Talk:Junkers Ju 87

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Aviation WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Aviation Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject WikiProject Germany      (Rated B-Class) Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): German military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Contents 1 Operational history: eastern front 2 Requested photo 3 Comparable Aircraft 4 Croatia as operator of Ju 87 5 Ju 87G influence over the A-10 6 Operational History 7 BOB 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Luftsieg ueber Polen.jpg 9 Eastern Front 10 Rating 11 Evaluation of the Stuka 12 Bomber?

[edit] Operational history: eastern front

there should be something about this. It's just like where the stuka were used from 1941 to the end of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.238.21 (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested photo

Someone requested a photo of the cockpit at [1]. Ardric47 04:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparable Aircraft

I am considering writing a section at the end with links to aircraft that can be compared with the Ju-87. This is done with other aircraft articles and it seems appropriate. Does anyone have any ideas of their own concerning ground attack aircraft of WWII that can be compared to the Stuka? I propose at least the Il-2 Sturmovik, Hs 129 (ground attack role), SBD Dauntless dive bomber and the Aichi D3A "Val" dive bomber as the most obvious choices. Any others? Maphisto86 22:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Did it already. I found a lot of aircraft that where designed in the same vein as the Ju-87 Stuka. If any one else thinks of any other aircraft, discuss it here. Maphisto86 03:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croatia as operator of Ju 87

There is no evidence that Croatia used Stukas. Blackmh 10:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ju 87G influence over the A-10

The Ju 87G is rumored to have influenced the development of the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

The other day I watched on the History Channel Modern Marvels (BTW: you can find it on YouTube[2], minute 4:38) the Pentagon Fighter Design Advisor, Pierre Sprey, that worked on the A-10 project said that they used the experience and information from the Stuka - having even interviewed a German Colonel that was the leader of a Ju 87 unit during World War II - as well from other previous CAS aircraft to create the A-10, so I think that this should be changed.
Cheers, Get_It 02:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't use the History Channel as a source as it is rather unreliable, same goes for the Military Channel, but I do have a book that says it. The book got the information from Sprey himself, so it is definitely reliable, and easier to check.--LWF 02:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operational History

I will cover most campaigns after the BoB when I have time. I'll also try and flesh out and put more info and detail on the early campaigns.Dapi89 23:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice the text mentions the Battle of Dunkirk and the Royal Navy losing '29 out of 40' destroyers, yet the Wiki entry for Dunkirk lists just 6 RN destroyers lost; can someone verify which is correct? thanks Harryurz (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BOB

"Stuka shattered", they lost something in order of 0,5 stukas per day to enemy action, they hardly were "mauled". Its just British propaganda, as most things you hold dear and true about ww2.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect the myth was shattered. "Shattered" doesnt have to mean they suffered heavy losses, just that they were revealed to be appallingly vulnerable. They were not the invincible Stukas of previous campaignsDapi89 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Luftsieg ueber Polen.jpg

Image:Luftsieg ueber Polen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Front

I noticed this section has just been added. I have done the work on the other operational campaigns and I'll get going on this one shortly. Dapi89 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'll ad bits and pieces as and whenDapi89 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Rating

I think the article deserves a B-Class rating, the start-class rating is silly now. Dapi89 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Evaluation of the Stuka

I would suggest the article be revised as to the section remarking on the evaluation and impact of the Stuka. Aviation historian Peter C. Smith wrote a book called "Junkers Ju87 Stuka," part of the Crowood Aviation Series, and he paints a very different picture of this aircraft. Please refer to this monograph. The Stuka was in fact highly maneuverable, far from helpless against a fighter plane, and when flown in close groups, it was difficult for fighter planes to engage in a successful attack. A little known but documented fact (well researched and referenced in the book) shows that the Stuka had the lowest loss ratio of any bomber in the war, Allied or German. Most of the claims for downed Stukas from contemporary Allied documents have been proven to show false numbers when compared to verified German records. It should be remembered that the Stuka was not a fighter, and cannot be considered to be a failed design simply because it could not take a Mustang or P-47 (or Spitfire) one-on-one. It was not designed to do so. Yes, it was vulnerable in the dive and recovery, but every bomber was vulnerable during its bombing run, and the fact that fewer Stukas were lost than any other bomber shows it was in fact less vulnerable than other bombers, either dive-bombers or level multi-engine bombers, just the opposite of what is normally thought and what is implied in the article.

They were badly used and badly directed during the Battle of Britain, but its failure to make an impact there was not a fault of the design, and its removal from the British airspace and use elsewhere is shown by extant German records (according to Peter Smith) to have been mostly driven by their need in other theaters of war. The Stuka was highly feared by all combatants who faced the aircraft, and in fact the very suspicion of Stukas in the vicinity was likely to cause a panic in Allied infantry and ground personnel. It was for this reason that the specious claim of its vulnerability and ineffectiveness, and the manipulation of statistics relating to downing of Stukas was fabricated, and the effectiveness of this propaganda campaign continues to infect historical writers to this day, including the writer of this article. I hate to edit somebody else's work, so I strongly suggest to the author that he review Peter Smith's book and revise the relevant parts of this article.72.203.163.208 (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your evaluation is seriously flawed. I think Peter Smith is Ju 87 fan, therefore is attempting to write a revisionist book on this aircraft.

• The Stuka was highly feared by all combatants who faced the aircraft: Only those on the ground. Fighter pilots were more than happy to engage Stukas. The Australian ace Cladwell shot down five in as many minutes. This was the other way round. I have extensive literature on the combat history of the Ju 87. In North Africa in 1943 and even France in 1944 (incredibly the Luftwaffe used them here as well). When Ju 87s were intercepted, even with escort they tried desperately to land immediately without being fired on!

• The Stuka was in fact highly maneuverable, far from helpless against a fighter plane, and when flown in close groups, it was difficult for fighter planes to engage in a successful attack.: This is complete nonsense. I take it you have never heard the term "Stuka party". Read Osprey's Thomas, Andrew. Tomahawk and Kittyhawk Aces of the RAF and Commonwealth. Oxford, England: Osprey Publications, 2005. ISBN 978-1-84176-083-4, and the Osprey titles in the articles bibliography. The G variant that was equipped with 37 mm cannon became even more difficult to handle.

• It should be remembered that the Stuka was not a fighter, and cannot be considered to be a failed design simply because it could not take a Mustang or P-47 (or Spitfire) one-on-one. It was not designed to do so. : Nobody is saying it was a failed design, or that it was designed to "take a Mustang or P-47 (or Spitfire) one-on-one".

• the fact that fewer Stukas were lost than any other bomber shows it was in fact less vulnerable than other bombers, either dive-bombers or level multi-engine bombers: By far the most offending comment. Less vulnerable !, No way. There were never more than 500 Ju 87s operational in the Luftwaffe during the peak of its career. Only 5,000 were produced, and production was severely reduced after 1943. Is it any wonder losses were not as high as more widely produced aircraft that served in larger numbers? The Stukas could sustain quite some damage, but are you telling me that the Mosquito, Beaufighter, B-17, B-24, B-29, Lancaster, Halifax bombers were easier to shoot down than the Ju 87, a machine that carried one 1×7.92 mm MG 15 (81 in the "G") as a defensive weapon???!!!!!!!!!!

• They were badly used and badly directed during the Battle of Britain, but its failure to make an impact there was not a fault of the design, and its removal from the British airspace and use elsewhere is shown by extant German records (according to Peter Smith) to have been mostly driven by their need in other theaters of war

Laughable to say the least. What other theatres? The Germans were not involved in any other theatres at the time of its withdrawal in August 1940. The Stuka was not missused and badly directed. It could only operate in clear skies, thats why it failed in the BoB. It was too slow, too poorly armed and unmanouverable. For two months of operations over Britain, for the damage caused, the losses incurred were heavy. I'm sorry to rubbish your points, but they really could not be further from the truth. The Ju 87 was a great ground attack weapon but it was appallingly vulnerable.

If smith does say these things, it has got to be the worst book on this aircraft I have ever heard of. I strongly recommend it stays out of the article. Dapi89 (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bomber?

Why is its name translated as 'dive bomber'? Fighter would be a much better translation for Kampfflugzeug. #### —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.178.150 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not speak German, but I believe the full term Sturzkampfflugzeug would be literally translated as "dive battle aircraft". If this is incorrect, would a German speaker please correct me. GMan552 (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)