I knew a former Stuka pilot. So many great stories. In North Africa the priority target was water tankers and supplies. (No surprise but seldom considered.) Was shot down behind the lines twice. Escaped once, a POW in Italy at the end of the war. A few months after, he and a friend took off down the road and hiked over the Alps to return home. He was avidly anti-war.
You will probably know this, but just in case. The Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum in the USA, are in the process of restoring a Ju 87 R-4 to flying condition, so it looks like we'll get to see one fly since WW2.
IntyMichael. I fear you maybe right, as I believe the whole aircraft collection is being put up for sale, & the Stuka restoration still has a long way to go. The recently completed Me262 restoration is unique in the fact that they had the Jumo engines rebuilt with modern materials, so will be the only airworthy Me 262 with it's original engines if it finally takes to the air.
Excellent banter, chaps! And thanks for this "how to" guide. It seems like all town pidgeons have also read this Official Manual, as they are so good at hitting stationary, car-shaped targets.
Those rather pridictable dive paths were not ideal later in the war at keeping the plane aflight. But definitely could lay a bomb where it was needed more than most alternatives.
Indeed, if you have air superiority, then this is THE perfect Close Air Support aircraft... this is why it was so effective early in the war, and got obsolete when the Germans lost air superiority.
@@trauko1388 German policies against Jews were understood by 1933. Germany atrocities against civilians (Poles, Czechs, etc) were well-known during the war. Every man who flew these Stukas was a criminal . . . whose family likely paid a high price late in the war. My grandfather was born in the US to German parents. He refused to join the Bund. He did the right thing and fought Germany in both WWI (enlisting before he was 18) & WWII in the US Armed Services. To be human is to have Free Will. It is a weird sickness to admire & fetishize the defeated German war machine.
I read the book "Dauntless Hell Divers" by Buell. He explained the dive procedure quite differently than what I thought. USN training was to pass over the target, close throttle, pull-up into a stall and half snap-roll, then pull through to bring the nose down, as I recall.
@@chapiit08 Nice try in moral relativism. The Stuka was used to attack civilians as part of unprovoked invasions. e.g. Poland 1939. The Netherlands 1940.
I beg to differ, because the video discussed the Stuka manual and performed by the book is what makes Stuka is so accurate. That comprehensive manual is what makes Stuka accurate, hence the video title. At least that's what I understood and inferred.
It was much more accurate than level bombing for two reasons: 1) the bomb(s) was released much closer to the target, 2) the bomb's transition from level to downward flight was done while under control of the plane. If you think about why bombing can be inaccurate, it comes largely from two things: atmospheric interference (wind gusts, etc. throw the bombs off course) and the variable parabola the bomb flies as it transitions from level to downward flight, which can be influenced by maneuvering of the plane or changes in speed, etc was very difficult to calculate in real-time without computers, which obviously were unavailable in WW2. The dive bombing motion itself largely eliminates both problems: the bomb has already transitioned from level to downward flight while entirely under control of the plane and the short distance of release eliminates much if not all atmospheric interference.
Dauntless was a better dive bomber. just ask the Japanese Navy. They dove straight down, a fact hidden by propaganda always showing it diving at a shallow angle.
I really congratulate you on showing this Stuka with ALL of it's authentic war time markings. I've seen so many WW2 German aircraft that have been restored without that one marking on the tail. I think it's important to look at the past without modifications.
Once, many years ago, I had a pretty heated argument with my grandfather ( who was with the german artillery in russia as a messenger rider/observer ). I told him that the Stuka was a pretty awful plane overall despite being an excellent divebomber ... he didn´t take it well because it saved their asses lots of times and it got a reputation with the ground troops.
You're actually right about the Ju-87 being an awful plane. It was a great plane from it's creation until 1939. Beginning 1940 and onwards it was only suitable in theatres where the enemy had non-existent air defense or fighter presence. But even then it's armaments post 1940 were suboptimal. The British, Soviets, and US began equipping their CAS aircraft with rockets, high calibre cannons, extra range, high speed, and what not. You have to remember that warfare is a very emotional experience; religious, spiritual, traumatic, etc. Presence of the Stuka on the frontlines, saving ground troops, destroying key enemy targets and returning to combat with multiple sorties was the excellence of the Luftwaffe's doctrines and innovations in ground servicing, forward airbases, depots, battlefield mechanics, and the German Army's doctrines to combine air-land elements with good timing and coordination, complemented by the radio equipment and coordination procedures. But all that is hard to fathom as a soldier on the battlefield, shot at by guns, mortar, artillery and what not. So the sight of a Stuka formation diving on enemy positions has an emotional connection than a capability demonstration.
@@sztypettto Vut the Stuka WAS very accurate, it was the only WW2 dive bomber that was comfortable at a 90 degree dive. Like most any dive bomber it was pretty easy to shoot down if your in a fighter aircraft so you had to have top cover or air superiority to avoid this.
@@sztypettto to be fair the stuka would be equipped with gun pods holding 37mm anti tank cannons or 6 machinegun gunpods. even more commonly were the mgs replaced with 20mm autocannons.
@@barryaiello3127 yes and no the stuka was slow but very manouverable. so it might turn away but its rear machinegunner could still take pot shots at the the fighter tailing him, while the fighter pilot had to control alot to get the stuka in it's sights
, as a player of WarThunder and IL2 series of games, I can attest to your point about additional upgrades in armament types for the Ju-87 airframe. I also understand that it's hard to tell on CZcams from a comment about the other person's knowledge. Considering the additional armaments (guns, cannons, cluster munitions), and improvements to the equipment (engine, armour, etc). Stuka was pretty much outdated as a design past 1939. Don't get me wrong, I love the Stuka. Played it countless times, read plenty about it. But let's face the facts - Ju-87's success between 1940 - 1943 was attributed to the lack of fighter opposition. It was a slow, lumbering, poorly equipped, poorly protected aircraft compared to other aircraft of the time, such as Mosquito, IL-2, P-47, and F4U. A good replacement to the Ju-87 in the Luftwaffe's inventory could have been the Bf-110, FW-190, Me-410, and I know some people may mention the Hs-123, but I wouldn't count on that. The Luftwaffe pilots and generals deserve more credit for the success in Luftwaffe's Combat Air Support missions. When you think about the less than 1,000 Ju-87s available in any given month of the entire World War, fighting in at least 4-5 regions against a combined opposition of more than 10,000 fighters, and 5,000 CAS aircraft, it baffles the mind.
You should do a video on how to use modern precision guided munitions. Too many people think it's just a button push and it goes automatically to the target. But a great many civilian casualties are caused when poorly trained pilots do not know how to use the equipment as designed.
Even if it is operated correctly, it is entirely possible that the target was improperly selected due to bad intelligence, or the target is hiding amongst civilians hoping to cause maximum civilian casualties.
@Peter Evans Even with modern PGMs it’s not just a button push. The weapon will miss if’s not used properly. And target acquisition is also very complicated. Accurate GPS data has to be entered and human beings can still screw that up in various ways.
@@apstrike It seems like you are the one who doesnt know much about guided weapons. Only GPS guided weapons need accurate GPS data, while other, like the AIM-9, just need a "button push"
Hey, great video! But you have have not really explained, why STUKA Dive bombing was so much more accurate (compared to level bombing). I am talking about ballistics, aiming errors and wind effects. During a level bomb run the typical impact pattern is a very long elipsoid along the release heading. The steeper the dive, the elipsoid shrinks to a circle. (At 90degree dive it is a perfect circle). The lower the release altitude, that circle gets smaller. A higher dive angle compensates for negative effects of early or late bomb release. With the wind corrected crosshairs on the target at minimum release altitude during a 90degree dive attack, you will always hit! No matter, if you pickle a second early or late. I assume bomb CEP being Zero. ( CEP: Circular error probable, meaning the bomb is aerodynamically perfect, which is actually none of the freefall bombs.) Musste ich einfach mal kommentieren. Ich war WSO auf Tornado, FWIC instructor in Holloman und habe viele dumb bomb Dive Attacks geflogen. Normalerweise 30-45 Grad, ich habe jedoch auch HUD videos von 90Grad Attacks. Beste Grüsse - and keep on!
“Throttle to zero percent, pitch to zero percent, extend air brakes, and let loose the dogs of war”. Big congrats on the book! Wishing you nothing but the best for the future for you and your amazing channel:)
I purchased the signature edition of your book "Stuka". I'm a dive-plane junky - your book sounds like it might make me feel seated in the JU 87 Cockpit. The SBD Dauntless is my other favorite. I hope I live long enough to see a book like yours dedicated to the Dauntless dive-bomber? My mother was in love with a Dauntless Pilot, but he was killed at Bougainville returning from a mission with a heavily damaged aircraft & with the rear gunner dead. He bailed out when the aircraft broke out in flames - & - his chute failed to open. The pilot's mother wanted my mother to have his all military belongings (letters, pictures, and his purple heart medal, etc.) - before she died. My mother gave me what "Pat" gave her combined with what she obtained from the pilot's mother before she died. After, my mom died, I gave everything to the curator of the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola. To my surprise, he set up an appointment for a later date to meet - so, he could pull up "Pat's military records so we could page through them. I felt good afterward & felt like mission acomplished!
Very interesting. Modern aircraft (or at least the A-10C I'm taking the following procedures from) have an entirely different approach, which is probably a combination of mamy factors, among which computer assisted targeting and release (CCIP and CCRP for example) is probably the most important. The very first part is similar, you spot the target and build a set of reference points to always know where to generally look if you were to lose sight of it. TGPs, HUD, and HMCS make this much easier than in a Stuka. The approach is different though: instead of going straight to target to then push positive Gs to point your nose at it, you start by always coming at angle (90º is best); using reference points on the canopy and/or your instruments, you judge the right spot to start your run/dive. This involves rolling the aircraft nearly inverted (IIRC it's 90º + desired dive angle), and then pull positive Gs until the nose is a bit ahead of the target on your desired attack azimuth; from there you roll back straight, and if needed align the plane with the target with further rolling motions. There is no pushing negative Gs or rudder usage during the dive. Either you or the targeting computer release the ordnance and then you pull out of the dive until at least a 0º vertical angle: what you do next depends on what type of recovery you're flying, and may range from continuing the pull to an unloaded roll into a level turn. This is the case for a single ship bombing a lone target in a non threatening airspace, things change with multiple aircraft or air defenses obviously, although the dive and pullup part remains the same. Anyways, thought this might be interesting to someone as an example on how procedures change with technology and doctrine.
Didn't realize the A-10 can be used as a dive bomber. Always saw it as a 'full speed pointed at the target, strafe the area, dump the bombs, GTFO' kind of plane.
Iirc there is a very rudimentary analogue to CCRP from WW2 with a Swedish gun sight. You go into a shallow dive, aim at the point you want to hit, flick a switch and level out. It'll drop the bombs automatically once getting to the release point - ofc without a HUD and modern computing, the accuracy suffers a bit but it was a valid attempt.
Modern CCIP bombing is actually quite similar. You get a pipper in the HUD that shows you where your bomb would fall if you release now and you fly that pipper on your intended target. The only method to drop unguided bombs on moving targets. Of course, that only works if this point is inside the HUD, in other words, the bomb needs to fall at an angle that is relatively close to your flight path. To achive this, you either need to fly fast, low or in a dive. Fast jets can CCIP bomb in level flight or in a shallow dive from low altitude. From higher altitude, steeper dives (up to 45°) are required, but never an much as in WWII dive bombing. In the slow A-10, you always need uncomfortably steep dives to see the pipper. The main difference is of course that the dive is only necessary to see your target, which means that the dive can be more shallow and much shorter (just long enough to aim). CCRP is completly different. You insert a location into your plane (pre-briefed, datalinked, A-G radar, TGP etc.) and fly towards it. You get a HUD cue for the correct azimuth and a countdown to release time. A few seconds BEFORE release time, you press and hold the pickle (bomb release) button and the plane will automatically drop the bomb at the right time. You usually don't CCRP in a dive. Actually, you can even enter a climb shortly before release to loft your bomb and make it fly further. There are also intermediate forms (DTOS in the F-16, enhanced CCIP in the A-10) where you designate a target with your HUD symbology and then switch to CCRP.
One of reasons of it’s infamous bombing accuracy is because of 90 degree dive and not fogging the sight up. The USN (United States Navy) had problems with fogging up of the SBD Dauntless’s telescopic sight this was improved with SB2C Helldiver which had a reflector sight the dive angle on SB2C Helldiver was altered to open plane’s bombbay when releasing the bombs and by closing the bombbay doors along with retraction of dive brakes after dropping the bombs on target the reason was because the bombs in SB2C Helldiver where carried in a internal bombbay which was done to reduce the amount of drag when carrying heavy ordnance like bombs and a torpedo.
Love all your content. As a fellow WW2 aircraft nerd, I had the chance to see a C47 that flew two missions on DDay in person. I made a few photos public if anyone wants to see. Keep up the great work!!!!!!! I will spread the word about your channel to everyone I meet. P.S. If the weather allows I hope to see B-29 (Fifi) and B-24 tomorrow.
The anti-fogging measures were very important, at least in the South Pacific they could make the difference between seeing the target and being blind. At the Battle of the Coral Sea American SPD's, which were the Kings of Midway 3 weeks later, were near useless due to fogging. Every source describes the SPD's being blind. Morison 'History of United States Naval Operations in World War II' Lindstrom 'The First Team'. The air over a 77 -80 degree F ocean is humid to say the least. If your canopy and bomb sight are at the cool temperature of cruising at 10,000 feet they are going to fog as you plummet to the sea before you can sing 'Bali Hai' and they did. While the failure of the SPD's at Coral Sea saved the Japanese a carrier it also gave them a false picture of the American dive bombers effectiveness which might have influenced the use of CAP which was not the required obsessive compulsive. One can make to much of that; but in the colder waters of the mid-Pacific where the Americans had considerable practice (and where they had over-looked extreme difficulty of South Seas fogging) the unopposed SPD's were scoring over 50%
The rear gunners must have had a lot of trust in their pilots. It must have been unsettling being in a steep dive while sat backwards and with no control.
it was also one of the deadliest jobs in ww2, especially IL 2 rear gunners had huge losses. Mostly very young involuntarily selected soldiers without any training.
This is such a great in depth video! Growing up, dad was really into the Stuka as a childhood obsession due to 60s and 70s WW2 movies he watched. He passed the interest along to me, and I've been fascinated with these beautiful and deadly machines ever since
My Opa was in the 8th panzer division. He told me one of the darkest days was when his unit was misidentified and attacked by Stukas . They just were disembarked when they heard the Stukas. They didn’t react until they realized they were the target. Opa said the Stukas were deadly accurate. He said they could put a bomb in your shirt pocket. The Panzerjager Abt 43 lost about 10 men and several Marders that day. Opa was just lucky. He dove the right way that day. The reason they were misidentified? A simple mistake. The officer who staged the Marders and trucks pointed the gun tubes in the wrong direction.
Thanks for this video; I've been waiting to learn about the Ju-87 procedure on this. BTW, I see at lot of viewer questions about dive angle and why not 90 degrees. We should consider that in a true 90 degree vertical dive the wings are not producing any lift. Therefore the pilot is unable to correct his aim point left or right by simply rolling the airplane. And if you are aiming long in a vertical dive you can't simply push the nose slightly lower to adjust. Even in a 70 degree dive there is some forward travel over the ground and it is easier for the pilot to shift the aim point left or right with lateral control, or fore and aft with longitudinal control. In a pure vertical dive you probably end up rolling around the aim point trying to correct error displacement errors induced by wind or other factors, making it much more difficult to keep the pipper on the target. I'm guessing the better aim point control of a shallower dive would outweigh any error induced by the small trail distance or ballistic path of the bomb.
Your wings will produce lift always even when in a 90 degree dive my friend. As long as air is flowing over them. Its not about angle relative to the ground its about airflow over the wing. But it is much harder to aim and control speed the steeper the dive.
"BTW, I see at lot of viewer questions about dive angle and why not 90 degrees. We should consider that in a true 90 degree vertical dive the wings are not producing any lift." I think your intuition is a little off here, iirc. I won't go into all the details and caveats, but will try to explain this as simply as possible. 1. Wings have both a chord line and a camber line from the shape of the wing. For conventional wings like on WW II aircraft, these are not symmetrical. Lift is generated when the relative body of air the wing is traveling through has to travel a longer distance on one side than the other. The side where air has to travel further has greater ram pressure (velocity), but lower static pressure. The difference in static pressures between opposite sides of a wing is what generates lift, as high pressure seeks low pressure. So even when relative motion of such a wing has it's chord line pointing straight into a body of air, it still generates lift. 2. It is typical on aircraft to have chord lines which point slightly up by a few degrees compared to the fuselage. This is called the 'angle of incidence'. This allows an aircraft to cruise at a given altitude while having it's nose point level into the direction of flight, while generating sufficient lift. So when an aircraft has it's nose pointing straight down, this would mean the chord of the wings are not pointing straight down, but rather a few degrees up. I couldn't find any info on this for the Ju-87 specifically with a quick search, but maybe there is some info on this out there.
@@chkpik Sorry, but you are wrong. It is about angle of the wing relative to the wind, and that angle must be held to zero in a sustained 90 degree dive. If the wing were producing lift it would be altering the flight path and reducing the dive angle. The pilot has to hold the wing at zero or even negative angle of attack (depending on its camber) to maintain an unaccelerated flight path.
@@burnttoast111 You guys are killing me here. For sake of simplicity forget how a wing produces lift, and just look at the flight path relative to the horizon. In level flight the lift produced equals the weight of the aircraft. That 1G of force is opposed by gravity, which is why the flight path is level. If you produce more than 1G of force the flight path will not remain level and the airplane will enter an upward curving flight path In a 90 degree dive, the wing cannot be allowed to produce lift, because the lack of an opposing force would cause that lift to alter the flight path, and you would no longer be in a 90 degree dive. As I said to the previous doubter, the wing may need to be held at a negative angle of attack if it is a cambered airfoil. With a symmetrical airfoil zero AOA is easy.
To produce no lift from the wings, the *angle of attack* needs to be about negative 4°. Even when the wing is stalled it is still producing some lift towards the wing tips but not enough to equal the weight of the aircraft.
I was reading a Stuka pilot's memoir a while back, and he only mentioned the auto-recovery system once. Seems the brass wanted the system used, but the pilots did not, and didn't. Pilots were more comfortable with their own skill sets. Ditto for the siren... rarely if ever used. The memoir did mention that the crew would make whistles from "paper" (probably cardboard - translation difficulties) and attach these to the bomb fins. I imagine the negative G's when coming out of a dive were barely tolerable! At 600-knots and that close to the ground, it would take some work to recover from the dive; be it automatic or pilot-initiated.
Germany had at the time Stukas statitioned in Sweden south of Stockholm on a field where swedish engineers helped developing the Stuka dive bomb technique.
@@mattilatvala4164 Befor the war, when gemany was not allowed to develop or own a Airforce, tanks or u-boats, they develop/tested these weapons in russia, sweden, spain, netherlands, ...
@@wolf310ii Yes, the WW2 start submarine prototypes were semi-secretly made here in Finland, and F got 3 big 2 smaller (1 still as museum) and Estonia 2, with connected C artillery, mining, nets, having close-knit potential to totally block Soviet Navy.
Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown flew many German aircraft after the war and was amazed that the Ju-87 actually felt comfortable when diving at a 90 degree angle. No other aircraft he flew (he has the world record for most aircraft types flown) equalled this.
Thanks 🙏 so much for this video Señor! I am in charge of the weapon testing & discovery department and weapon technology for the Sinaloa Cartel and we’ve acquired 4 WW2 era JU-87’s and I’ve been scouring for an instruction manual but this first person video is even better! You think you can do an instructional video on strafing vehicles? I had a pilot watch your video and do a practice run on a local newspaper distribution center and it worked out wonderfully. The only issue we had was the sirens on the plane alerted a few people and allowed them a brief moment to escape. Any input on how to silence these coyotes from howling?
Duct tape the sirens, that or zip ties work wonders on anything. Watch out for stray P-51's though, they will wreck your planes should they come across them.
You may have covered this somewhere else, if so I haven't got there yet, sorry: how does the Stuka's accuracy compare to other dive bombers of the time, such as the SBD and Val? If there is a significant difference, why is this?
When I was considerably younger I read a lot of aviation biographies- mostly German and Commonwealth fliers. I remember one of the fighter aces at some point flew Ju87s- I remember him telling of, how, after some confusion taxiing out to the ‘runway’ one Stuka chunked up the Stuka in front. Someone going too fast or too slow or something. Do you recall such an occurrence and who’s book. Not a trick question. College late in life kind of cured me of reading for pleasure.
Erich Hartman. Germany's and the Worlds highest scoring ace with 352 Kills. after he finished training and assigned to the Russian front his group of pilots sent to Russia were told since they were going there to ferry some Stukas to the front lines. He was not familiar with the Stuka breaking system and taxied into the stuka in front of him. The CO of the base ordered the flight cancelled and had the rookies flown to the front in the back of a JU 52 and had some certified Stuka crews ferry the remaining aircraft to the front. I have a book about him. "the Blond Knight of Germany" by Toliver.
@@jbarninatus5898 An American Navy pilot (Swede Vejtasa) flying a Dauntless dive bomber shot down at least two Japanese Zeros during a dogfight no less, and purposely did a head- on collision with one; the heavily built Dauntless sheared part of the lighter Zero's wing off sending him spiraling into the ocean. No obsolete aircraft there and IJN pilots were some of the best trained aviators of the day.☺
Answers the related question "how do you divebomb in a Stuka" rather than the question in the title. Still interesting but lacks the content that the title led me to expect.
Tbh, I was rather surprised at getting it right in the middle :) although part of me thinks showing the clip where I missed would have been better, near misses where a lot more common than hits ofc.
Great visuals to illustrate the narration. Late war against the USN, I could see why this type of attack was so dangerous for the IJN - that long of an approach would leave one extremely vulnerable to concentrated 5"/38 VT fused fire for an extended period of time. I have to imagine ditto if going up against US Army 90mm / UK equivalent AA guns. And never mind the Bofors once pushing over.
I wonder who was the first pilot that cursed the fogging of the windows and sent in a recommendation for a window defogger. LOL At higher altitudes, it tends to be colder and much lower humidity. When diving, the plane enter warmer humid air, which naturally starts condensing on the cold windscreen .
I was under the impression that the Ju88 was literally designed as airborne artillery as in use in combined arms. It seems to me that it was extremely effective in this role.
The Ju-87 B2, in IL-2 Cliffs of Dover, has a fully functioning automatic divebombing recovery system. In CloD & CloD Tobruk, the Stuka automatically releases the bomb(s), at the pre-programmed altitude, & recovers from the dive provided that the system is set up properly & switched. on in the cockpit. Weirder is divebombing in a Blenheim IV, where the procedure is to lower the undercarriage, prior to commencement of diving, because the air brakes are on the gear legs.
Always a pleasure to watch and to listen (I make model aircraft so like something good to listen too when I build.) And I like the way you use IL2 to illustrate your videos... 30 years ago graphics of this quality would be very expensive.
The official manual is one thing. Be assured that in theatre, crews found ways to optimize the abilities of the JU 87 which will be not found in any books but memories of those who flew her.
Stukas were eaten alive by the Spitfires. A lumbersome, cumbersome shitty plane. But that siren was rad.Korda's book" With Wings Like Eagles" goes into great detail on how these planes were made, and how they stacked up against each other.
Just doing some alternate history while in the subject of CAS planes- the Douglas skyraider seems to have been a plane that could have been flown in WWII and used WW2 tech. Do you think the sky raider would have been the best CAS in wwii considering its longevity being used even in Vietnam? It seems to have had a huge range, armor and payload. It was amazing for me to find out that a skyraider could carry 3600kg of bombs while a Lancaster heavy bomber could carry 6400kg of bombs - 2 skyraider could carry the bomb load as one Lancaster.
I knew a former Stuka pilot. So many great stories. In North Africa the priority target was water tankers and supplies. (No surprise but seldom considered.) Was shot down behind the lines twice. Escaped once, a POW in Italy at the end of the war. A few months after, he and a friend took off down the road and hiked over the Alps to return home. He was avidly anti-war.
You will probably know this, but just in case. The Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum in the USA, are in the process of restoring a Ju 87 R-4 to flying condition, so it looks like we'll get to see one fly since WW2.
Is that the one in Paine Field, Everett, WA?
Plz have the siren ~~
If they ever open up again.
IntyMichael. I fear you maybe right, as I believe the whole aircraft collection is being put up for sale, & the Stuka restoration still has a long way to go. The recently completed Me262 restoration is unique in the fact that they had the Jumo engines rebuilt with modern materials, so will be the only airworthy Me 262 with it's original engines if it finally takes to the air.
@@urbangeeze1348 It would be a shame if the collection gets split up. I visited the museum in 2019. Super rare stuff like the Focke-Wulf 190 D-13.
That looks like an interesting project.
Hey you, I know you, wanna write a book?
@@MilitaryAviationHistory another one... hmm let me look at my Excel sheets...
Looking sexy
And people say germans don't have humour : D
Excellent banter, chaps! And thanks for this "how to" guide. It seems like all town pidgeons have also read this Official Manual, as they are so good at hitting stationary, car-shaped targets.
Those rather pridictable dive paths were not ideal later in the war at keeping the plane aflight. But definitely could lay a bomb where it was needed more than most alternatives.
Proximity fuses in anti-aircraft ammo took care of that...
@@anonydun82fgoog35IIRC only the Americans had proximity fuses, and by the time they arrived in Europe Stukas weren't flying against them.
Indeed, if you have air superiority, then this is THE perfect Close Air Support aircraft... this is why it was so effective early in the war, and got obsolete when the Germans lost air superiority.
@@praevasc4299 a10s can carry sidewinders.
@@ryankiesow8440 So what? We are talking about WW2 dive bombers here.
That was very informative. Far more check to do before an attack than I thought. The altimeter alert is a cool thing i didn't know about either
Thanks :)
Simple, a positive attitude is the basis for all success, and the Ju 87B flew around with a huge smile under its nose! 😁😁😁
+D
Or.."Just grin a Bare it.."
Yeah, and one of the first things it did in WWII was levelling a hospital, killing lots of civilians including women and children.
@@SparrowNoblePoland OMG! The aircraft must be evil then!!!
@@trauko1388 German policies against Jews were understood by 1933. Germany atrocities against civilians (Poles, Czechs, etc) were well-known during the war. Every man who flew these Stukas was a criminal . . . whose family likely paid a high price late in the war. My grandfather was born in the US to German parents. He refused to join the Bund. He did the right thing and fought Germany in both WWI (enlisting before he was 18) & WWII in the US Armed Services. To be human is to have Free Will. It is a weird sickness to admire & fetishize the defeated German war machine.
one thing about the stuka that has been taken and used in every war movie is the siren sound when diving, the stuka was the only one to have it
You made my inner nerd so happy today. Thanks. Also remember: cool guys never look at explosions. That's why we can never get accurate kill counts. xD
So what you are saying is....
...rear gunners are perpetually uncool?
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I could agree with that
@@MilitaryAviationHistory So can you name any of Rudel's gunners? There is your answer.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I agree fully with you....!
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Most definitely and they also have a backward attitude with their flying practice.
I read the book "Dauntless Hell Divers" by Buell. He explained the dive procedure quite differently than what I thought. USN training was to pass over the target, close throttle, pull-up into a stall and half snap-roll, then pull through to bring the nose down, as I recall.
The difference was that the Dauntless wasn't used to terrorize civilians.
@@H-Zazoo No, the allies resorted to carpet bombing instead.
@@chapiit08 Nice try in moral relativism. The Stuka was used to attack civilians as part of unprovoked invasions. e.g. Poland 1939. The Netherlands 1940.
@@H-Zazoo Your ignorance precedes you, the invasion of Poland wasn't unprovoked in the first place.
@@chapiit08 Don't stop now, you're on a roll. :) Tell us how the Japanese were victims also.
So, the real title is "How do dive bomb a ship with a Ju 87", not why the Ju 87 is so accurate.
Yeah, it leaves you the way the Stuka dive bombed as the answer as to why it was accurate, a little misleading title
I beg to differ, because the video discussed the Stuka manual and performed by the book is what makes Stuka is so accurate.
That comprehensive manual is what makes Stuka accurate, hence the video title. At least that's what I understood and inferred.
It was much more accurate than level bombing for two reasons: 1) the bomb(s) was released much closer to the target, 2) the bomb's transition from level to downward flight was done while under control of the plane.
If you think about why bombing can be inaccurate, it comes largely from two things: atmospheric interference (wind gusts, etc. throw the bombs off course) and the variable parabola the bomb flies as it transitions from level to downward flight, which can be influenced by maneuvering of the plane or changes in speed, etc was very difficult to calculate in real-time without computers, which obviously were unavailable in WW2. The dive bombing motion itself largely eliminates both problems: the bomb has already transitioned from level to downward flight while entirely under control of the plane and the short distance of release eliminates much if not all atmospheric interference.
Dauntless was a better dive bomber. just ask the Japanese Navy. They dove straight down, a fact hidden by propaganda always showing it diving at a shallow angle.
@@miguelurrutdarkorangefan2750 they dived straight to the target
I really congratulate you on showing this Stuka with ALL of it's authentic war time markings. I've seen so many WW2 German aircraft that have been restored without that one marking on the tail. I think it's important to look at the past without modifications.
Also: leave the Confederate statues up!
@@johnshacklett2265 yes they should we should forever remember those losers
@@firaasmygls9307 And that they lasted less time than a presidency
Ju 87: "exist"
Military Aviation History: "INFINITE CONTENT"
Stuka is his spirit animal.
@@copter2000 If i won the lotto i would buy a stuka
Me, A Stuka Simp : "YES!, MORE!. STUKAS!"
Im glad that i backed the book, the stuka is my favorite plane personally
never knew the Ju-87 had a target window
Looking forward to receiving the book. Great work guys.
Once, many years ago, I had a pretty heated argument with my grandfather ( who was with the german artillery in russia as a messenger rider/observer ). I told him that the Stuka was a pretty awful plane overall despite being an excellent divebomber ... he didn´t take it well because it saved their asses lots of times and it got a reputation with the ground troops.
You're actually right about the Ju-87 being an awful plane. It was a great plane from it's creation until 1939. Beginning 1940 and onwards it was only suitable in theatres where the enemy had non-existent air defense or fighter presence. But even then it's armaments post 1940 were suboptimal. The British, Soviets, and US began equipping their CAS aircraft with rockets, high calibre cannons, extra range, high speed, and what not.
You have to remember that warfare is a very emotional experience; religious, spiritual, traumatic, etc. Presence of the Stuka on the frontlines, saving ground troops, destroying key enemy targets and returning to combat with multiple sorties was the excellence of the Luftwaffe's doctrines and innovations in ground servicing, forward airbases, depots, battlefield mechanics, and the German Army's doctrines to combine air-land elements with good timing and coordination, complemented by the radio equipment and coordination procedures. But all that is hard to fathom as a soldier on the battlefield, shot at by guns, mortar, artillery and what not. So the sight of a Stuka formation diving on enemy positions has an emotional connection than a capability demonstration.
@@sztypettto Vut the Stuka WAS very accurate, it was the only WW2 dive bomber that was comfortable at a 90 degree dive. Like most any dive bomber it was pretty easy to shoot down if your in a fighter aircraft so you had to have top cover or air superiority to avoid this.
@@sztypettto to be fair the stuka would be equipped with gun pods holding 37mm anti tank cannons or 6 machinegun gunpods. even more commonly were the mgs replaced with 20mm autocannons.
@@barryaiello3127 yes and no the stuka was slow but very manouverable. so it might turn away but its rear machinegunner could still take pot shots at the the fighter tailing him, while the fighter pilot had to control alot to get the stuka in it's sights
, as a player of WarThunder and IL2 series of games, I can attest to your point about additional upgrades in armament types for the Ju-87 airframe. I also understand that it's hard to tell on CZcams from a comment about the other person's knowledge.
Considering the additional armaments (guns, cannons, cluster munitions), and improvements to the equipment (engine, armour, etc). Stuka was pretty much outdated as a design past 1939. Don't get me wrong, I love the Stuka. Played it countless times, read plenty about it. But let's face the facts - Ju-87's success between 1940 - 1943 was attributed to the lack of fighter opposition. It was a slow, lumbering, poorly equipped, poorly protected aircraft compared to other aircraft of the time, such as Mosquito, IL-2, P-47, and F4U. A good replacement to the Ju-87 in the Luftwaffe's inventory could have been the Bf-110, FW-190, Me-410, and I know some people may mention the Hs-123, but I wouldn't count on that.
The Luftwaffe pilots and generals deserve more credit for the success in Luftwaffe's Combat Air Support missions. When you think about the less than 1,000 Ju-87s available in any given month of the entire World War, fighting in at least 4-5 regions against a combined opposition of more than 10,000 fighters, and 5,000 CAS aircraft, it baffles the mind.
You should do a video on how to use modern precision guided munitions. Too many people think it's just a button push and it goes automatically to the target. But a great many civilian casualties are caused when poorly trained pilots do not know how to use the equipment as designed.
Even if it is operated correctly, it is entirely possible that the target was improperly selected due to bad intelligence, or the target is hiding amongst civilians hoping to cause maximum civilian casualties.
@Peter Evans Even with modern PGMs it’s not just a button push. The weapon will miss if’s not used properly. And target acquisition is also very complicated. Accurate GPS data has to be entered and human beings can still screw that up in various ways.
@@apstrike It seems like you are the one who doesnt know much about guided weapons.
Only GPS guided weapons need accurate GPS data, while other, like the AIM-9, just need a "button push"
From the video title, I was expecting more analysis about "WHY the JU was so accurate", not just a walk through of the dive bombing procedure.
Perhaps one day, an episode of inside the cockpit of the Me 410 or Do 335. Two of my favorite aircraft that both have long and complicated histories
Well produced video on a subject that is of great interest. Well Done
Hey, great video! But you have have not really explained, why STUKA Dive bombing was so much more accurate (compared to level bombing). I am talking about ballistics, aiming errors and wind effects. During a level bomb run the typical impact pattern is a very long elipsoid along the release heading. The steeper the dive, the elipsoid shrinks to a circle. (At 90degree dive it is a perfect circle). The lower the release altitude, that circle gets smaller. A higher dive angle compensates for negative effects of early or late bomb release. With the wind corrected crosshairs on the target at minimum release altitude during a 90degree dive attack, you will always hit! No matter, if you pickle a second early or late. I assume bomb CEP being Zero. ( CEP: Circular error probable, meaning the bomb is aerodynamically perfect, which is actually none of the freefall bombs.) Musste ich einfach mal kommentieren. Ich war WSO auf Tornado, FWIC instructor in Holloman und habe viele dumb bomb Dive Attacks geflogen. Normalerweise 30-45 Grad, ich habe jedoch auch HUD videos von 90Grad Attacks. Beste Grüsse - and keep on!
I have just ordered my copy of the book. Really appreciate the great content you share with us all!
Thank so much, Mark, very appreciated
When was 15 years old, I built a model of a STUKA, as project finished from the start.
“Throttle to zero percent, pitch to zero percent, extend air brakes, and let loose the dogs of war”. Big congrats on the book! Wishing you nothing but the best for the future for you and your amazing channel:)
I purchased the signature edition of your book "Stuka". I'm a dive-plane junky - your book sounds like it might make me feel seated in the JU 87 Cockpit. The SBD Dauntless is my other favorite. I hope I live long enough to see a book like yours dedicated to the Dauntless dive-bomber? My mother was in love with a Dauntless Pilot, but he was killed at Bougainville returning from a mission with a heavily damaged aircraft & with the rear gunner dead. He bailed out when the aircraft broke out in flames - & - his chute failed to open. The pilot's mother wanted my mother to have his all military belongings (letters, pictures, and his purple heart medal, etc.) - before she died. My mother gave me what "Pat" gave her combined with what she obtained from the pilot's mother before she died. After, my mom died, I gave everything to the curator of the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola. To my surprise, he set up an appointment for a later date to meet - so, he could pull up "Pat's military records so we could page through them. I felt good afterward & felt like mission acomplished!
I like that the target didn't try to evade.
Very well done video and the visuals using IL-2 Battle of stalingrad are just genius.
That was fantastic! Great video
Outstanding video and presentation.
Very interesting. Modern aircraft (or at least the A-10C I'm taking the following procedures from) have an entirely different approach, which is probably a combination of mamy factors, among which computer assisted targeting and release (CCIP and CCRP for example) is probably the most important.
The very first part is similar, you spot the target and build a set of reference points to always know where to generally look if you were to lose sight of it. TGPs, HUD, and HMCS make this much easier than in a Stuka.
The approach is different though: instead of going straight to target to then push positive Gs to point your nose at it, you start by always coming at angle (90º is best); using reference points on the canopy and/or your instruments, you judge the right spot to start your run/dive. This involves rolling the aircraft nearly inverted (IIRC it's 90º + desired dive angle), and then pull positive Gs until the nose is a bit ahead of the target on your desired attack azimuth; from there you roll back straight, and if needed align the plane with the target with further rolling motions. There is no pushing negative Gs or rudder usage during the dive.
Either you or the targeting computer release the ordnance and then you pull out of the dive until at least a 0º vertical angle: what you do next depends on what type of recovery you're flying, and may range from continuing the pull to an unloaded roll into a level turn.
This is the case for a single ship bombing a lone target in a non threatening airspace, things change with multiple aircraft or air defenses obviously, although the dive and pullup part remains the same.
Anyways, thought this might be interesting to someone as an example on how procedures change with technology and doctrine.
Didn't realize the A-10 can be used as a dive bomber. Always saw it as a 'full speed pointed at the target, strafe the area, dump the bombs, GTFO' kind of plane.
Iirc there is a very rudimentary analogue to CCRP from WW2 with a Swedish gun sight. You go into a shallow dive, aim at the point you want to hit, flick a switch and level out. It'll drop the bombs automatically once getting to the release point - ofc without a HUD and modern computing, the accuracy suffers a bit but it was a valid attempt.
Modern CCIP bombing is actually quite similar. You get a pipper in the HUD that shows you where your bomb would fall if you release now and you fly that pipper on your intended target. The only method to drop unguided bombs on moving targets. Of course, that only works if this point is inside the HUD, in other words, the bomb needs to fall at an angle that is relatively close to your flight path. To achive this, you either need to fly fast, low or in a dive.
Fast jets can CCIP bomb in level flight or in a shallow dive from low altitude. From higher altitude, steeper dives (up to 45°) are required, but never an much as in WWII dive bombing. In the slow A-10, you always need uncomfortably steep dives to see the pipper.
The main difference is of course that the dive is only necessary to see your target, which means that the dive can be more shallow and much shorter (just long enough to aim).
CCRP is completly different. You insert a location into your plane (pre-briefed, datalinked, A-G radar, TGP etc.) and fly towards it. You get a HUD cue for the correct azimuth and a countdown to release time. A few seconds BEFORE release time, you press and hold the pickle (bomb release) button and the plane will automatically drop the bomb at the right time.
You usually don't CCRP in a dive. Actually, you can even enter a climb shortly before release to loft your bomb and make it fly further.
There are also intermediate forms (DTOS in the F-16, enhanced CCIP in the A-10) where you designate a target with your HUD symbology and then switch to CCRP.
Great stuff man! Man I love the way you say Stuka, lol.
"Stuka Pilot" by Hans Ulrich Rudel is a good book on the subject. Rudel destroyed over 500 tanks.
Hardcore! Lucky and a fanatic! Hans-U R. = Perfect for 2020+
SBDs had to dive with the canopy open since otherwise the sight/windscreen would fog up... no wonder Eric Brown preferred the Stuka over it.
Umm... big deal.
@@Chilly_Billy Indeed it was.
@@Chilly_Billy try opening your car windows at 250kph and telling me it's not a big deal 💀
One of reasons of it’s infamous bombing accuracy is because of 90 degree dive and not fogging the sight up. The USN (United States Navy) had problems with fogging up of the SBD Dauntless’s telescopic sight this was improved with SB2C Helldiver which had a reflector sight the dive angle on SB2C Helldiver was altered to open plane’s bombbay when releasing the bombs and by closing the bombbay doors along with retraction of dive brakes after dropping the bombs on target the reason was because the bombs in SB2C Helldiver where carried in a internal bombbay which was done to reduce the amount of drag when carrying heavy ordnance like bombs and a torpedo.
it had a hell of a Air brakes on those wide wings and tail ailerons, , also there was no anti aircraft guns in must cases
Love all your content. As a fellow WW2 aircraft nerd, I had the chance to see a C47 that flew two missions on DDay in person. I made a few photos public if anyone wants to see. Keep up the great work!!!!!!! I will spread the word about your channel to everyone I meet. P.S. If the weather allows I hope to see B-29 (Fifi) and B-24 tomorrow.
The anti-fogging measures were very important, at least in the South Pacific they could make the difference between seeing the target and being blind.
At the Battle of the Coral Sea American SPD's, which were the Kings of Midway 3 weeks later, were near useless due to fogging. Every source describes the SPD's being blind. Morison 'History of United States Naval Operations in World War II' Lindstrom 'The First Team'.
The air over a 77 -80 degree F ocean is humid to say the least. If your canopy and bomb sight are at the cool temperature of cruising at 10,000 feet they are going to fog as you plummet to the sea before you can sing 'Bali Hai' and they did.
While the failure of the SPD's at Coral Sea saved the Japanese a carrier it also gave them a false picture of the American dive bombers effectiveness which might have influenced the use of CAP which was not the required obsessive compulsive. One can make to much of that; but in the colder waters of the mid-Pacific where the Americans had considerable practice (and where they had over-looked extreme difficulty of South Seas fogging) the unopposed SPD's were scoring over 50%
Nice hit and what a timing, started a new Stuka career 2 days ago 😄
The attention to detail here. Ju 87 was a perfect of example or German engineering and aeronautics at the time. Kudos.
I am so looking forward to flying a JU87 in VR one day.
Every time a Stuka was destroyed . . . an Angel got his/her wings.
The rear gunners must have had a lot of trust in their pilots. It must have been unsettling being in a steep dive while sat backwards and with no control.
it was also one of the deadliest jobs in ww2, especially IL 2 rear gunners had huge losses. Mostly very young involuntarily selected soldiers without any training.
ive heard information that some pilots were reluctant to do this.. diving at the earths surface
Awesome stuff. Very informative and entertaining. 💣
Glad you enjoyed it!
this video does a good job on telling you the procedure, but never mentions "why the JU-87 was so accurate."
Because of
Farfignuton.
@@milmex317th I creedisform that!
@@BeachsideHank Dutchland uber alls.
All dive bombers are accurate.
I am so happy for this book, waiting for it;)
Thank you, I am excited as well :D
Lots of
This is such a great in depth video! Growing up, dad was really into the Stuka as a childhood obsession due to 60s and 70s WW2 movies he watched. He passed the interest along to me, and I've been fascinated with these beautiful and deadly machines ever since
My Opa was in the 8th panzer division. He told me one of the darkest days was when his unit was misidentified and attacked by Stukas . They just were disembarked when they heard the Stukas. They didn’t react until they realized they were the target. Opa said the Stukas were deadly accurate. He said they could put a bomb in your shirt pocket. The Panzerjager Abt 43 lost about 10 men and several Marders that day. Opa was just lucky. He dove the right way that day. The reason they were misidentified? A simple mistake. The officer who staged the Marders and trucks pointed the gun tubes in the wrong direction.
Blue on Blue = Tried that in 2004 and 2007! AKA NOT an OLD thing :-/
You’re the king of the Stuka Chris!!!! The 🐐 of World War 2 dive bomber experts!!!
Man, you're really in love with the JU-87.
(I feel your pain, I have a special affection to the A6M Mitsubishi "zero")
Thanks for this video; I've been waiting to learn about the Ju-87 procedure on this.
BTW, I see at lot of viewer questions about dive angle and why not 90 degrees. We should consider that in a true 90 degree vertical dive the wings are not producing any lift. Therefore the pilot is unable to correct his aim point left or right by simply rolling the airplane. And if you are aiming long in a vertical dive you can't simply push the nose slightly lower to adjust. Even in a 70 degree dive there is some forward travel over the ground and it is easier for the pilot to shift the aim point left or right with lateral control, or fore and aft with longitudinal control. In a pure vertical dive you probably end up rolling around the aim point trying to correct error displacement errors induced by wind or other factors, making it much more difficult to keep the pipper on the target. I'm guessing the better aim point control of a shallower dive would outweigh any error induced by the small trail distance or ballistic path of the bomb.
Your wings will produce lift always even when in a 90 degree dive my friend. As long as air is flowing over them. Its not about angle relative to the ground its about airflow over the wing. But it is much harder to aim and control speed the steeper the dive.
"BTW, I see at lot of viewer questions about dive angle and why not 90 degrees. We should consider that in a true 90 degree vertical dive the wings are not producing any lift."
I think your intuition is a little off here, iirc. I won't go into all the details and caveats, but will try to explain this as simply as possible.
1. Wings have both a chord line and a camber line from the shape of the wing. For conventional wings like on WW II aircraft, these are not symmetrical. Lift is generated when the relative body of air the wing is traveling through has to travel a longer distance on one side than the other. The side where air has to travel further has greater ram pressure (velocity), but lower static pressure. The difference in static pressures between opposite sides of a wing is what generates lift, as high pressure seeks low pressure. So even when relative motion of such a wing has it's chord line pointing straight into a body of air, it still generates lift.
2. It is typical on aircraft to have chord lines which point slightly up by a few degrees compared to the fuselage. This is called the 'angle of incidence'. This allows an aircraft to cruise at a given altitude while having it's nose point level into the direction of flight, while generating sufficient lift. So when an aircraft has it's nose pointing straight down, this would mean the chord of the wings are not pointing straight down, but rather a few degrees up. I couldn't find any info on this for the Ju-87 specifically with a quick search, but maybe there is some info on this out there.
@@chkpik Sorry, but you are wrong. It is about angle of the wing relative to the wind, and that angle must be held to zero in a sustained 90 degree dive. If the wing were producing lift it would be altering the flight path and reducing the dive angle. The pilot has to hold the wing at zero or even negative angle of attack (depending on its camber) to maintain an unaccelerated flight path.
@@burnttoast111 You guys are killing me here. For sake of simplicity forget how a wing produces lift, and just look at the flight path relative to the horizon. In level flight the lift produced equals the weight of the aircraft. That 1G of force is opposed by gravity, which is why the flight path is level. If you produce more than 1G of force the flight path will not remain level and the airplane will enter an upward curving flight path In a 90 degree dive, the wing cannot be allowed to produce lift, because the lack of an opposing force would cause that lift to alter the flight path, and you would no longer be in a 90 degree dive.
As I said to the previous doubter, the wing may need to be held at a negative angle of attack if it is a cambered airfoil. With a symmetrical airfoil zero AOA is easy.
To produce no lift from the wings, the *angle of attack* needs to be about negative 4°. Even when the wing is stalled it is still producing some lift towards the wing tips but not enough to equal the weight of the aircraft.
I was reading a Stuka pilot's memoir a while back, and he only mentioned the auto-recovery system once. Seems the brass wanted the system used, but the pilots did not, and didn't. Pilots were more comfortable with their own skill sets. Ditto for the siren... rarely if ever used. The memoir did mention that the crew would make whistles from "paper" (probably cardboard - translation difficulties) and attach these to the bomb fins. I imagine the negative G's when coming out of a dive were barely tolerable! At 600-knots and that close to the ground, it would take some work to recover from the dive; be it automatic or pilot-initiated.
It was meant to keep less good pilots safe from unintended lithobraking.
Another great thing to listen to/watch while I process my own videos
Very informative and fascinating look at the primary design purpose of the Sturzkampfflugzeuge.
you wanted to write: Sturzkampfflugzeuge
@@freethinker8477 Cheers! Now corrected.
so refreshing to see an ultrawide video
Germany had at the time Stukas statitioned in Sweden south of Stockholm on a field where swedish engineers helped developing the Stuka dive bomb technique.
During the war? Or when? 😮
@@mattilatvala4164 Befor the war, when gemany was not allowed to develop or own a Airforce, tanks or u-boats, they develop/tested these weapons in russia, sweden, spain, netherlands, ...
@@wolf310ii Yes, the WW2 start submarine prototypes were semi-secretly made here in Finland, and F got 3 big 2 smaller (1 still as museum) and Estonia 2, with connected C artillery, mining, nets, having close-knit potential to totally block Soviet Navy.
Always interesting, thank you.
That was a cool demonstration. No kidding about the real complications of dive-bombing. Perspective. Nice hit on the stern of the target.
Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown flew many German aircraft after the war and was amazed that the Ju-87 actually felt comfortable when diving at a 90 degree angle. No other aircraft he flew (he has the world record for most aircraft types flown) equalled this.
Holy cow, a 21:9 video. Thanks for this gem!
Fantastic description. Loved hearing this. It is not simple to dive-bomb with a Stuka. I thought it was just aim and drop!!
That was great! Thank you. Is there a way of comparing the accuracy of the Stuka vs the Dauntless vs the Val?
Thanks 🙏 so much for this video Señor! I am in charge of the weapon testing & discovery department and weapon technology for the Sinaloa Cartel and we’ve acquired 4 WW2 era JU-87’s and I’ve been scouring for an instruction manual but this first person video is even better! You think you can do an instructional video on strafing vehicles? I had a pilot watch your video and do a practice run on a local newspaper distribution center and it worked out wonderfully. The only issue we had was the sirens on the plane alerted a few people and allowed them a brief moment to escape. Any input on how to silence these coyotes from howling?
Duct tape the sirens, that or zip ties work wonders on anything. Watch out for stray P-51's though, they will wreck your planes should they come across them.
You may have covered this somewhere else, if so I haven't got there yet, sorry: how does the Stuka's accuracy compare to other dive bombers of the time, such as the SBD and Val? If there is a significant difference, why is this?
You would have made a great Luftwaffe pilot Chris. Nice drop.
When the Ju-87 worked with the Panzers , they all had radios to direct them .
And they had cannon added too, which ripped the russian tanks to shreds. Many books on that subject, fascinating reads.
@@RivetGardener can you recommend one?
What flight simulator are you using to produce the demo vids? Excellent demo!
When I was considerably younger I read a lot of aviation biographies- mostly German and Commonwealth fliers. I remember one of the fighter aces at some point flew Ju87s- I remember him telling of, how, after some confusion taxiing out to the ‘runway’ one Stuka chunked up the Stuka in front. Someone going too fast or too slow or something. Do you recall such an occurrence and who’s book.
Not a trick question. College late in life kind of cured me of reading for pleasure.
Stuka Pilot by Hansen Ulrich Ridel is a great book. (autos Pell is infuriating )
Erich Hartman. Germany's and the Worlds highest scoring ace with 352 Kills. after he finished training and assigned to the Russian front his group of pilots sent to Russia were told since they were going there to ferry some Stukas to the front lines. He was not familiar with the Stuka breaking system and taxied into the stuka in front of him. The CO of the base ordered the flight cancelled and had the rookies flown to the front in the back of a JU 52 and had some certified Stuka crews ferry the remaining aircraft to the front. I have a book about him. "the Blond Knight of Germany" by Toliver.
Hans-Ulrich Rudel - Germany's Most Decorated Ace had shot down nine Soviet aircraft with his Stuka, an incredible achievement for a dive bomber too.
That's was no surprise, outdated planes and lack of training....
@@jbarninatus5898 An American Navy pilot (Swede Vejtasa) flying a Dauntless dive bomber shot down at least two Japanese Zeros during a dogfight no less, and purposely did a head- on collision with one; the heavily built Dauntless sheared part of the lighter Zero's wing off sending him spiraling into the ocean. No obsolete aircraft there and IJN pilots were some of the best trained aviators of the day.☺
thanks for the video
Il 2 and DCS are great looking simulators
Not something I ever thought I would need a lesson in, but thanks
Answers the related question "how do you divebomb in a Stuka" rather than the question in the title. Still interesting but lacks the content that the title led me to expect.
Great video! Do you happen to know the critical angle of attack of the JU 87?
Hammer! Vielen herzlichen Dank! :)
Man, plopped it straight down the smokestack there.
Tbh, I was rather surprised at getting it right in the middle :) although part of me thinks showing the clip where I missed would have been better, near misses where a lot more common than hits ofc.
great video ty
Other planes: Must calculate our approach carefully.
Stuka: DUDE FUCC DAT LEZ GO YOLOOOOOOOO *SIREN*
Holy crap, I learned my first German word today! "Scheibenspulanlage". Now if I could only thing of a scenario where I would use my one German word.
Great visuals to illustrate the narration. Late war against the USN, I could see why this type of attack was so dangerous for the IJN - that long of an approach would leave one extremely vulnerable to concentrated 5"/38 VT fused fire for an extended period of time. I have to imagine ditto if going up against US Army 90mm / UK equivalent AA guns. And never mind the Bofors once pushing over.
"Why did Hans die in the war?"
"He forgot to activate the defogger thing and flew into the Cliffs of Dover."
Wow, that was really excellent. Do you know if there are any flying Stuka's around?
Hans Rudel would be proud.
My Dad loved flying these.
I wonder who was the first pilot that cursed the fogging of the windows and sent in a recommendation for a window defogger. LOL
At higher altitudes, it tends to be colder and much lower humidity. When diving, the plane enter warmer humid air, which naturally starts condensing on the cold windscreen .
I was under the impression that the Ju88 was literally designed as airborne artillery as in use in combined arms.
It seems to me that it was extremely effective in this role.
The Ju-87 B2, in IL-2 Cliffs of Dover, has a fully functioning automatic divebombing recovery system. In CloD & CloD Tobruk, the Stuka automatically releases the bomb(s), at the pre-programmed altitude, & recovers from the dive provided that the system is set up properly & switched. on in the cockpit.
Weirder is divebombing in a Blenheim IV, where the procedure is to lower the undercarriage, prior to commencement of diving, because the air brakes are on the gear legs.
I wonder if other dive bombers had an altitude buzzer to release the bomb. Seems to me to be a very useful gadget.
I'll still miss every time.
Always a pleasure to watch and to listen (I make model aircraft so like something good to listen too when I build.) And I like the way you use IL2 to illustrate your videos... 30 years ago graphics of this quality would be very expensive.
Do you have any data for the expected accuracy for the Ju 87? (For other Bombers it would be interesting too)
I have a question... How did the Ju 87 Stuka do in North Africa?
and thats why the JU87 was a sitting duck to ground fire, at the apex of its dive
The official manual is one thing. Be assured that in theatre, crews found ways to optimize the abilities of the JU 87 which will be not found in any books but memories of those who flew her.
Hans Ulrich Rudel was one of the stuka pilots.
thank you sir
You would make an excellent flight instructor.
Stukas were eaten alive by the Spitfires. A lumbersome, cumbersome shitty plane. But that siren was rad.Korda's book" With Wings Like Eagles" goes into great detail on how these planes were made, and how they stacked up against each other.
Just doing some alternate history while in the subject of CAS planes- the Douglas skyraider seems to have been a plane that could have been flown in WWII and used WW2 tech. Do you think the sky raider would have been the best CAS in wwii considering its longevity being used even in Vietnam? It seems to have had a huge range, armor and payload. It was amazing for me to find out that a skyraider could carry 3600kg of bombs while a Lancaster heavy bomber could carry 6400kg of bombs - 2 skyraider could carry the bomb load as one Lancaster.
The factor left out was the twisting and turning of the target ship.
I was at the RAF museum 6 years ago, can't remember seeing a Stuka there. :-( Is it a new addition?