Honestly I think the Stuka looks much better and more badass without the gears. It is also more airodynamic, and gives it more manouverability! All in all, I never understood why the Germans never made an improved version of the Stuka where the gears simply fold into the wings, or use a similar system as the IL2. =)
Speaking from SB pilot's point of view, there are many things this review didn't consider. First of all, the Ju 87 has better cockpit visibility than the IL-2. This is very important in Simulator Battles, and makes it easier to keep track of enemy planes and tanks as you look for targets and threats. Additionally, the Ju 87 has a reflector gunsight which is much easier to use than the IL-2's "crosshair" iron sights. This makes it much easier to accurately aim with guns, rockets, and even bomb drops. The Ju 87 also has much, much better low speed flight characteristics. It's significantly easier to turn and maneuver in general, and it isn't as sensitive to stalls as the IL-2 is. If a Ju 87 and an IL-2 got into a dogfight, the only thing the IL-2 could ever do is run away... but with such a small speed difference, that's kind of difficult to do. The IL-2 has some advantages, though. It is significantly more durable due to its armour, but that is also partially responsible for making it less maneuverable. And if you do get hit, often the damage makes it hard to continue fighting and even if you can keep flying, all you can do is try to RTB. The IL-2 also has better primary armament, with the VYa-23 cannons being able to penetrate and set on fire even German medium tanks from the top or the rear. The MG 151/20 cannons on the Stuka can't really do much damage against any armoured targets, but they are good against softer targets, and since the Stuka is so stable and easy to fly, they're also useful against planes. The IL-2 has more versatile ordnance selection, but more difficult to use effectively, especially against player tanks in SB Ground. Because of the gunsight, it can be quite tricky to aim the guns and rockets, and since the 100 kg bombs are pretty small they are not nearly as reliable as the Stuka's bigger bombs. And if you choose to use the 2x250kg bomb payload option on the Sturmovik, you forgo any rockets. Overall I would say the IL-2 ordnance is much better suited for taking out multiple soft targets, and ground targets in Air Battles (which are pretty weak compared to player tanks in Ground Battles), while the Stuka's two heavier bomb drops make it a bit more effective against player tanks - but at the cost of fewer attack runs, only two as opposed to maximum of eight attack runs for a fully loaded IL-2 (4x100kg bombs + 8xRBS-132 rockets fired in pairs). The Sturmovik's cannons can make it a worthwhile plane to use in Ground Battles, though, but only if you can aim them accurately. Personally, I prefer the Stuka of these two. Better maneuverability, better handling, gunsight, and excellent 20mm cannons. The Ju 87 D-5 is actually the vehicle I have the most ground kills *and* the most air kills in the game, if you can believe it...
I disagree with the gunsights the il2s crosshairs are great for leading shots everything else I agree with though. The il handles like a brick at almost all speeds
I agree that the forward visibility is good in the IL-2, so leading shots are possible - at least in theory. However, if you use head tracking - which is a huge benefit otherwise in SB - actually using the crosshair iron sights becomes difficult for the same reason as they were difficult in real life: You have to manually "center" your head so that you're actually aligning the rear and front sight. The whole point of reflector gunsights is that as long as the pilot sees the reticle, it's pointing in the correct direction, without needing to keep your head in a precise location for aiming. However, it has to be said that in reality (or when using VR in-game) the situation wouldn't be quite so bad, because of depth perception making it easier to line up using the crosshair sights even if one of your eyes isn't precisely on the center line.
little additional note i'd like to add to your agrument is that the back gunners are equally deadly in bouth aeroplanes, unlike what they make it seem in the video. Yes, the Stuka has two 7.92, but they got about 1200-2000 rounds, (depending on variant) but their fire rate is very high, making them tear the aircraft slowly apart rather then take out parts of it. (Historically speaking, it was said it was like spraying a water hose, so easy it was to use.) The IL.2's back gunner has a great 12.7mm gun, good at taking out enemy aircraft that gets on its tail, but unlike the Stuka, the 12.7 has about 200 rounds of ammunition. This means that you can't waste shots, and have to aim for spesific parts. So, Stuka has lots of rounds to compensate for damage and IL-2 has good gun but little ammo count. Should have been a tie in the video on the armament part i think
glass of water because they both entered service at same time I think. Balance and historical dates is hard to balance you know like bf 109 E meets with F4U
I can't agree with whole idea of video. Ju87 D5 was ment to dive bombing and infantry attacking purposes. IL2 M was ment to fly low and hunt German tanks. They are two completely difrent planes.
IL-2 was never really intended as a tank killer. It was a ground attacker, one of the first "close air support" planes really, even before the concept of CAS was properly invented. The primary targets for IL-2 were unarmoured trucks, trains, gun emplacements, infantry columns, dug-in infantry positions, and other such soft targets. About the only weapon system that the IL-2 could really use reliably against tanks in reality were the PTAB bomblets, which had a HEAT warhead and were dropped in large amounts, hoping that some would impact a tank's top and damage the innards sufficiently to disable or destroy the tank. Tanks in general were not usually considered as primary targets for planes. There are some exceptions, like the Hs.129 B-3 which was a dismal failure in general, and the Ju 87 G-1 and G-2 which were equipped with BK 3.7 cannons and did claim a significant number of tanks destroyed, but their effectiveness is questionable as ground kills in general were overclaimed by significant margins on every front where ground attack aircraft were used against armoured vehicles. If the planes had actually destroyed as many tanks as they claimed, both sides would have ran out of tanks many times over by the end of the war. Personally, I believe maybe 5% of the claimed tank kills may have actually been destroyed. In many cases, the tank crew would simply jump out of the tank after being hit by an air attack, deploy some smoke, and hide in some bushes until the plane would fly away. Then they would get back into the tank and continue driving. Or repair any damage caused by the hits, and then drive away.
If it's not a dive bomber, why does it have an arm underneath to swing the central bomb out past the edge of the propeller? Or why does it have airbrakes? Or why does it have markings on the window so you know when your plane is pointed 90 degrees at the ground?
So basically what you’ve done is taken two 3.3 battle rating vehicles and shown that one is better in every aspect. War Thunder matchmaking at its finest.
Lol pretty much. The stupid thing is, one could make a video about how the Ju-87 is better in every way, if you judged the IL-2 by how well it can dive bomb instead of the other way around. Not to mention, the Stuka is considerably more maneuverable. Gaijin seems to have no concept of instantaneous vs sustained turn rate, but suffice it to say if you come up behind my Stuka in an IL-2, I'll be on your tail right away. There wouldn't be time for sustained turn rate to be a factor.
not really. They were removed due to the massive drag cause by them, as well as it basically telling the enemies when to duck for cover, ruining the approach once the novelty wore off
They'd also tend to sheer off at high speed dives taking the landing gear with them Also on early models they couldn't be turned off So at cruising speed it's all the pilots would hear
therefore Gajin is IL-2. IL-2 has 3 characters. What else has number 3? a Triangle: 3 sides. A triangle is the symbol of the illuminati. therefore Gajin = Illuminati confirmed xDxDxDxDxDxDxDxDxDxDxDxD
in case you're wondering, 1:28 was an actual technique widely spread amongst the luftwaffe pilots, for it being a quick way to lose drag and weight, thus gaining on agility and speed
Pretty sure no german Pilot ever strafed the Ground to lose the Gear just for around like 10% more Performance in speed ir Climbrate, landing the plane after that would do more harm than good, uf there are sources i'd like to see those
The Stuka has better gunners, I'd say. Much better turn speed, traverse and elevation angle, the ability to actually shoot _down_ below the elevators to some extent, and twin MG 81s are more potent than a single Berezin UBS. Especially considering the MG 81's incredible rate of fire. Also, the Stuka's heavy bombs allow it the rare chance to knock out multiple targets at once, though I still prefer the IL-2's armament.
dud wth are you talking about. Berzin 12.7 of the IL-2 can take an engine with 1 shot. or clip a wing with 3 or 4 shots. also berzin 12.7 is by 20% better than the american M2
Given how hard the Stuka can dogfight Spitfires, the "Can we skip turning" part is a bad meme, particularly if you use the great flaps which were a trademark feature of Junkers aircraft. The IL-2 as a whole doesn't shine in flight performance, gunnery (with the exception of the VYa's higher pen) as the 3000rpm machine gun on the Ju 87 also isn't too shabby and overall is a much less forgiving if not downright inferior aircraft.
Doktor Junkers It can only turnfight a spit for one or two turns at best. And if spitfire pilot is not autistic, he would extend the range and dive on you.
Doktor Junkers Well all that info is great and all but these are both attackers. They aren't really meant to Duke it out with fighters. So offensive capabilities matter a lot more.
Mikhail Hemmings A department which is largely evem despite claims to the contrary. It will take very accurate hits if not direct ones to achieve kills with the 100 kg bombs on armored targets, and you can destroy multiple tanks with the larger payload of the Ju in a much easier manner than using the Mk I eyeball to hit a critical component with the shaped charge rockets. And that increased maneuverability is worth quite a lot if you have to duke it out against other attackers. Undoubtedly the historically aerobatic Ju will experience less difficulty in emgaging a cumbersome IL over a battlefield.
The 1942 version van out turn a spitfire. Ive done it before. The IL-2 is and will temain to be my best killing aircraft. The Tracer rounds, pluse the Armoured Piercing round its basically unstopable. Its known as the Flying Tank for a reason
Lack of Common Sense Statistically the Tiger I matches well with the IS-1 and IS-2. The King Tiger would be comparable with a T29 Heavy Tank, but doesn't really have a competitor in Russia (the IS-3 is close, but surpasses the King Tiger unfairly, and sits .7 BR higher). You could then compare the M103, IS-4M, and Maus at 7.7
Speaking of Physics, Sense and Logic 1.Flying Tank, it means heavier load to carry which makes plane more harder to control and low speed. 2.Junkers Have double Gun at the back while IL-2M has only 1 which changes rate of fire which is important. 3.Having Smaller bomb drop first helps ju-87 by attacking weaker opponents like AA and leaving big 500kg bomb on Pillboxes and tanks. 4.Junkers have Airbreaks which can help during attack on ground. 5.Biased Russia will always win, for example : IS-6 Vs Tiger . Seems tiger had everything better but still lost. 6. JU-87 Has better Cockpit than IL-2M 7.75% about IL-2m , 10% Usless speech , 5% Taunting JU-87, 10%- about JU-87 very helpful comparison huh.
Thats cause its a dive bomber, it also has a an older airframe with a weaker engine and less armor. In head to head combat the il2 would destroy the ju87 and also allows for more engagement opportunities. The Stuka was called the flying coffin for a reason.
i was once in my IL-2-37 and i was being shot at by a i-15 and p-36 hawk, and just didn't care. the IL-2 is a beast of a machine and, as he said, a flying tank
honestly is actually harder to kill tanks with il 2 than ju 87 bcuz of its massive pay load of 2x250 kg and 500kg i sometimes kill 4 tanks with it no joke
No, it's not. The Ilya is significantly better at destroying tanks compared to the Stuka. Not only because of it's bigger ordinance capacity, but also it's cannons. By bombs alone, if you make every bomb count, you get at least 4 kills - and that's bombs alone, not counting 4 rocket salvos and the cannons, or multi-kills. The cannon Stuka is better than the regular Stukas against thanks, tho, especially with HVAP-T belts
Penguin Dan The P-47 is a bit faster than IL-2s and other attackers, and lacks a gunner. I'd say it compares with the Fw 190F and the Typhoon (and maybe the Yak-9B; Russia really lacks fast attackers); all of which are designed strike aircraft.
Penguin Dan Unlike the IL 2 or the Ju 87, the P 47 was not design from the ground up to be an attacker. It's designed to be a high altitude interceptor. It's secondary use was as a strike fighter.
i have been using the ju 87 d5 for awhile now and i loved it in simulator tank battles becauze there u can skip across the water and get rid of your gears then you can get up to 400 kph + (this is after the bombing or u decide to ditch the bombs and kill a plane or 2) and because of the turn rate and additional speed u can now dog fight and there is a bonus u canlook in gunners view to look around better
JU-87 can have more guns, can turn faster (have overall better mobility), have air-brakes, have 2 MG's in rear turret instead of 1, looks better (in my opinion) and most players think that's easy target and you can use it against them.
You forgot the fact that the Ju 87 is the only one capable of performing dive-bombing. Not only does it have airbrakes, but it can hold up at extreme speeds.
Different Types of primary Attacking roles/Types. Dive Bomber vs. Groundattacker/CloseAirSupport, maybe compare to HS129 or ME210/410. Even a BF110 would fit better for a compare.
It is likely that a 100kg bomb from an IL2 drop will not kill a ground target, however, the 250kg bombs from the Stuka are almost guaranteed to kill. Especially the 500kg bomb. Also you are underestimating the power of the 6 20mm guns mod for the Stuka with air targets and ground targets belts.
Hey you forgot something, spawns, in air realistic battles the il-2 gets a measly attacker spawn, while the ju-87 gets a bomber spawn, combine that massive altitude advantage with the gunpods and you've got yourself one hell of a heavy fighter.
Just saying , I love flying the Stuka in ground realistic battles, one drop and head home is my play style. Kill an enemy or two and head back, kill the fighter behind you with your guns, rearm, repeat. If your deciding between the two, just think of play styles. Both are great aircraft that work very differently.
Ju 87 can turn so sharply with flaps, it also seems to loose energy slower and accelarate faster than the IL 2, plus the load makes a difference although I still prefer the D3 cuz of the 3x 500kg. So for me it's an easy win.
I do agree with most of the points, except one: as a sim player, I find the Stuka's gunner to be far more dangerous. The Mg 81Z is really dangerous, with a good firing arc, extremely high RoF and good ammunition supply, and while the Sturmovik has a mg of a larger caliber, it has a smaller firing arc and far less ammo. I often regard Sturmoviks as easy prey, but I always think twice before attacking a Stuka. The Stuka is indeed a bloody dangerous plane
fun fact il 2 shturmovik used to be a fighter until the soviet union needs a good striker then it was converted to a striker adding a machine gun turret (for defensive armament), bomb bay ( to carry bomb's), VYA cannon ( to destroy German spaa's, and some pz1 and pz2), and hardpoints (to carry rockets), and they added the armor(for some protection)
this is like comparing a HE 51 to a SU-2. Totally different play style. JU 87 is meant for dive bombing, which it is very good at. IL-2 is meant for ground attacking not dive bombing.
Sarp Kaplan, you can't drop only one bomb that is mounted on a wing. The plane would instantly become greatly unbalanced and you would lose control of the aircraft.
I engaged a Ju 87 D5 once in a RB, that single guy destroyed me and 3 other planes, probably because we were fighting a 3.7 B.R plane in a 2.3 B.R battle, awesome
For ground attacking the IL is better, but the Ju has a dive bomber air spawn, making it possible to kill bombers, especially with such great gun/gun pod options.
Disagree about defensive armament the JU87 2 Mg17s fire faster, are easier to aim with (more tracers), and have more ammo before they need to be reloaded.
what about a comparison video between the various "super prop" aircraft? a sort of battle royale comparison between the Sea Fury, the Bearcat, the Spitfire Mk 24, and the P-51H
Here is a problem with the Stuka, the Stuka has a landing gear that is always down like a WW1 plane, yet the IL-2 can retract its landing gear so point goes to the IL-2!
there is only one problem with the il-2 where i think the junkers is better. The junkers can immediately drop the bombs where the il-2 first has to open the bomb bay, so if you forget to open it you miss your target
Il2 did not have antiarmor arnament up to somer of 43, when it got PTAB 2.5kg bombs. The bombs and rackets it had were not precision weapon in any way because it was no any bomb sights. The 20 and even 23mm guns were to weak for the tanks armor. But you need to know in advance if target has tanks to load PTAB. On the other way Stuka can use 100 or 500 kg bombs for dive attack on tanks, artillery positions and troops dig-in positions. It was extremely affective because of the radio contact between special Luftwaffe officer on the group and pilots. The Stuka pilots first destroy tanks and artillery gun, next- machine gun nests and after while it was no one to hold position. It was possible only if the other side did not have fighters cover. Stuka was almost defenseless again enemy fighters.
"The German aircraft doesn't really impress here"- And they show footage of the guns decimating aircraft.
tron one german hei shells will destroy any fighter with one shot all the other ones are trash
true
@@jokuvitunjuutalaine430 thats why i play Germans in Mid Game till the early Jets at this loint i switch to Americans
1:28 *when pilots wanted the ju 87 to look cool and have retractable landing gear that is up to date with the era*
Lol
Lol
Lol
haha Lol line broken
Well, at least he's more aerodynamic now
LoL 1:31 Ju 87 D-5 lose his Gear but looks cool
abraham manaoat is also faster, so pretty good option
But you forgo any chance landing
he looks sexy!
It looks so weird without landing gear. I think it is because of just how iconic the fixed landing gear is for the Stuka
Honestly I think the Stuka looks much better and more badass without the gears. It is also more airodynamic, and gives it more manouverability! All in all, I never understood why the Germans never made an improved version of the Stuka where the gears simply fold into the wings, or use a similar system as the IL2. =)
Speaking from SB pilot's point of view, there are many things this review didn't consider.
First of all, the Ju 87 has better cockpit visibility than the IL-2. This is very important in Simulator Battles, and makes it easier to keep track of enemy planes and tanks as you look for targets and threats.
Additionally, the Ju 87 has a reflector gunsight which is much easier to use than the IL-2's "crosshair" iron sights. This makes it much easier to accurately aim with guns, rockets, and even bomb drops.
The Ju 87 also has much, much better low speed flight characteristics. It's significantly easier to turn and maneuver in general, and it isn't as sensitive to stalls as the IL-2 is. If a Ju 87 and an IL-2 got into a dogfight, the only thing the IL-2 could ever do is run away... but with such a small speed difference, that's kind of difficult to do.
The IL-2 has some advantages, though. It is significantly more durable due to its armour, but that is also partially responsible for making it less maneuverable. And if you do get hit, often the damage makes it hard to continue fighting and even if you can keep flying, all you can do is try to RTB.
The IL-2 also has better primary armament, with the VYa-23 cannons being able to penetrate and set on fire even German medium tanks from the top or the rear. The MG 151/20 cannons on the Stuka can't really do much damage against any armoured targets, but they are good against softer targets, and since the Stuka is so stable and easy to fly, they're also useful against planes.
The IL-2 has more versatile ordnance selection, but more difficult to use effectively, especially against player tanks in SB Ground. Because of the gunsight, it can be quite tricky to aim the guns and rockets, and since the 100 kg bombs are pretty small they are not nearly as reliable as the Stuka's bigger bombs. And if you choose to use the 2x250kg bomb payload option on the Sturmovik, you forgo any rockets.
Overall I would say the IL-2 ordnance is much better suited for taking out multiple soft targets, and ground targets in Air Battles (which are pretty weak compared to player tanks in Ground Battles), while the Stuka's two heavier bomb drops make it a bit more effective against player tanks - but at the cost of fewer attack runs, only two as opposed to maximum of eight attack runs for a fully loaded IL-2 (4x100kg bombs + 8xRBS-132 rockets fired in pairs). The Sturmovik's cannons can make it a worthwhile plane to use in Ground Battles, though, but only if you can aim them accurately.
Personally, I prefer the Stuka of these two. Better maneuverability, better handling, gunsight, and excellent 20mm cannons. The Ju 87 D-5 is actually the vehicle I have the most ground kills *and* the most air kills in the game, if you can believe it...
HerraTohtori Now that is a worthy review
I disagree with the gunsights the il2s crosshairs are great for leading shots everything else I agree with though. The il handles like a brick at almost all speeds
I agree that the forward visibility is good in the IL-2, so leading shots are possible - at least in theory. However, if you use head tracking - which is a huge benefit otherwise in SB - actually using the crosshair iron sights becomes difficult for the same reason as they were difficult in real life: You have to manually "center" your head so that you're actually aligning the rear and front sight. The whole point of reflector gunsights is that as long as the pilot sees the reticle, it's pointing in the correct direction, without needing to keep your head in a precise location for aiming.
However, it has to be said that in reality (or when using VR in-game) the situation wouldn't be quite so bad, because of depth perception making it easier to line up using the crosshair sights even if one of your eyes isn't precisely on the center line.
HerraTohtori never thought about it like that, makes a lot of sense
little additional note i'd like to add to your agrument is that the back gunners are equally deadly in bouth aeroplanes, unlike what they make it seem in the video. Yes, the Stuka has two 7.92, but they got about 1200-2000 rounds, (depending on variant) but their fire rate is very high, making them tear the aircraft slowly apart rather then take out parts of it. (Historically speaking, it was said it was like spraying a water hose, so easy it was to use.) The IL.2's back gunner has a great 12.7mm gun, good at taking out enemy aircraft that gets on its tail, but unlike the Stuka, the 12.7 has about 200 rounds of ammunition. This means that you can't waste shots, and have to aim for spesific parts. So, Stuka has lots of rounds to compensate for damage and IL-2 has good gun but little ammo count. Should have been a tie in the video on the armament part i think
But unlike the Ju-87, if the IL-2 turns it falls like a brick, i'd say the Stuka is easier to fly
Noodle Bandit yeah, but their still easy to take out. :P
when i fly or see others fly the ilyusha, it loses alt quickly in 90deg roll turns which gives me mega anxiety but it always pulls it off.
I'd agree
IL-2s are allergic to turning
@@codenamehalo9847 meh. They can be a challenge
And now I may ask: if the IL 2 is better, why are they at the same br?
glass of water because they both entered service at same time I think. Balance and historical dates is hard to balance you know like bf 109 E meets with F4U
It’s not better
@@NiumeLTU And tiger 2 1970 ATGM's
@@NiumeLTU tiger 1942 sherman 1942
@niume centurion vs tiger...
I can't agree with whole idea of video. Ju87 D5 was ment to dive bombing and infantry attacking purposes. IL2 M was ment to fly low and hunt German tanks. They are two completely difrent planes.
They shoulda conpared the IL-2M with the Ju 87G for tank hunting, I say.
IL-2 was never really intended as a tank killer. It was a ground attacker, one of the first "close air support" planes really, even before the concept of CAS was properly invented. The primary targets for IL-2 were unarmoured trucks, trains, gun emplacements, infantry columns, dug-in infantry positions, and other such soft targets.
About the only weapon system that the IL-2 could really use reliably against tanks in reality were the PTAB bomblets, which had a HEAT warhead and were dropped in large amounts, hoping that some would impact a tank's top and damage the innards sufficiently to disable or destroy the tank.
Tanks in general were not usually considered as primary targets for planes. There are some exceptions, like the Hs.129 B-3 which was a dismal failure in general, and the Ju 87 G-1 and G-2 which were equipped with BK 3.7 cannons and did claim a significant number of tanks destroyed, but their effectiveness is questionable as ground kills in general were overclaimed by significant margins on every front where ground attack aircraft were used against armoured vehicles. If the planes had actually destroyed as many tanks as they claimed, both sides would have ran out of tanks many times over by the end of the war.
Personally, I believe maybe 5% of the claimed tank kills may have actually been destroyed. In many cases, the tank crew would simply jump out of the tank after being hit by an air attack, deploy some smoke, and hide in some bushes until the plane would fly away. Then they would get back into the tank and continue driving. Or repair any damage caused by the hits, and then drive away.
Nope, it was converted later in the war to be a ground attacker, also if it's a dive bomber, why does it have gun pods?
Because you can use them to strafe during or after the bombing run, due to the fact that you dive towards your targets.
If it's not a dive bomber, why does it have an arm underneath to swing the central bomb out past the edge of the propeller? Or why does it have airbrakes? Or why does it have markings on the window so you know when your plane is pointed 90 degrees at the ground?
7:24 Soviet Commander: "Berezin you'll be Machinegun"
the gun is called the "berezin UB"
@@ikman4006 that's the joke
Berizin: NOOOOOO commander don't turn me into machinegun
The rear turret of the Ju-87 is far better
No
How is your name so similar to mine?
P61 has best turret
But if you can hit your shoots in the IL 2 turret it dose better
Motor sphere it’s not
So basically what you’ve done is taken two 3.3 battle rating vehicles and shown that one is better in every aspect. War Thunder matchmaking at its finest.
Lol pretty much. The stupid thing is, one could make a video about how the Ju-87 is better in every way, if you judged the IL-2 by how well it can dive bomb instead of the other way around. Not to mention, the Stuka is considerably more maneuverable. Gaijin seems to have no concept of instantaneous vs sustained turn rate, but suffice it to say if you come up behind my Stuka in an IL-2, I'll be on your tail right away. There wouldn't be time for sustained turn rate to be a factor.
@@edf203 gajin is russian company. Any clicks? They are biased asf
Il-2M is good but it is flying BRICK :P
its aerodynamics so bad that it climbs faster than the JU
The bias is strong in this one
Lol
Oh russians
RUSSIAN BIAS CONFIRMED
bias confirmed
Yup.
the Ju 87D-5 would be better with the Jericho Trumpets though, that would make it win
not really. They were removed due to the massive drag cause by them, as well as it basically telling the enemies when to duck for cover, ruining the approach once the novelty wore off
They'd also tend to sheer off at high speed dives taking the landing gear with them
Also on early models they couldn't be turned off
So at cruising speed it's all the pilots would hear
the point was its hilarious
We got trucks to scare you off if you continue
Gaijin is Russian. IL-2 is Russian. I'll leave you to come to a conclusion.
therefore Gajin is IL-2. IL-2 has 3 characters. What else has number 3? a Triangle: 3 sides. A triangle is the symbol of the illuminati. therefore Gajin = Illuminati confirmed xDxDxDxDxDxDxDxDxDxDxDxD
Also they made the IL-2 game series before WT, so....
Yes
Coincidence? I think not
Coinsidence i Think so.
Because the il2 is better
1:26 Is this what you meant by
“lost the Jericho Trumpet and the list goes on”
in case you're wondering, 1:28 was an actual technique widely spread amongst the luftwaffe pilots, for it being a quick way to lose drag and weight, thus gaining on agility and speed
Pretty sure no german Pilot ever strafed the Ground to lose the Gear just for around like 10% more Performance in speed ir Climbrate, landing the plane after that would do more harm than good, uf there are sources i'd like to see those
Bullshit. No Pilot ever did that. Think ahead how do they land after the mission is complete
@@foxtrotsierraproductions8626 it's a joke
Stuka with no gear isn't real it can't hurt you
Stuka with no gear: 1:30
The Stuka has better gunners, I'd say. Much better turn speed, traverse and elevation angle, the ability to actually shoot _down_ below the elevators to some extent, and twin MG 81s are more potent than a single Berezin UBS. Especially considering the MG 81's incredible rate of fire.
Also, the Stuka's heavy bombs allow it the rare chance to knock out multiple targets at once, though I still prefer the IL-2's armament.
SkyEye Music they buffed the 12.7 UBS, I can one hit anyone that tail sits me now
Tristan Palmer i've snapshotted a Yak-3 before with my Stuka G gunner, i stand by my word
plus it has BRRRRTability
SkyEye Music I do like the ju-87s gunner fire rate. It does make it pretty good
dud wth are you talking about. Berzin 12.7 of the IL-2 can take an engine with 1 shot. or clip a wing with 3 or 4 shots. also berzin 12.7 is by 20% better than the american M2
just get cannon pods/laser pods for d5 then you’ve got the most op plane in the game
Hold on... So the IL-2M is better than the Ju 87 D-5 in every way yet at the same BR?
In air RB, Ju 87 D-5 spawns much higher than IL-2 due to Ju 87 getting Bomber spawn (3000m alt) while IL-2 gets Attacker spawn (1000m alt)
then again x6 20 mm cannon
@@memeboi6017 the 12 mgs are far better
Edit: they're better against air targets, against ground target cannons are FAR better
Given how hard the Stuka can dogfight Spitfires, the "Can we skip turning" part is a bad meme, particularly if you use the great flaps which were a trademark feature of Junkers aircraft. The IL-2 as a whole doesn't shine in flight performance, gunnery (with the exception of the VYa's higher pen) as the 3000rpm machine gun on the Ju 87 also isn't too shabby and overall is a much less forgiving if not downright inferior aircraft.
Doktor Junkers It can only turnfight a spit for one or two turns at best. And if spitfire pilot is not autistic, he would extend the range and dive on you.
Techpriest Spitfire players that are not autistic are hard to come by.
Doktor Junkers Well all that info is great and all but these are both attackers. They aren't really meant to Duke it out with fighters. So offensive capabilities matter a lot more.
Mikhail Hemmings A department which is largely evem despite claims to the contrary. It will take very accurate hits if not direct ones to achieve kills with the 100 kg bombs on armored targets, and you can destroy multiple tanks with the larger payload of the Ju in a much easier manner than using the Mk I eyeball to hit a critical component with the shaped charge rockets.
And that increased maneuverability is worth quite a lot if you have to duke it out against other attackers. Undoubtedly the historically aerobatic Ju will experience less difficulty in emgaging a cumbersome IL over a battlefield.
The 1942 version van out turn a spitfire. Ive done it before. The IL-2 is and will temain to be my best killing aircraft. The Tracer rounds, pluse the Armoured Piercing round its basically unstopable. Its known as the Flying Tank for a reason
Tiger II vs IS-2 mod 1944
Lack of Common Sense
More like Tiger I vs. IS-1 or IS-2.
And Panther vs. Centurion would be cool too
SkyEye Music fam have you played with Tiger 1? I get raped everytime when I play Tiger 1 or Panther D uptiered
Lack of Common Sense Every country suffers in 5.7.
feels bad man
Lack of Common Sense
Statistically the Tiger I matches well with the IS-1 and IS-2. The King Tiger would be comparable with a T29 Heavy Tank, but doesn't really have a competitor in Russia (the IS-3 is close, but surpasses the King Tiger unfairly, and sits .7 BR higher).
You could then compare the M103, IS-4M, and Maus at 7.7
Ju-87 D-5 wins, has higher airspawn and gunpods
kololz, why do you need to be higher if the aircraft is meant to attack ground targets?
Norman D use it as a fighter
you make me laugh
Deng bois think ouside the box ;-/
And at least cause some damage to bases
i would always choose a Ju87 over an Il-2 :)
Arminius have more kg of bomb
IL-2 was the most successful CAS aircraft of WWII.
@@holyinquisition8854 pe-8 joins the chat
Get in front of my guns right this moument!
Then, u choose death
No.ju 87 has very good flying capabilities.It turns so fast!While the IL-2 feels so heavy.
western spy!!! to gulag
@@branislavbaran7537 ok
1:28 rare footage of Stuka not having landing gears
Looks like a fighter haha
1:27
_casually breaks landing gear_
Looks cool tho
Speaking of Physics, Sense and Logic
1.Flying Tank, it means heavier load to carry which makes plane more harder to control and low speed.
2.Junkers Have double Gun at the back while IL-2M has only 1 which changes rate of fire which is important.
3.Having Smaller bomb drop first helps ju-87 by attacking weaker opponents like AA and leaving big 500kg bomb on Pillboxes and tanks.
4.Junkers have Airbreaks which can help during attack on ground.
5.Biased Russia will always win, for example : IS-6 Vs Tiger . Seems tiger had everything better but still lost.
6. JU-87 Has better Cockpit than IL-2M
7.75% about IL-2m , 10% Usless speech , 5% Taunting JU-87, 10%- about JU-87 very helpful comparison huh.
IL 2 a better flyer? ha no. The Stuka is much more nimble, at least when it has energy, and can easily pull out of dives.
Thats cause its a dive bomber, it also has a an older airframe with a weaker engine and less armor. In head to head combat the il2 would destroy the ju87 and also allows for more engagement opportunities. The Stuka was called the flying coffin for a reason.
i was once in my IL-2-37 and i was being shot at by a i-15 and p-36 hawk, and just didn't care. the IL-2 is a beast of a machine and, as he said, a flying tank
Then if the IL-2 is better then why are they at the same BR?
6:55 the IL-2 gunner takes out the Ju-87. Lol
Everybody gangsta until the JU87 pulls out the 6 MG-151s
"Let's get down to business"
TO DEFEAT
*THE HUNS*
*Huah*
Was?
Wel... that's just a Russian bias..... I'm not German pilot 😂
but i am
The real question, which one strikes more fear into the heart of the enemy
Well in dogfight don't underestimate the 6x 20mm cannons they can do some painful damage when you use air targets
honestly is actually harder to kill tanks with il 2 than ju 87
bcuz of its massive pay load of 2x250 kg and 500kg
i sometimes kill 4 tanks with it no joke
Young Raven dud . have you shot a tank with an RBS-123 rocket? no? stfu
No, it's not. The Ilya is significantly better at destroying tanks compared to the Stuka. Not only because of it's bigger ordinance capacity, but also it's cannons. By bombs alone, if you make every bomb count, you get at least 4 kills - and that's bombs alone, not counting 4 rocket salvos and the cannons, or multi-kills. The cannon Stuka is better than the regular Stukas against thanks, tho, especially with HVAP-T belts
Husen Faour i did but bcuz of the rocket nerf is almost useless against heavy tanks
First the Ju-87 stands no change, you should compare the IL-2 vs the P-47, or a Me-410
Penguin Dan
The P-47 is a bit faster than IL-2s and other attackers, and lacks a gunner. I'd say it compares with the Fw 190F and the Typhoon (and maybe the Yak-9B; Russia really lacks fast attackers); all of which are designed strike aircraft.
Penguin Dan Unlike the IL 2 or the Ju 87, the P 47 was not design from the ground up to be an attacker. It's designed to be a high altitude interceptor. It's secondary use was as a strike fighter.
You forgot the fw190 f8
i have been using the ju 87 d5 for awhile now and i loved it in simulator tank battles becauze there u can skip across the water and get rid of your gears then you can get up to 400 kph + (this is after the bombing or u decide to ditch the bombs and kill a plane or 2) and because of the turn rate and additional speed u can now dog fight and there is a bonus u canlook in gunners view to look around better
BF-109 K-4 vs P-51 D-30 next?
Sorry man but the I-15 wins
I would be shitting myself right now but I did what couldent be done
JU-87 can have more guns, can turn faster (have overall better mobility), have air-brakes, have 2 MG's in rear turret instead of 1, looks better (in my opinion) and most players think that's easy target and you can use it against them.
Damian030303 . dud berzin 12.7 mm is 20% better than the american M2. its like 1 berzin=5 7.92 MG
Husen Faour I killed more planes with 2 7,92mm mg's in JU-87 than with IL-2's 12,7mm.
Heinz Rüdiger just an average Wehraboo
The IL-2M is soo durable against bullet fire that they don't need Phil Swift to flex it.
Soooooo...... if the il 2 is better in firepower, defence and maneuverability..... Why are they at the same br. Just asking. :)
1:27 *casually looses landing gears*
1:27 you think we didn’t notice? 😂
You forgot the fact that the Ju 87 is the only one capable of performing dive-bombing.
Not only does it have airbrakes, but it can hold up at extreme speeds.
Different Types of primary Attacking roles/Types. Dive Bomber vs. Groundattacker/CloseAirSupport, maybe compare to HS129 or ME210/410. Even a BF110 would fit better for a compare.
37 mm guns that can pen over 100mm of armor, take it or leave it.
It is likely that a 100kg bomb from an IL2 drop will not kill a ground target, however, the 250kg bombs from the Stuka are almost guaranteed to kill. Especially the 500kg bomb. Also you are underestimating the power of the 6 20mm guns mod for the Stuka with air targets and ground targets belts.
Hey you forgot something, spawns, in air realistic battles the il-2 gets a measly attacker spawn, while the ju-87 gets a bomber spawn, combine that massive altitude advantage with the gunpods and you've got yourself one hell of a heavy fighter.
D5 has 6 cannons. This is bomb destroyer like:)
R2.0 Gamer did you tryed the russian 23mm?
Who needs cannon when you can put 12 MG’s on your plane it’s insane and highly effective
Just saying , I love flying the Stuka in ground realistic battles, one drop and head home is my play style. Kill an enemy or two and head back, kill the fighter behind you with your guns, rearm, repeat. If your deciding between the two, just think of play styles. Both are great aircraft that work very differently.
And the winner is........
Gepard
flakpanzer 1 *intensifies*
at least i got FLAKPANZER 38!!!!
Gaijin really letting us watch a german vs russian commonly knowing germany is putpowered again
Yes, yes, I AM going to play WT today, thank U.
I like the IL 2 better personally
Everyone coming just to hear the Stuka Siren:
Gaijin: “...the Stuka gained more armor and lost their jericho sirens...”
Everyone: “Awwwwwwwww....”
Ju 87 can turn so sharply with flaps, it also seems to loose energy slower and accelarate faster than the IL 2, plus the load makes a difference although I still prefer the D3 cuz of the 3x 500kg. So for me it's an easy win.
I do agree with most of the points, except one: as a sim player, I find the Stuka's gunner to be far more dangerous. The Mg 81Z is really dangerous, with a good firing arc, extremely high RoF and good ammunition supply, and while the Sturmovik has a mg of a larger caliber, it has a smaller firing arc and far less ammo. I often regard Sturmoviks as easy prey, but I always think twice before attacking a Stuka. The Stuka is indeed a bloody dangerous plane
The eel-2 and the you-87.
props to the narrator he seems to love his job can't fault him there
4:16 how i feel when playing flakbus in arcade ;(
and in the end i would still go for the Ju because of the extra control using the airbrake
Well Ju-87 D5 is great, but meh, the Il-2 does win.
fun fact il 2 shturmovik used to be a fighter until the soviet union needs a good striker then it was converted to a striker adding a machine gun turret (for defensive armament), bomb bay ( to carry bomb's), VYA cannon ( to destroy German spaa's, and some pz1 and pz2), and hardpoints (to carry rockets), and they added the armor(for some protection)
Tiger 2 vs Is 2 1944 mod
That’s unfair because 6.3 vs 6.7
It's not. IS-2 should be 6.7 as it was a few years ago.
Tiger 2 has better hull armor, more pen, IS2 1944 has bigger gun with more explosives and less muzzle velocity. IS2 is also more mobile.
Best Ground Attackers You Say???
*Laughs in P-47*
Lol, classic War Thunder and the good ol' russian bias 😂
this is like comparing a HE 51 to a SU-2. Totally different play style.
JU 87 is meant for dive bombing, which it is very good at. IL-2 is meant for ground attacking not dive bombing.
give us seperable bomb drop choices
Sarp Kaplan, you can't drop only one bomb that is mounted on a wing. The plane would instantly become greatly unbalanced and you would lose control of the aircraft.
Norman D there is trim for that
Norman D also, ı play il2 sturmovik which is much more realistic then WT and they have this feature
Most people say that the F-82 has a lot of guns in it's gun pod. BUT DOES IT HAVE 12.
BUSSIAN RIAS
Il-2s were actually used in RL to intercept german bombers and ground attack planes when there was a shortage of fighters
FIRST ONE
Marcelo Giménez nobody cares morons
I have the Ju 87 D5, and I really wish I had the 12 mgs and 4 20mms mods because I want to see how awesome it looks.
I consider IL-2 to be a “bomber destroyer”, against fighters it is not capable, but with its firepower it can easily shred any bombers.
I engaged a Ju 87 D5 once in a RB, that single guy destroyed me and 3 other planes, probably because we were fighting a 3.7 B.R plane in a 2.3 B.R battle, awesome
The Ju 87 didn't lose the trumpet. It got removed. Pilots hated them. They tended to shear off in turns or dive recovery.
Also this is pretty BIASED.
Stop whining 🤣
For ground attacking the IL is better, but the Ju has a dive bomber air spawn, making it possible to kill bombers, especially with such great gun/gun pod options.
I personally like the Ju- 86 D-5 more than the IL-2M.
At least there's one thing nobody can surely deny:
The Il-2 wins the beauty category.
Dissagree, the ju87 has an bomber spawn and can kill bigger bombers easily with the 6 20mm
Great video. Still wish we could get APHE rounds on the stuka g-2 :(
A stuka without the siren just removes what made the ju 87 so iconic. Sad goering noises
Disagree about defensive armament the JU87 2 Mg17s fire faster, are easier to aim with (more tracers), and have more ammo before they need to be reloaded.
I mean... with the dive brakes and bomb swing, it’s a lot easier to engage ground targets from different angles using JU-87.
what about a comparison video between the various "super prop" aircraft? a sort of battle royale comparison between the Sea Fury, the Bearcat, the Spitfire Mk 24, and the P-51H
1:29 It's all fun and games, until the Stuka retracts it's landing gear.
So, Gaijin, what happened to your video subtitles team? Budget cuts already?
Yes I totally agree I would only agree 3/4 the way if the Stuka didn’t have the siren removed
1:27, a perfect example of why you don't go low.
Hans Ulrich Rudel: Hold my beer
Here is a problem with the Stuka, the Stuka has a landing gear that is always down like a WW1 plane, yet the IL-2 can retract its landing gear so point goes to the IL-2!
Yea, cler winner is il, but why they are at same br?
there is only one problem with the il-2 where i think the junkers is better. The junkers can immediately drop the bombs where the il-2 first has to open the bomb bay, so if you forget to open it you miss your target
Tbh, never heard of the il-2 until a couple years ago
Il2 did not have antiarmor arnament up to somer of 43, when it got PTAB 2.5kg bombs.
The bombs and rackets it had were not precision weapon in any way because it was no any bomb sights.
The 20 and even 23mm guns were to weak for the tanks armor.
But you need to know in advance if target has tanks to load PTAB.
On the other way Stuka can use 100 or 500 kg bombs for dive attack on tanks, artillery positions and troops dig-in positions.
It was extremely affective because of the radio contact between special Luftwaffe officer on the group and pilots.
The Stuka pilots first destroy tanks and artillery gun, next- machine gun nests and after while it was no one to hold position.
It was possible only if the other side did not have fighters cover. Stuka was almost defenseless again enemy fighters.
War thunder trying to make the IL-2M not look biased
IL-2 "avenger" best shturmovik in war thunder!
Narrarator: Do you agree with our judgement?
Me: Да да да да !!¡¡
Winner is
P-61 Black Widow it carries 4000lbs of bombs and 4 20mm cannons and 12.7mm machine guns.