon learned.

Good point, the Pe-2 could dive bomb but unlike the other dive bombers listed in this thread it was not designed with dive bombing as it's raison d'etre. The Pe-2 was originally designed as a high altitude fighter but once the Luftwaffe played its part in Germany's blitzkrieg of France the Soviet knee jerk reaction was to transform the plane into a tactical bomber with dive bombing capabilities. I am also inclined to believe that the Pe-2 pilots mainly used shallow angle 'glide' bombing or level bombing tactics during the war. I simply haven't heard or read many accounts of them delivering bombs in high speed, high angle dives like the Stuka, Val or SBD Dauntless (high angle as in 80-85 degrees). I think this makes sense when you consider that the Pe-2 was much heavier than the other dive bombers mentioned here and when loaded with a substantial bomb load (which was also much greater than the other planes) it simply could not engage in a steep dive unless the release point was at relatively high altitudes, thus affecting accuracy. It also doesn't make any sense to fit a few bombs to such a large plane so you can enable it to precision dive from high angles when a more substantial bomb load delivered from a more shallow angle can do the same job.

This is not to say that the Pe-2 was a bad bomber, quite the contrary, it was an excellent tactical bomber. The problem is that that Pe-2 wasn't a 'true' dive bomber.

dgfred

09-20-2005, 16:48

At the start, gotta be the Stuka ~;) ~:cool: .

Seamus Fermanagh

09-20-2005, 16:53

Good point, the Pe-2 could dive bomb but unlike the other dive bombers listed in this thread it was not designed with dive bombing as it's raison d'etre. The Pe-2 was originally designed as a high altitude fighter but once the Luftwaffe played its part in Germany's blitzkrieg of France the Soviet knee jerk reaction was to transform the plane into a tactical bomber with dive bombing capabilities. I am also inclined to believe that the Pe-2 pilots mainly used shallow angle 'glide' bombing or level bombing tactics during the war. I simply haven't heard or read many accounts of them delivering bombs in high speed, high angle dives like the Stuka, Val or SBD Dauntless (high angle as in 80-85 degrees). I think this makes sense when you consider that the Pe-2 was much heavier than the other dive bombers mentioned here and when loaded with a substantial bomb load (which was also much greater than the other planes) it simply could not engage in a steep dive unless the release point was at relatively high altitudes, thus affecting accuracy. It also doesn't make any sense to fit a few bombs to such a large plane so you can enable it to precision dive from high angles when a more substantial bomb load delivered from a more shallow angle can do the same job.

This is not to say that the Pe-2 was a bad bomber, quite the contrary, it was an excellent tactical bomber. The problem is that that Pe-2 wasn't a 'true' dive bomber.

The early German fascination for the Dive Bomber also manifested itself in a Udet-sponsored requirement that the JU-88 be capable of dive bombing. Later marks dropped this, especially the night-fighter variants. As with the Pe-2, there are few recorded instances of the JU-88 doing a true near-vertical attack as did the Naval Bombers and Stukas.

The vertical dive bomb, glide bombing and skip bombing tactics were WW2's best answer to generating accuracy with aerial bombs. The long slow dive of the dive bomber was a relatively vulnerable time for the aircraft, however, though attackers could find it difficult to stay with their targets long enough for more than a quick burst. The prevalence of glide bombinb, skip bombing and air-to-ground cannon/rocket attacks later in the war are testimony to the limitation of dive bombing as a form of attack.

Most ordinance launched from aircraft did not hit its target, unless you were defining "target" as a box of terrain several square miles in size. Even then, misses occurred, as the death of the highest ranking American to lose his life in combat attests. Dive bombing was better, but bomb accuracy was a problem throughout the war.

Seamus

Kraxis

09-20-2005, 20:54

Of course it was a problem... Or else the bombers would have been absolute winners, they were not.

And yes, the Ju-88 in the divebomb role. Devastating! But far too easy to hit (big target). No wonder it was dropped later on, as the Germans had more use for close air support rather than heavy dive bombers.
Btw, have you heard of any Ju-88 vs Pe-2 dogfights in their fighter roles (or nightfighter roles)??? That would have been one heavy battle.

But aren't we forgetting a prime candidate?
The Il-2 Sturmovik... True it didn't divebomb that much, preferring the shallow dive. But it could divebomb and it did that with good results against bridges and other structures where shallow dives were less feasable.
Perhaps it was less effective as a divebomber, but overall it must have been the best of the planes so far discussed. It was highly adapable and was very capable in several areas, all centered around ground attacks. The guns, the bombs, the armour, the relatively high speed (initially it was comparably fast) and not the least the rockets... It was a superb design, no wonder only minor additions were made to it (rear-gunner and various smaller structural changes).

Seamus Fermanagh

09-20-2005, 22:36

Well, the Il-2 was not in service at the start of the conflict, and only rarely served as a dive bomber. It was a heck of an attack aircraft of course, though other late-war Allied planes were better. It did have more armor than a teutonic knight, though little of it was spared for the gunner (of course the gunners were "volunteers" from the penal battalions or gulags, so...)

Seamus

Red Harvest

09-21-2005, 06:51

Pe-2's for dive bombing were actually fitted with some rather good perforated dive brakes as memory serves. They had a bit of teething as dive bombers (like needing to go to a yoke vs. stick to deal with high aerodynamic loads), since that wasn't the original config, but they seem to have served the purpose fairly well. I think that they might not have been quite as *accurate* as the smaller single engine dive bombers but can't remember where I read that. Their speed was a considerable asset, since it made their rear gunnery more effective. They were as fast as a number of fighters at the time. They chewed up some 109's badly early on this way. Pe-2's were not as vulnerable as Stuka's, so there is quite a contrast with the Stuka being pulled from Battle of Britain service due to its vulnerability--especially since "escort" hurricanes had trouble keeping up with Pe-2's and had to keep their throttles firewalled while the Pe-2's were in cruise mode!

Red Harvest

09-21-2005, 07:12

The Il-2 was a great aircraft, but it doesn't compare favorably as a dive bomber. It lacked defensive protection from low astern, and its oil cooler down below was its achilles heel. Early models had no rear gunner, so they were particularly vulnerable. Early models with a gunner had no protection for the gunner...making his average life span extremely short.

Think I mis spoke in my last post on the Pe-2. I found some references to problems with the dive brakes getting stuck early on that limited their dive bombing use. I'm not sure if that was resolved, or if it remained a problem.

Kraxis

09-21-2005, 10:40

The Il-2 was most certainly around when th US entered the war. In fact is was around the 22nd of June 41. It was not numerous, but that was about to change.

It had its faults, but those faults were based on the fact that it was supposed to be closely escorted (planes that would also act as scouts for the attackers). That of course came to a dead end when the German blasted the fighters from the skies in droves.
They did have problem with the radiator, but the pilots were aware of this and often managed to present their belly to their attackers. And the belly we know was heavily armoured, German pilots often comlpained that their bullets and cannon rounds merely bounced off the Il-2. Can we say that much of the others?

The Il-2 was due to this armour, likely to be the heaviest of the lot (though the Pe-2 might of course be heavier). It was one stable plane, and its controls were highly responsive as well as extremely simplistic, as opposed to most western and German planes. It was a really simple plane to fly with few quirks (like the Me-109's tendency to stall during right-turns or its bad handling at landing), leading to the pilots having a much greater chance of survival. Too bad for them was he fact that the simple controls lead them to, at least initially, be piloted by pilots with only the most basic education.

It certainly preferred shallow dives to get as much as possible out of its rockets and guns, but whenever it did divebomb it did very well. The fact is that the eastern front was quite fluid, so there were few positions where you needed divebombing. Often it was collumns of trucks or similar that was attacked by the planes of both sides, or direct battlefield interdiction. Blasting tanks. So the amount of divebombing was rather limited (normally restricted to fixed structures such as bridges, railway stations and supply dumps in cities). But when done it was done well.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-21-2005, 14:57

Well, soviet design always preferenced the "simple but rugged." For the most part, it did serve them well, and we can point to some of their classic designs in all fields as examples (Kalishnikov series of assault rifles, the t-34 and t-72 tank chasses, MIG 15/17 airframe, Katyusha series rocket launchers, and most of their mortars). The appeal of a solid weapon system with simple controls and a low malf rate is obvious.

That having been said, the Il-2 was all too often a lumbering target for the Luftwaffen jadgfleigers. Was it simple to fly? Yes, but too many of the non-guard formations were flown by undertrained pilots -- even long after the crisis days of '41/early 42 were over. The Guard units were a different story.
Could it take a phenomenal amount of punishment? Yes, and for its size only the stories associated with the P-47 rival it. Rounds of less than 9mm were unlikely to damage any critical component, especially as the Il-2 was manueverable and, with a competent pilot, did not stay still. However, hoping the opponent runs out of ammo before you fall down should not be considered a top-tier defensive ability. Only the later variant, the IL-10, was capable of both the speed and manueverability needed to make it fully effective. Was it an effective dive-bomber? All records we have access to suggest that it was, though soviet pilots tended to take a less vertical path that allied or kraut counterparts. The Il-2 was a good aircraft, but not by any means perfect. If Germany's high command had not delayed aircraft development in Germany (what a gaffe that was) the Il-2 would have had to face more opponents like the ME-410, the HE-219, and TA-152. These aircraft were armed with cannons capable of downing the Il-2 reliably. The Germans were slow, however, so the Il-2 continued to be a physically tough target to bring down for german fighters.

All told, the Shturmovik series was an effective aircraft that gave excellent service to the soviet air force. It's abilities were eclipsed by the end of the war, but as an all-around package it was excellent. It is probable that no single-engine attack aircraft was more effective until the advent of the AD-1.

Seamus