Note on a bomb attack on a ship: The bomb does not have to hit a ship directly, even a bomb (or shell) that hits the water several metres next to a ship causes damage to the hull of the ship, because the water transmits the explosion pressure/shock several metres further. The deeper the bomb explodes in the water, the stronger or more far-reaching the effect, because the explosion loses energy very quickly as the explosion cloud breaks through the water surface. A 500 kg bomb can damage the welds of a merchant ship's hull at a distance of 20 metres or more, causing a ship to sink. Water (1484 m/sec) not only transmits sound much faster than air (343 m/sec), because liquids are almost incompressible, but also the shock wave of an explosion. P.S. Of course, the explosion effect stops at a certain water depth. Anmerkung zu einem Bombenangriff auf ein Schiff: Die Bombe muss ein Schiff nicht direkt treffen, auch eine Bombe (oder Granate), die mehrere Meter neben einem Schiff ins Wasser einschlägt, richtet Schäden am Rumpf des Schiffes an, da das Wasser den Explosionsdruck/-schock mehrere Meter weiterleitet. Je tiefer die Bombe im Wasser explodiert, desto stärker bzw. weitreichender ist diese Wirkung, denn durch das Durchbrechen der Explosionswolke durch die Wasseroberfläche verliert die Explosion sehr schnell an Energie. Eine 500 kg schwere Bombe kann die Schweißnähte eines Handelsschiffsrumpfes noch in 20 Meter Entfernung und mehr beschädigen, und so ein Schiff zum Sinken bringen. Wasser(1484 m/sec) überträgt nicht nur Schall deutlich schneller als Luft(343 m/sec), weil Flüssigkeiten nahezu in kompressible sind, sondern eben auch die Schockwelle einer Explosion. P.S. Ab einer bestimmten Wassertiefe ist natürlich Schluss mit der Explosionswirkung.
Absolutely. Of course, the damage from a near miss will be much greater on a ship with a thin skin, like a merchant ship or a destroyer, than it would be on a battleship.
@@timonsolus The steel plates of a normal merchant ship are only about 1.5 to a maximum of 2 cm thick, whereas the belt armour (a steel band several metres high and about 120-180 metres long that was welded along the hull) of a battleship can be more than 20 cm thick (up to 32 cm in the case of the Bismarck class!). The Fletcher-class destroyers did not have any additional hull armour, and were in fact truly equal to merchant ships in this respect.
@@michaelneuwirth3414 The ability to withstand shocks is not merely a function of plate thickness, in fact one of the nasty things that explosions can do is rip armor away from plating, since the different thicknesses of steel with different rigidity want to flex at different rates. It's this phenomenon that led to more than one German warship suffering major structural damage at the stern and the structure collapsing, since the armor belt and unarmored extremity of the hull ripped apart.
It would be interesting to compare the Stuka with its contemporaries: the US Douglas SBD Dauntless and Japanese Aichi D3A "Val", not just in accuracy, but in technical specs and pilot reports. Other possible contenders, but not as important, are the US Curtis SB2C and the US F4U Corsair, which I have read was almost as good at dive bombing as the Dauntless. It would be really hard to get any objective accuracy comparisons, but a dive bomber nerd can always dream, nein?
Similarly, would be interesting to learn more on how the training and requirements differed due to the other examples being naval aircraft. How much did bombing land pinpoint targets get covered vs fullsize ships get covered in the USN and IJN?
@@themigmadmarine I can only speak from memory here, but I remember reading from German U-Boatmen that the Italians and Japanese would come to a full stop to dive and the Germans taught them how to do a combat dive like they do. So depending on the training and doctrine, the results might be extremely different for USN and IJN bombing vs the Luftwaffe ones.
@@themigmadmarine I believe that US dive bombing began with the Marines in the 1920s-30s banana wars, so the land aspect might have been pretty important to them, and certainly was during all the island close air support campaigns.
As an Air Force cop who worked on the flightline and met many A-10 pilots, the picture of the A-10 pilot with your book made me break out laughing. After Desert Storm I remember A-10 pilots rotating back to the U.S., most had 100 MPH tape on their aircraft over the anti-aircraft hits lol. Too awesome sir, thanks for the great videos, excellent research and sticking to the facts objectively ;-)
A-10 is a pretty different animal yet again from the WWII dive bombers or really from most ground attack craft as well. It undeniably has a similar aura of awe to it however.
For anyone who is on the fence about getting the book, I can't recommend it enough! Such a wealth of doctrinal information directly from primary sources, as well as some excellent photos and technical drawings/specs. An absolute masterpiece debunking some of the most commonly held misconceptions about this plane, it really proves most of the "common knowledge" is just taken directly from the propaganda reels! Keep up the great work Chris!
Adam Thrussell@ I thought 500 metres. Big M Marathon 1981 Frankston to Melbourne Town Hall State of Victoria. Stay healthy and fit Yours sincerely Adam Thrussell
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I found it funny actually, when's the next time I'm going to have a 19% discount on anything? Besides, something tells me it will be worth the price.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I admit, I'm curious as to why the maxiumum discount is curtailed for us. Is it just the same old "Canada is really big and lightly populated and moving stuff around costs a lot more than it does elsewhere" or is there some sort of import tariff screwing things up? (We have import tariffs on the weirdest things just to make sure we retain some ability to actually *build* those things and don't outsource it all to America or Mexico.)
Issue I found quite apparent when playing Simulations and War Thunder when it comes to dive bombing, is literally being able to see the target you're diving on. Buildings and Bridges are easy. But infantry positions, bunkers, trenches, vehicles, tanks, trains, ships... are either very difficult to even see from altitude or have more than enough time to move after releasing the bomb from a safe altitude. That being said, if you can see the target, you can kill the target in my opinion with a dive bomber, be it if you're not getting shot at.... which is another serious issue for dive bombers, you dive straight at the enemy, and if that enemy has anti air defenses it literally means you're flying almost directly into AA fire.
My copy is on the way and I'm very much looking forward to it! Loved the pic of the A-10 pilot, almost like the passing of a torch, same job, different Era. Thank you for the work you put into this.
Drachinifel did an episode about HMS Illustrious (RN carrier) that was hit in the Mediterranean, during January 1941, by JU57's that had been specially trained to attack the ship. They had trained on an outline of the carrier on the ground and aimed for the centre of the ship. During the attack 4 bombs hit the rear elevator of Illustrious because the Stuka pilots had not accounted for the forward movement, having trained on a static target. Regardless, their attack was accurate and caused serious damage and fires that put it out of service for a considerable time. Unlike the flight deck the elevators were not armoured and the bombs penetrated deep into the hangar deck.
Congratulations for the fantastic work you have done! Immediately after watching the video I ordered a copy of your book! By the way, I guessed 50 m. I must admit that I had just been reading about Stuka missions by the Legion Condor during the Spanish Civil War and thus had some idea about their real effectiveness. The Luftwaffe and thus the Legion Condor members, particularly those from „Aufklärung“ units were quite meticulous when it came to recording facts in reports. And not only were reconnaissance flights conducted before and after bombing sorties (and even sometimes in parallel to those) but since most were tactical missions at the front or very closes to it, Condor Legion reconnaissance officers in cars would often reach the bombed bridge, crossroad or town hours or a couple of days after the bombing took place. They would thoroughly assess the results, the damage caused, the misses or near misses etc. they would measure distances and take pictures and write reports, on a daily basis… Pitty that most of the Luftwaffe archives were destroyed by Allied bombings over Berlin. At least we have the reports sent to the Spanish Nationalists Headquarters plus a few Condor Legion reports at Freiburg.
"...I can read German and I have data..." Well, I can read German too, I just don't understand 90% of what I'm reading.🤣 Another great video and the perfect complement to the Stuka book--too bad you didn't have this video last year! I guessed a 30m CEP for the pilot training, because I'm not sure how effective their bombs would be beyond that point. I presume they were effective at 50m CEP, but it of course depends on the payload size (250kg?) and the target (tank, bunker, apartment building...). Regardless, what I find most fascinating about the German use of the Stuka was not its ability to hit "pinpoint" targets, but that they did not include it into combined arms assaults the way we do now (using them to attack targets in the rear, such as reinforcements). It really makes me wonder what impact that tactic might have had on German assault success if they had. Thanks for making this video--very thought-provoking, as usual.
More accurate than I expected! For context, though, I mostly think about US Navy dive bombers, which as others have noted had some different challenges. My grandfather could probably have told me something about Japanese dive bomber accuracy. He was on the USS Nevada at Pearl Harbor, so was on the receiving end of some of those. Harder to hit once they got moving, though. Thanks, Chris. Always learn lots from your videos, and they get me thinking about lots of other things too. Thanks for the discount too. I took advantage of it tonight. I wasn't that interested in the Ju-87, but this video changed my mind. Looking forward to reading it.
This well-described narrative was not only keenly illustrative and informative, but personally eradicated some of my own ongoing 'myths' concerning the Stuka's various employments over the course of the war. A *big* thankyou to Christoph here for demonstrating and eliciting some of the many (if not, most) dispellable urban legends over the course of this legendary warplane's wartime actions. Taking on the educated-guess[s] (at 3:38), I [surprisingly] 'calculated' 100 meters and 50 meters, for each of the Max. Distance and Av. Distance, respectively (not at all bad in my mind, considering I've never flown a plane before, let alone a screaming 'Sturm-spooken' Stuka). _If,_ by chance, in his accompanying book, there is _any_ indication of discussion on the _Stuka's_ usage (and/or performance) as per perceived witnessed [Axis/Allied] accounts within the _Reichsverteidigung,_ perhaps then I would now consider purchasing it to satisfy my longstanding curiosity in that [purported] particular role.
"I go to the German military archives, I can read German and I have data. Aha...hahaha....MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!" Sorry, I just feel like that part needed a maniacal evil laugh.
I guessed correctly on the max distance from target, but was way off on the average distance. I thought they would average much closer than they actually did (I figured something around 15 to 25 meters).
Looking at impact craters on numerous french, Belgium and Russian bunkers and the effects it had on the garrison is very interesting. Even if bombs missed by about 10m it did force several garrisons to surrender or flee. There is an interesting fortification near Strasbourg on the Rhine. Even those air torpedoes missed by 5 to 10m, the garrison surrendered. The Belgium fort of Battice had bad luck when one of the bombs hit a tank barrier rail and deflected into the door of a bunker killing everyone inside. So even when those bombs did not hit exactly, the effect is potentially devastating.
Bought the Stuka book and it was great!! Recommend it to anyone thinking of getting it. Also I have bought all of their books and they have all been excellent!
@@tomstepanowicz6191 Lol Tom. The only reason I knew that is because I just saw that episode the other day. Klink was bragging about how he missed flying his Heinkel and dropping bombs... and how he earned the nickname "Iron Eagle." Well, all that bragging almost got him sent to the Russian Front! Haha. Take care my friend. 🍻
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 I googled it. They have a whole biography of Wilhem Klink written up. I googled: Did Wilhem Klink pilot a Stutka? Interesting reading.
@@tomstepanowicz6191 no kidding? I'll have to check that out. I've rediscovered Hogan's Heroes lately. It really was a great comedy... and the attention to detail regarding the Luftwaffe uniforms, etc is better than many WW2 movies I've seen.
An interesting comparison would be to state when was that same dive bombing accuracy achieved later by using electronics, meaning guided munitions and/or computerized bomb sights. Also, did you ever find out wehther the Ju87R/C could carry SC250s on the wings instead of drop tanks?
Great video as usual. The poor old Stuka has been the victim of propaganda for a long time. 😄 From both sides too. The Allies: Oh it needed a fighter escort or it was in trouble!!. Yep, but every other German bomber was in a LOT more trouble without an escort. I'd rather be in a Stuka than a Heinkel 111 that's for sure. Same for accuracy. If I were on the ground, or on a ship, a JU87 homing in on me would worry me a lot more than any other German bomber. They were a pretty good weapons platform for their time and given there were only what? 6000 built overall throughout their history(so under a 1000 operational at any one time?) they had a pretty big impact on fronts they were involved in. Never mind the psychological impact. It's a pity only two are left(though hopefully the third is still being built to flying status...). Though I suppose in many ways they were a "flying swastika" and maybe this had an impact on their post war survival and preservation? I can think of few WW2 warbirds nearly as famous where we don't have more examples around today.
Ju-87 production was gradually scaled back from late 1943, and was only a tiny trickle by December 1944, when production finally ceased. Not many Stukas survived to May 1945, relative to other German bomber types.
Read Dusty Kleist's book on dive bombing procedures in the Dauntless dive bomber. Theyre really quite involved. At one point the pilot has to take a shot from an inhaler to keep from blacking out.
I guessed 50m and 100m. Also this is the first time I've ever thought of a tank as "nimble." Thanks for a great video, Chris. I always love to see myths debunked.
Great content as per usual. One question I have about aircraft armament, what's the different between a machine gun and a canon? Is it just down to the calibre or are there technical differences? Sorry if its a dumb question.
In a nutshell, it’s the caliber. During WW2 generally air forces referred to anything from 20mm upwards as a cannon. There are exceptions (see IJNAS vs IJAAS or see MG151/20 vs MK108) but those can be explained through context.
Loved the stuka book, bought one for me, and one for my friend. After a bit it's not much of a page turner, but it's not really ment to be imo. I've used it's later parts as more of a reference guide and a "Well let's look at the facts " kinda book. Look forward to further projects
It would be really interesting to compare the training accuracy requirements for trainee Ju-87 pilots, with the training accuracy requirements for trainee dive bomber pilots in other air forces. Namely, training on the following aircraft: Britain: Blackburn Skua Japan: Aichi D3A Type 99 USA: Douglas SBD My guess is - the (pre-war) accuracy requirements for trainee pilots on all 3 of these naval carrier dive bombers are likely to be higher than the accuracy requirements for Ju-87 pilots - in my opinion.
Ask any veterans from HMS illustrious, X Fliegerkorps consistently put 500kg bombs consistently to suppress ship AA, and then followed up with armoured piercing 1000kg bombs down aircraft elevators consistently in successive runs. They were in diving planes, and attacking a ship that was evading... I think with great pilots, it could be very accurate. See armoured carriers youtube video.
It's interesting about the Stuka pilots being told to not roll over into the dive because according to the book "Dauntless Hell Divers" by Buell, this was the USN procedure, BUT they did so by deploying the speed brakes and executing a stalled roll; sounds like a slow speed snap roll, but not obviously entering a spin. Dive angles was 80 degrees entered from about 14000 ft. Of course, the target was usually a large ship, especially an aircraft carrier, however SBDs did strike ground targets at Guadalcanal and Bougainville. Not sure of entry altitude when attacking indiscernible targets from high altitude. Also, the Germans, maybe Galland, said that the dive bombing they witnessed pre-war in the US "was the new world egg to bring back to Europe". So, the film of Stuka's rolling into the dive may have been from an early procedure derived from what the Americans did.
The difference between 100m and 1000m with the added bonus of the hell siren was more than enough to make up for any shortcomings of the JU87, yet your research focuses on the training of the pilots, not on what trained experienced pilots could do, so I will take this presentation with a grain of salt, as I’ve had many interactions with recipients of the JU87’s eggs, not the least my grandmother, and they are all in concurrence that it was an evil weapon. And lastly, don’t sell your country short on its achievements, the most highly decorated German Serviceman of the War flew this machine, and is credited with sinking a BATTLESHIP. If that’s not enough, I’m sorry, but for a heap of junk that Hurricanes hunted with ease, it was still an outstanding machine worthy of the fear and praise.
Suerb video I akways wondered why videos of Stkas starting ther attack showed them doing the half-roll thing, as in the flight-sims I played, if you'd done that, you'd have lost your line-up with the target. And I don't feel so bad about not being abe to get direct hits very often, now, so thank you! :-}
Smug 'though I am to have done as you said & wrote down my expectations of required accuracy standards! (Without reading what looks like a great book - Hey, I didn't even see this video offered until 9 April so meh!) I came up with 80 metres & 40 metres - but- *WHY I figured that matters more than my change to grandstand* 🙄 I worked that back from awareness of near contemporary accuracy expectations for 'dumb' bombs. They've improved accuracy for ground attack roles......... But by *much less* than you might suppose. Which is of course why Laser designation is so popular and invested in improving [As are counter measures]
If the Stuka was that accurate with bombs why later on were they fitted with cannons for anti-tank use? A bomb on target would have done the job however the accuracy mustn't have been enough so that's why the cannons were fitted.
ouch, my estimate was way off, i was thinking of 30m around the target, still a great video, the book is sitting right next to the Panzer Konferenz book (übrigens hoffe ich, von der nächsten Konferenz zu hören bevor sie stattfindet ; ) ) on my nightstand
about the roll and pull to initiate a dive, if they are just going nose down, how are the sighting the target to get a 70 degree angle? Later US systems used a 140 degree roll and 90 degree pull to give them a 60 degree angle but the stuka system your describing seems to preclude that, so how did they know when to start their dive and to select targets?
I estimated 100/50 meters, I think many people have desert storm in their mind for air power (and why not?) or modern US air campaigns so this colors their perception of WW2 aviation. As we’ve seen in Ukraine, though, aircraft can still be effective without this even today. Arguably this makes these bombers even more significant in their time … but JDAMs they are not.
Early in the war on the Eastern Front, didn’t the Soviets tend to dig their tanks into fixed positions frequently? I seem to remember this, especially in reading about Case Blue. I also remember dive bombers being effective in this case. Seems to make sense to what is provided in the video as the pilot would have both track marks and disturbed earth to mark the target.
I was way off. But in my defence I had just read about allied bombing prior to watching this. During WWII only 5% of allied bombs fell within 500m of their target. Add to this between 10 and 30% of those bombs failing to explode. It paints a very different picture of accuracy. Fear was a major factor in this statistic. To drop a bomb (from the horizontal) within 30m of its target necessitated flying under 2,440m altitude. For altitudes over 3,048m bombs missed by 100/120m. Flak was successful, since in combat conditions, few pilots had the nerve to keep autopilot on for the bombing run at such low altitudes. During early war raids, only 10 to 30% of bombs fell with-in 8kms of their intended target. Source: Donald Nijboer's German Flak defences vs Allied Heavy bombers. from Osprey publishing. p.s. Since allied heavy bombers flew higher and higher, to over 9,000m by war's end, then 50% of bombs missed their targets by over 1.8 kms (a country mile in English). This can be partly explained by the habit of some crews to dump their heavier payload in the channel on the way to the target. With less weight their chances of surviving German fighters and Flak greatly increased. In terms, of sapping the morale of the German population, missing the intended industrial target and bombing neighbouring residential areas was just as effective.
Hi. In theory the Ju-88 was also designed to be a dive-bomber. I remember reading that Hitler insisted on that, but it was not practical. My question is: Did some Ju-88 unit make dive-bombing missions? An which was the period/frequence of use of this bombing method? I think it could be a good topic to be exploited in the future. See you in the sky!
Yes they did, constantly at the start of the war, their first mission in the war was a dive attack on RN ships... but eventually it was found out it was too rough on the aircraft, and dangeroues, so they stopped. They got a hit on Nelson IIRC, and the famous story about sinking Ark Royal was after a JU88 dive attack.
Im actually impressed i thought WWII bomb sights without computers or magnification i was expecting 150-300m. I guess if you have a flight of Stuka going for 1 tank there is a decent probability they would score a near direct hit. Makes sense how some pilots had 600+ tank kills
A fantastic, informative and concise video. Although on my CEP guess I guessed between 50 - 100 meters. And even upwards of 500.... Yeah I ain't a dive bomber pilot.
In the old WW2 movies you hear the USAAF pilot talk about putting their bombs in the old pickle barrel. Did the Stuka pilots talk about putting their bombs in the old pickelhaube?
I thought a CPE of 100 meters would have been very impressive for the era. 40 meters CPE is great, but must have required a lot more training, as well as a fairly significant set of tactical advantages at the attack point. I think that any aircraft that attacks through a dive or glide attack would be pretty susceptible to some basic countermeasures like fighter cover, good camouflage, deception, and other sound tactical and operational methods. Ships have two advantages over land targets in general; they move, and within just months of the outbreak of war had good AA all over them. A WW2 ship--especially a Western ship--was a very concentrated moving AA platform.
Was there any information on the shape of the probable hit region? I'm curious whether the probable hit region is (approximately) round, or whether it's an oval/ellipse with long axis along flight direction, or an oval/ellipse with short axis along flight direction.
The steeper the angle of the dive, the "rounder" the hit pattern will be. The bomb is accelerated in the direction in which the aircraft was flying at the time of the drop. Je steiler der Winkel des Sturzfluges ist, desto "runder" wird das Trefferbild sein. Die Bombe wird eben in die Richtung beschleunigt, in der das Flugzeug zum Zeitpunkt des Abwurfes geflogen ist.
Note on a bomb attack on a ship:
The bomb does not have to hit a ship directly, even a bomb (or shell) that hits the water several metres next to a ship causes damage to the hull of the ship, because the water transmits the explosion pressure/shock several metres further. The deeper the bomb explodes in the water, the stronger or more far-reaching the effect, because the explosion loses energy very quickly as the explosion cloud breaks through the water surface. A 500 kg bomb can damage the welds of a merchant ship's hull at a distance of 20 metres or more, causing a ship to sink. Water (1484 m/sec) not only transmits sound much faster than air (343 m/sec), because liquids are almost incompressible, but also the shock wave of an explosion.
P.S. Of course, the explosion effect stops at a certain water depth.
Anmerkung zu einem Bombenangriff auf ein Schiff:
Die Bombe muss ein Schiff nicht direkt treffen, auch eine Bombe (oder Granate), die mehrere Meter neben einem Schiff ins Wasser einschlägt, richtet Schäden am Rumpf des Schiffes an, da das Wasser den Explosionsdruck/-schock mehrere Meter weiterleitet. Je tiefer die Bombe im Wasser explodiert, desto stärker bzw. weitreichender ist diese Wirkung, denn durch das Durchbrechen der Explosionswolke durch die Wasseroberfläche verliert die Explosion sehr schnell an Energie. Eine 500 kg schwere Bombe kann die Schweißnähte eines Handelsschiffsrumpfes noch in 20 Meter Entfernung und mehr beschädigen, und so ein Schiff zum Sinken bringen. Wasser(1484 m/sec) überträgt nicht nur Schall deutlich schneller als Luft(343 m/sec), weil Flüssigkeiten nahezu in kompressible sind, sondern eben auch die Schockwelle einer Explosion.
P.S. Ab einer bestimmten Wassertiefe ist natürlich Schluss mit der Explosionswirkung.
Absolutely. Of course, the damage from a near miss will be much greater on a ship with a thin skin, like a merchant ship or a destroyer, than it would be on a battleship.
@@timonsolus The steel plates of a normal merchant ship are only about 1.5 to a maximum of 2 cm thick, whereas the belt armour (a steel band several metres high and about 120-180 metres long that was welded along the hull) of a battleship can be more than 20 cm thick (up to 32 cm in the case of the Bismarck class!).
The Fletcher-class destroyers did not have any additional hull armour, and were in fact truly equal to merchant ships in this respect.
No shit Sherlock, thank you Cpt Obvious
@@michaelneuwirth3414 The ability to withstand shocks is not merely a function of plate thickness, in fact one of the nasty things that explosions can do is rip armor away from plating, since the different thicknesses of steel with different rigidity want to flex at different rates. It's this phenomenon that led to more than one German warship suffering major structural damage at the stern and the structure collapsing, since the armor belt and unarmored extremity of the hull ripped apart.
It would be interesting to compare the Stuka with its contemporaries: the US Douglas SBD Dauntless and Japanese Aichi D3A "Val", not just in accuracy, but in technical specs and pilot reports. Other possible contenders, but not as important, are the US Curtis SB2C and the US F4U Corsair, which I have read was almost as good at dive bombing as the Dauntless. It would be really hard to get any objective accuracy comparisons, but a dive bomber nerd can always dream, nein?
This data must exist somewhere, it’s a question of finding it.
CEP 50m was sniper accuracy compared to the level bombers that were lucky to get bombs within one kilometer from target...
Similarly, would be interesting to learn more on how the training and requirements differed due to the other examples being naval aircraft. How much did bombing land pinpoint targets get covered vs fullsize ships get covered in the USN and IJN?
@@themigmadmarine I can only speak from memory here, but I remember reading from German U-Boatmen that the Italians and Japanese would come to a full stop to dive and the Germans taught them how to do a combat dive like they do. So depending on the training and doctrine, the results might be extremely different for USN and IJN bombing vs the Luftwaffe ones.
@@themigmadmarine I believe that US dive bombing began with the Marines in the 1920s-30s banana wars, so the land aspect might have been pretty important to them, and certainly was during all the island close air support campaigns.
As an Air Force cop who worked on the flightline and met many A-10 pilots, the picture of the A-10 pilot with your book made me break out laughing. After Desert Storm I remember A-10 pilots rotating back to the U.S., most had 100 MPH tape on their aircraft over the anti-aircraft hits lol. Too awesome sir, thanks for the great videos, excellent research and sticking to the facts objectively ;-)
A-10 is a pretty different animal yet again from the WWII dive bombers or really from most ground attack craft as well. It undeniably has a similar aura of awe to it however.
For anyone who is on the fence about getting the book, I can't recommend it enough! Such a wealth of doctrinal information directly from primary sources, as well as some excellent photos and technical drawings/specs.
An absolute masterpiece debunking some of the most commonly held misconceptions about this plane, it really proves most of the "common knowledge" is just taken directly from the propaganda reels!
Keep up the great work Chris!
Thanks so much, appreciate the feedback!
I completely agree ... was a great read ... and I use it in Il2 myself to great effect
Adam Thrussell@ I thought 500 metres.
Big M Marathon 1981 Frankston to Melbourne Town Hall State of Victoria.
Stay healthy and fit
Yours sincerely
Adam Thrussell
Great video and good book. I'm always happy to see your WW2 videos, I like the others too, but the WW2 stuff is special.
Thanks, Greg. Hope all is well with you!
That 19% discount exception for us Canadian is simply outrage*clicks on proceed with order button*
It really annoyed me I couldn't get the same % off for y'all :(
NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN!!!
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I found it funny actually, when's the next time I'm going to have a 19% discount on anything? Besides, something tells me it will be worth the price.
@@MusMasi >>> Is it *"NEIN%"* or *"19%"??* 😉🤭
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I admit, I'm curious as to why the maxiumum discount is curtailed for us. Is it just the same old "Canada is really big and lightly populated and moving stuff around costs a lot more than it does elsewhere" or is there some sort of import tariff screwing things up? (We have import tariffs on the weirdest things just to make sure we retain some ability to actually *build* those things and don't outsource it all to America or Mexico.)
Issue I found quite apparent when playing Simulations and War Thunder when it comes to dive bombing, is literally being able to see the target you're diving on. Buildings and Bridges are easy. But infantry positions, bunkers, trenches, vehicles, tanks, trains, ships... are either very difficult to even see from altitude or have more than enough time to move after releasing the bomb from a safe altitude.
That being said, if you can see the target, you can kill the target in my opinion with a dive bomber, be it if you're not getting shot at.... which is another serious issue for dive bombers, you dive straight at the enemy, and if that enemy has anti air defenses it literally means you're flying almost directly into AA fire.
My copy is on the way and I'm very much looking forward to it! Loved the pic of the A-10 pilot, almost like the passing of a torch, same job, different Era. Thank you for the work you put into this.
Drachinifel did an episode about HMS Illustrious (RN carrier) that was hit in the Mediterranean, during January 1941, by JU57's that had been specially trained to attack the ship. They had trained on an outline of the carrier on the ground and aimed for the centre of the ship. During the attack 4 bombs hit the rear elevator of Illustrious because the Stuka pilots had not accounted for the forward movement, having trained on a static target. Regardless, their attack was accurate and caused serious damage and fires that put it out of service for a considerable time. Unlike the flight deck the elevators were not armoured and the bombs penetrated deep into the hangar deck.
*_"In short, forget about The History Channel..."_*
*Done.*
I would love to see a comparison of the JU-87 vs the Douglas SBD as far as accuracy.
Thank you for your meticulous work. It is interesting how Shtuka`s accuracy looks compared to Henschel Hs 123 dive-bombing results.
Congratulations for the fantastic work you have done! Immediately after watching the video I ordered a copy of your book! By the way, I guessed 50 m. I must admit that I had just been reading about Stuka missions by the Legion Condor during the Spanish Civil War and thus had some idea about their real effectiveness. The Luftwaffe and thus the Legion Condor members, particularly those from „Aufklärung“ units were quite meticulous when it came to recording facts in reports. And not only were reconnaissance flights conducted before and after bombing sorties (and even sometimes in parallel to those) but since most were tactical missions at the front or very closes to it, Condor Legion reconnaissance officers in cars would often reach the bombed bridge, crossroad or town hours or a couple of days after the bombing took place. They would thoroughly assess the results, the damage caused, the misses or near misses etc. they would measure distances and take pictures and write reports, on a daily basis… Pitty that most of the Luftwaffe archives were destroyed by Allied bombings over Berlin. At least we have the reports sent to the Spanish Nationalists Headquarters plus a few Condor Legion reports at Freiburg.
Terrific, objective, review of the Stuka. Great video.
He has got Data and is not afraid to use it !
"...I can read German and I have data..." Well, I can read German too, I just don't understand 90% of what I'm reading.🤣 Another great video and the perfect complement to the Stuka book--too bad you didn't have this video last year! I guessed a 30m CEP for the pilot training, because I'm not sure how effective their bombs would be beyond that point. I presume they were effective at 50m CEP, but it of course depends on the payload size (250kg?) and the target (tank, bunker, apartment building...). Regardless, what I find most fascinating about the German use of the Stuka was not its ability to hit "pinpoint" targets, but that they did not include it into combined arms assaults the way we do now (using them to attack targets in the rear, such as reinforcements). It really makes me wonder what impact that tactic might have had on German assault success if they had. Thanks for making this video--very thought-provoking, as usual.
Always an outstanding video and presentation. Thank you.
Thanks!
My guess was 100m/50m so I'm going to call that a win for the rookie JU87 pilots...
Same yeah t just seemed the most sensble.
My guess was the same, made sense with the technology they had at the time.
Exactly the same... a 100-200kg bomb landing 50m off from your position is prety much in your head
I guessed more or less the same, based on US and Japanese anti-shipping results in the Pacific, and German anti-shipping results around the coasts.
200/500.. not in the same league.
More accurate than I expected! For context, though, I mostly think about US Navy dive bombers, which as others have noted had some different challenges.
My grandfather could probably have told me something about Japanese dive bomber accuracy. He was on the USS Nevada at Pearl Harbor, so was on the receiving end of some of those. Harder to hit once they got moving, though.
Thanks, Chris. Always learn lots from your videos, and they get me thinking about lots of other things too. Thanks for the discount too. I took advantage of it tonight. I wasn't that interested in the Ju-87, but this video changed my mind. Looking forward to reading it.
This well-described narrative was not only keenly illustrative and informative, but personally eradicated some of my own ongoing 'myths' concerning the Stuka's various employments over the course of the war. A *big* thankyou to Christoph here for demonstrating and eliciting some of the many (if not, most) dispellable urban legends over the course of this legendary warplane's wartime actions.
Taking on the educated-guess[s] (at 3:38), I [surprisingly] 'calculated' 100 meters and 50 meters, for each of the Max. Distance and Av. Distance, respectively (not at all bad in my mind, considering I've never flown a plane before, let alone a screaming 'Sturm-spooken' Stuka).
_If,_ by chance, in his accompanying book, there is _any_ indication of discussion on the _Stuka's_ usage (and/or performance) as per perceived witnessed [Axis/Allied] accounts within the _Reichsverteidigung,_ perhaps then I would now consider purchasing it to satisfy my longstanding curiosity in that [purported] particular role.
This is wonderful book on the JU87. Plus the customer service is spot on. If your even a little interested in the Stuka, get this book!!
"I go to the German military archives, I can read German and I have data. Aha...hahaha....MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!"
Sorry, I just feel like that part needed a maniacal evil laugh.
I guessed correctly on the max distance from target, but was way off on the average distance. I thought they would average much closer than they actually did (I figured something around 15 to 25 meters).
Looking at impact craters on numerous french, Belgium and Russian bunkers and the effects it had on the garrison is very interesting. Even if bombs missed by about 10m it did force several garrisons to surrender or flee. There is an interesting fortification near Strasbourg on the Rhine. Even those air torpedoes missed by 5 to 10m, the garrison surrendered. The Belgium fort of Battice had bad luck when one of the bombs hit a tank barrier rail and deflected into the door of a bunker killing everyone inside.
So even when those bombs did not hit exactly, the effect is potentially devastating.
Good informative video! You did forget to mention the air horn used for the physiological affect!
Bought the Stuka book and it was great!! Recommend it to anyone thinking of getting it. Also I have bought all of their books and they have all been excellent!
Becoming a Stutka pilot was quite the achievement for Wilhelm Klink.
Nope... he was a Heinkel pilot. There was an episode where he mentioned this. 🧐
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 Oops sorry for the mistake. Thanks for the correction
@@tomstepanowicz6191 Lol Tom. The only reason I knew that is because I just saw that episode the other day. Klink was bragging about how he missed flying his Heinkel and dropping bombs... and how he earned the nickname "Iron Eagle." Well, all that bragging almost got him sent to the Russian Front! Haha.
Take care my friend. 🍻
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 I googled it. They have a whole biography of Wilhem Klink written up. I googled: Did Wilhem Klink pilot a Stutka? Interesting reading.
@@tomstepanowicz6191 no kidding? I'll have to check that out.
I've rediscovered Hogan's Heroes lately. It really was a great comedy... and the attention to detail regarding the Luftwaffe uniforms, etc is better than many WW2 movies I've seen.
Just ordered the book..looking forward to it.
Looking forward to your book, thanks for the discount.
Found this channel searching for Stuka on War Thunder, and it's a GREAT channel, nice work!!! A lot of informations!!!
An interesting comparison would be to state when was that same dive bombing accuracy achieved later by using electronics, meaning guided munitions and/or computerized bomb sights.
Also, did you ever find out wehther the Ju87R/C could carry SC250s on the wings instead of drop tanks?
Love your book on this by the way!
Glad to hear it! Thank you :)
Phenomenal video!
One of my favorite planes and one of my favorite books, it's fantastic.
The Stuka is my favorite plane of all time. I fell in love when my father got me a giant model of it for my 7th birthday long ago.
Great video as usual. The poor old Stuka has been the victim of propaganda for a long time. 😄 From both sides too. The Allies: Oh it needed a fighter escort or it was in trouble!!. Yep, but every other German bomber was in a LOT more trouble without an escort. I'd rather be in a Stuka than a Heinkel 111 that's for sure. Same for accuracy. If I were on the ground, or on a ship, a JU87 homing in on me would worry me a lot more than any other German bomber. They were a pretty good weapons platform for their time and given there were only what? 6000 built overall throughout their history(so under a 1000 operational at any one time?) they had a pretty big impact on fronts they were involved in. Never mind the psychological impact.
It's a pity only two are left(though hopefully the third is still being built to flying status...). Though I suppose in many ways they were a "flying swastika" and maybe this had an impact on their post war survival and preservation? I can think of few WW2 warbirds nearly as famous where we don't have more examples around today.
Ju-87 production was gradually scaled back from late 1943, and was only a tiny trickle by December 1944, when production finally ceased. Not many Stukas survived to May 1945, relative to other German bomber types.
Read Dusty Kleist's book on dive bombing procedures in the Dauntless dive bomber. Theyre really quite involved. At one point the pilot has to take a shot from an inhaler to keep from blacking out.
I treasure my copy. Wonderful book. Congrats!
War Thunder players: "That must be a mistake in translation, should be centimeters, not meters.".
I guessed 50m and 100m.
Also this is the first time I've ever thought of a tank as "nimble."
Thanks for a great video, Chris. I always love to see myths debunked.
Great content as per usual. One question I have about aircraft armament, what's the different between a machine gun and a canon? Is it just down to the calibre or are there technical differences? Sorry if its a dumb question.
In a nutshell, it’s the caliber. During WW2 generally air forces referred to anything from 20mm upwards as a cannon. There are exceptions (see IJNAS vs IJAAS or see MG151/20 vs MK108) but those can be explained through context.
Loved the stuka book, bought one for me, and one for my friend. After a bit it's not much of a page turner, but it's not really ment to be imo. I've used it's later parts as more of a reference guide and a "Well let's look at the facts " kinda book. Look forward to further projects
at 2:04 Our last krautfunder (diving for cover)
Thanks man, this video is awesome
It would be really interesting to compare the training accuracy requirements for trainee Ju-87 pilots, with the training accuracy requirements for trainee dive bomber pilots in other air forces.
Namely, training on the following aircraft:
Britain: Blackburn Skua
Japan: Aichi D3A Type 99
USA: Douglas SBD
My guess is - the (pre-war) accuracy requirements for trainee pilots on all 3 of these naval carrier dive bombers are likely to be higher than the accuracy requirements for Ju-87 pilots - in my opinion.
As my boss says, “you think you know something until a database tells you otherwise”
Ask any veterans from HMS illustrious, X Fliegerkorps consistently put 500kg bombs consistently to suppress ship AA, and then followed up with armoured piercing 1000kg bombs down aircraft elevators consistently in successive runs. They were in diving planes, and attacking a ship that was evading... I think with great pilots, it could be very accurate. See armoured carriers youtube video.
It's interesting about the Stuka pilots being told to not roll over into the dive because according to the book "Dauntless Hell Divers" by Buell, this was the USN procedure, BUT they did so by deploying the speed brakes and executing a stalled roll; sounds like a slow speed snap roll, but not obviously entering a spin. Dive angles was 80 degrees entered from about 14000 ft. Of course, the target was usually a large ship, especially an aircraft carrier, however SBDs did strike ground targets at Guadalcanal and Bougainville. Not sure of entry altitude when attacking indiscernible targets from high altitude. Also, the Germans, maybe Galland, said that the dive bombing they witnessed pre-war in the US "was the new world egg to bring back to Europe". So, the film of Stuka's rolling into the dive may have been from an early procedure derived from what the Americans did.
The difference between 100m and 1000m with the added bonus of the hell siren was more than enough to make up for any shortcomings of the JU87, yet your research focuses on the training of the pilots, not on what trained experienced pilots could do, so I will take this presentation with a grain of salt, as I’ve had many interactions with recipients of the JU87’s eggs, not the least my grandmother, and they are all in concurrence that it was an evil weapon. And lastly, don’t sell your country short on its achievements, the most highly decorated German Serviceman of the War flew this machine, and is credited with sinking a BATTLESHIP. If that’s not enough, I’m sorry, but for a heap of junk that Hurricanes hunted with ease, it was still an outstanding machine worthy of the fear and praise.
Suerb video I akways wondered why videos of Stkas starting ther attack showed them doing the half-roll thing, as in the flight-sims I played, if you'd done that, you'd have lost your line-up with the target. And I don't feel so bad about not being abe to get direct hits very often, now, so thank you! :-}
Smug 'though I am to have done as you said & wrote down my expectations of required accuracy standards!
(Without reading what looks like a great book - Hey, I didn't even see this video offered until 9 April so meh!)
I came up with 80 metres & 40 metres - but- *WHY I figured that matters more than my change to grandstand* 🙄
I worked that back from awareness of near contemporary accuracy expectations for 'dumb' bombs.
They've improved accuracy for ground attack roles......... But by *much less* than you might suppose.
Which is of course why Laser designation is so popular and invested in improving [As are counter measures]
“I have data” is such a great nerd flex. I love having data.
Any chance the book will be published as an ebook? For where I live the shipping is more expensive than the book and it arrives who knows when...
I REALLY enjoyed this video. The infamous STUKA gets a reality check; I still respect this fantastic aircraft.
If the Stuka was that accurate with bombs why later on were they fitted with cannons for anti-tank use? A bomb on target would have done the job however the accuracy mustn't have been enough so that's why the cannons were fitted.
You can carry more anti tank shells compared to bombs
ouch, my estimate was way off, i was thinking of 30m around the target, still a great video, the book is sitting right next to the Panzer Konferenz book (übrigens hoffe ich, von der nächsten Konferenz zu hören bevor sie stattfindet ; ) ) on my nightstand
thanks
about the roll and pull to initiate a dive, if they are just going nose down, how are the sighting the target to get a 70 degree angle? Later US systems used a 140 degree roll and 90 degree pull to give them a 60 degree angle but the stuka system your describing seems to preclude that, so how did they know when to start their dive and to select targets?
I estimated 100/50 meters, I think many people have desert storm in their mind for air power (and why not?) or modern US air campaigns so this colors their perception of WW2 aviation. As we’ve seen in Ukraine, though, aircraft can still be effective without this even today. Arguably this makes these bombers even more significant in their time … but JDAMs they are not.
100/50m -crew reporting! Great video!
Thanks.
Early in the war on the Eastern Front, didn’t the Soviets tend to dig their tanks into fixed positions frequently? I seem to remember this, especially in reading about Case Blue.
I also remember dive bombers being effective in this case. Seems to make sense to what is provided in the video as the pilot would have both track marks and disturbed earth to mark the target.
I love you man!!!
It was a beautiful plane whatever conclusion you may have
Absolutely true, i also liked the A6M Zero both of them were just beautiful aircraft
it was very graceful creature
I was way off. But in my defence I had just read about allied bombing prior to watching this. During WWII only 5% of allied bombs fell within 500m of their target. Add to this between 10 and 30% of those bombs failing to explode. It paints a very different picture of accuracy. Fear was a major factor in this statistic. To drop a bomb (from the horizontal) within 30m of its target necessitated flying under 2,440m altitude. For altitudes over 3,048m bombs missed by 100/120m. Flak was successful, since in combat conditions, few pilots had the nerve to keep autopilot on for the bombing run at such low altitudes. During early war raids, only 10 to 30% of bombs fell with-in 8kms of their intended target. Source: Donald Nijboer's German Flak defences vs Allied Heavy bombers. from Osprey publishing. p.s. Since allied heavy bombers flew higher and higher, to over 9,000m by war's end, then 50% of bombs missed their targets by over 1.8 kms (a country mile in English). This can be partly explained by the habit of some crews to dump their heavier payload in the channel on the way to the target. With less weight their chances of surviving German fighters and Flak greatly increased. In terms, of sapping the morale of the German population, missing the intended industrial target and bombing neighbouring residential areas was just as effective.
Not bad,
(a modern UXO safety evacuation zone would be about twice that distance for that bomb size)
Great job 👏
Hi. In theory the Ju-88 was also designed to be a dive-bomber. I remember reading that Hitler insisted on that, but it was not practical. My question is: Did some Ju-88 unit make dive-bombing missions? An which was the period/frequence of use of this bombing method? I think it could be a good topic to be exploited in the future. See you in the sky!
Yes they did, constantly at the start of the war, their first mission in the war was a dive attack on RN ships... but eventually it was found out it was too rough on the aircraft, and dangeroues, so they stopped.
They got a hit on Nelson IIRC, and the famous story about sinking Ark Royal was after a JU88 dive attack.
dang good video 2 big thumbs up
Im actually impressed i thought WWII bomb sights without computers or magnification i was expecting 150-300m. I guess if you have a flight of Stuka going for 1 tank there is a decent probability they would score a near direct hit. Makes sense how some pilots had 600+ tank kills
A fantastic, informative and concise video.
Although on my CEP guess I guessed between 50 - 100 meters. And even upwards of 500.... Yeah I ain't a dive bomber pilot.
Steel Division 2 really need to watch and read your videos
Is there any material on how Bf109s BF110s, and FW190s were to train and conduct bombing or photoreconnaissance missions?
One question, the ju87R2 variant… is there any information if they had to jettison their drop tanks before dive bombing ?
You should do a comparison between JU-87 Stuka and the other world-famous dive bomber...the SBD Dauntless.
Yes. And the Aichi D3A Type 99.
@@timonsolus good call
Short Stirling and Ju-87stuka has Alliance
When does the next book puublish?
Expectation of a
Only two exist in the world! One here where I live in Chicago. A bit unfortunately, it lacks the iconic wheel cover things.
I missed the sale are there any chances of another one?
Hmm, how fast are lulu for printing a book. I've been waiting 16+ days and still somewhere in France...
In the old WW2 movies you hear the USAAF pilot talk about putting their bombs in the old pickle barrel. Did the Stuka pilots talk about putting their bombs in the old pickelhaube?
I thought a CPE of 100 meters would have been very impressive for the era. 40 meters CPE is great, but must have required a lot more training, as well as a fairly significant set of tactical advantages at the attack point. I think that any aircraft that attacks through a dive or glide attack would be pretty susceptible to some basic countermeasures like fighter cover, good camouflage, deception, and other sound tactical and operational methods. Ships have two advantages over land targets in general; they move, and within just months of the outbreak of war had good AA all over them. A WW2 ship--especially a Western ship--was a very concentrated moving AA platform.
Was there any information on the shape of the probable hit region? I'm curious whether the probable hit region is (approximately) round, or whether it's an oval/ellipse with long axis along flight direction, or an oval/ellipse with short axis along flight direction.
The steeper the angle of the dive, the "rounder" the hit pattern will be. The bomb is accelerated in the direction in which the aircraft was flying at the time of the drop.
Je steiler der Winkel des Sturzfluges ist, desto "runder" wird das Trefferbild sein. Die Bombe wird eben in die Richtung beschleunigt, in der das Flugzeug zum Zeitpunkt des Abwurfes geflogen ist.
I actually got the required accuracy right. I thought somewhere between 50 and 30 meters would be fairly good given the tech of the time.
is that black version only limited edition ? 2:15
Spookily my guesses of 30m and 100m were reasonably close.
I thought they were more accurate. Thanks for correcting me.
Is there the possibility, to get your Stuka-Book in German?
Du sprichst Deutsch und ich ebenfalls. Daher würde ich das Buch gerne in Deutsch haben ^^
It would be of interest how accuracy varies with release altitude (if it does).
I laughed pretty hard when he said “ let’s get Hans on…” … insert drum tiff, I’ll show myself out dw hahaha
To any developers for DCS World watching this - a Ju-87 D/G would be quite a seller, IMHO.
Is it possible to obtain the hardcover?
I guessed a 50m circle because ofna shrapnel pattern against infantry. Just a guess 😊
The Stuka was a good looking plane
If you wanted to dive bomb like a stuka you need to go higher 10 to 15,000 feet and pull up at 600 or 500 feet before crashing
The benefits of owning a Stuka, is that you can convert it into a crop duster or cool ass training plane,
How useful/effective was it for Stuka missions to have a tailgunner?
Darn guessed 50m max distance and 25m avg. Guess if I had the book I would have known them!