Using Stukas to win the game

[SeaLion]

I recently fought an opponent who considered himself unbeatable. He always used tanks...and more tanks. So I asked for an unrestricted game and took jeeps for recon and fighter-bombers as artillery...and that's it. My planes blasted all his tanks and now he doesn't e-mail me any more. Was I being gamey ?????

[Robert Isenberg]

you might be but then he might have been also by taking all tanks
was the battlefield little cover,gentle rolling hills or flat plains where it would be hard for infantry to move without being seen?

Originally posted by SeaLion:
I recently fought an opponent who considered himself unbeatable. He always used tanks...and more tanks. So I asked for an unrestricted game and took jeeps for recon and fighter-bombers as artillery...and that's it. My planes blasted all his tanks and now he doesn't e-mail me any more. Was I being gamey ?????

[zukkov]

no, sounds like you were getting some payback and he can't deal with it. anyone that would quit based on one game doesn't sound like much of a friend to me. anyway, let him sulk.

and if i had one wish, it's that all you people that keep asking if something is gamey would quit asking! it's a game! tongue.gif

[SeaLion]

Speaking of dive bombers (and yes, the terrain was rather flat in the game) I think Germany could have done much better in the war if they had concentrated on one bomber design only -- but not the stuka. A German design bureau had drawn up a small flying wing about the same size as the stuka and it would have been the dive bomber to replace the stuka. If they had mass produced this instead of playing with Heinkels and other level bombers (that tended to get swept away by Allied fighters) they would have had a much more survivable bomber force.

[Pzman]

Originally posted by SeaLion:
If they had mass produced this instead of playing with Heinkels and other level bombers (that tended to get swept away by Allied fighters) they would have had a much more survivable bomber force. I cannot agree with you on that. Ju-87s (Stukas) were cleared from the sky just as fast, if not faster than other bombers. In fact the main reason Germany stopped using them was the fact that they were so slow. If you have never played a WWII air sim with Stukas then you should because you will begin to see what I mean.

[ July 07, 2003, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[Boo Radley]

If I tried it, I'd probably get targetted by my own planes.

[SeaLion]

Actually, in a way you are agreeing with my point. It is true that over England the Spitfires wiped the Stuka out because of the speed diferential (which is why I could never understand why the US purchased A-10 Warthogs. The Fulcrum would have done the same thing to them.). However, the flying wing design would have been about 100 miles an hour faster due to it's streamlined configuration and it would have carried the same bombload. Thus, it would have been hard to catch even by Mosquitoes. Let me put it another way -- when Northrop's YB-49 Flying Wing was put into a shallow dive it suddenly broke up into thousands of pieces. The pilots and engineers had underestimated the speed that the design would pick up. The much smaller German design would not have broken up (less stress on a smaller airframe) but would have had all the extra speed.

[Stavka_lite]

"It is true that over England the Spitfires wiped the Stuka out because of the speed diferential (which is why I could never understand why the US purchased A-10 Warthogs. The Fulcrum would have done the same thing to them.)"

Any ground support aircraft is going to be chewed to pieces without, at least, localized air superiority. The speed differential that you speak of is not why the Stukas didn't survive, its because the RAF was able to control the air where the Stuka were operating and because the Luftwaffe did not employ them properly. Another case in point, The Soviet Il-2 did not fly much better that the Stuka. It was better armored but still very vunerable. The Soviets employed it properly and in areas where they controlled the sky. As a result the Il-2 least attrited aircraft in WW2 (at least the 2 seater was) due to fighter action. Air Superiorty is the key, just ask the 8th Air Force ;) .

[Lou2000]

Probably the wrong forum for this, but here goes anyway..........

I could never understand why the US purchased A-10 Warthogs Because they needed an aircraft capable of delivering close in tactical air support to ground forces. It was never meant to operate against the MiG-29 (or any other fighter) but would have had CAP aircraft providing cover....

If there was no need for it then Russia would never have used the SU-25 for the same role.

From bi-planes in WW1 right through to the present day aircraft have been used for close in support for ground units ....... So obviously somebody thinks there is a reason for it ;)

[Shosties]

Originally posted by Panzerman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SeaLion:
If they had mass produced this instead of playing with Heinkels and other level bombers (that tended to get swept away by Allied fighters) they would have had a much more survivable bomber force. I cannot agree with you on that. Ju-87s (Stukas) were cleared from the sky just as fast, if not faster than other bombers. In fact the main reason Germany stopped using them was the fact that they were so slow. If you have never played a WWII air sim with Stukas then you should because you will begin to see what I mean. </font>[/QUOTE]Gee, it seems nobody told Hans-Ulrich Rudel (http://www.pilotenbunker.de/Stuka/Rudel/rudel.htm) that he should stop using the Ju-87. ;)

[Warmaker]

Lol! That guy did some crazy s**t with the Stukas! :D

[MAUS_TD]

i dont agree with the quote that stuka's are to slow that is why they where shot by the spitfire's in the battle for england. The thing that was more important was the messersmit's had not enough fuel for more than 10 mins of fighting time over england. So all the english had to do wait for 15 mins than attack the bombers because all there fighter cover was already to germany. If they had made fighter wich could fight for about 20 mins more than england would have fall

[Jack Ryan]

Originally posted by MAUS_TD:
i dont agree with the quote that stuka's are to slow that is why they where shot by the spitfire's in the battle for england yes nether do i, hurricanes blasted there arses outre the sky to, as spitfires mission was to hit the fighters tongue.gif

[Lumbergh]

Originally posted by Warmaker:
Lol! That guy did some crazy s**t with the Stukas! :D "519" tank kills?? Sure, I believe that....

[fridericus]

i see no problem with the 519 tank-kills.
airforce, esp. fighters didnt play so huge role on the eastfront, so he had not to be so affraid of enemies fighters. the russian produced really many tanks get get more delifered by usa and uk. against a 37mm from air the well armored t34 is very vulnerable on the top. 2530 sorties with 519 tank-kills mean only 1 kill in 5 lights, that isnt impossible, because tanks arent alone on battlefiedl. when you see 1 t34, you know, the is a whole coy. and you see them all from air, smoke doesnt protect.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Lumbergh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Warmaker:
Lol! That guy did some crazy s**t with the Stukas! :D "519" tank kills?? Sure, I believe that.... </font>[/QUOTE]You know that Rudel flew over 2500 missions and Stalin personally put a bounty on his head?

In words: TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED...

BTW Rudel was the only recipient of the Knight's Cross with golden oakleaves, swords and diamonds in the whole Wehrmacht, being the highest award for bravery in Germany during WW2.

[ July 08, 2003, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[ng cavscout]

I read his book a long time ago, talking about Rudel, and he was on the way back from a mission (late war). He had expended almost all his ammo. Suddenly, there was a JS tank, not sure which version. He lines up a shot, and pow. One shot, he only had one 37mm round left, one shot, one kill, he sniped the tank with no adjustment shots, just the first round kill. That story always amazed me.

Of course, wasn't he the one who was still an unrepentant Nazi? I may be wrong, it has been a long time since I read the book.

Hey, I think this is my 30th post, does that make me no longer a "junior member"?

[Apexicus]

Originally posted by SeaLion:
A German design bureau had drawn up a small flying wing about the same size as the stuka and it would have been the dive bomber to replace the stuka. If they had mass produced this instead of playing with Heinkels and other level bombers (that tended to get swept away by Allied fighters) they would have had a much more survivable bomber force. I'm no airwar/-craft expert but I was under the impression that dive bombing was more dangerous than level bombing (to the aircraft doing the bombing). In dive bombing and especially when doing combat support bombing the bomber has to go very low and can be shot at with every gun on the ground at fairly close range (in comparison to the plane flying at high altitude). So dive bombers have to avoid enemy ground fire and enemy aircraft while level bombers only have to worry about enemy aircraft and larger ground guns.

[laxx]

well, Rudel was Great but he never had a comic book written about him....


.... unlike Otto Carius which is forever immortalised in the manga "Tiger in the Mud":the exploits of a Panzer Ace on the Eastern Front. Humans are portrayed as Pigs (german and russian alike)

http://www.mv.com/users/ctwilkes/Carius2/Otto_images/Otto_p147.jpg

The last panel has to be a well concealed Russian 45mm ATG.

[ July 08, 2003, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: laxx ]

[Panzertruppe]

Stukas, Hurricanes,Spits......you *******s just made me start digging for my European Air War game to reload!!!!!! You guys should be banned from the CM site for this!!!!

Stukas, Hurricanes,Spits......oh my! :eek:

[Monty's Double]

If they had made fighter wich could fight for about 20 mins more than england would have fall All our base are what did you say?

[vbfg]

Originally posted by Monty's Double:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If they had made fighter wich could fight for about 20 mins more than england would have fall All our base are what did you say? </font>[/QUOTE]...are now belong to US Air Force. smile.gif

[von Nev]

I remember watching a video on the Stuka a couple of years ago and the interesting piece of info from the video was that the Stuka flew combat missions from the first day of the war to virtually the last day. There is a reel from early May 1945 on the eastern front where a late model Stuka destroyed a IS-2 in a farm. It showed a couple of very weary looking German soldiers spying around the corner looking at the smoking Stalin tank after the attack. The Stuka looked as if it was flying at maybe 50 feet on its attack run. Pretty incredible video. The pilot must have been insane to fly such a slow bird with literally no fighter cover. Although I did hear that the Luftwaffe was able to gain air superiority for a short periods of time with their limited assets so maybe this was one of those last occasions.

v. Nev

[ July 08, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: von Nev ]

[Pzman]

I wasn't saying that Stukas didn't fulfill their role. I love using at as a ground attack aircraft in War Birds... the JU-87G Tank Hunter Version pops tanks like they are cheese. The point I was making was that not building HE-110s etc would not have been a good idea. Stukas were dive bombers and could only carry 3 bombs max ( 2 50lb and one 100lb) while a HE-110 could carry 10 200lb bombs. The Stuka was made more as flying artillery than a bomber.The Germans lost in the air because of the RAF, USAAF and the Soviet Air power.

[SeaLion]

Shosties4th says "Gee, nobody told Hans Ulrich Rudel that he should stop using the Stuka." Well, I read the book written by Rudel and in it he says that by the war's end none of the younger pilots could handle the plane and survive long. Rudel would go into a dive toward a soviet AA gun, spiral in, twist and weave through the sky, and at the last moment straighten out and drop bombs on target. He stated that the new pilots just could not do this. He also describes whipping his airplane through the sky to avoid the Russian airforce -- again, something the younger pilots could not do in the slow moving Stuka. Rudel was a magnificent pilot and his book should be required reading for all interested in aviation, but you're still misquoting me a little. I basically just said that the German's own flying wing design would have been more survivable in battle. And we also learned from other wars (I'm thinking of the F-111 in Vietman) that the higher the plane's speed, the harder it is to shoot down. One more thing -- the Stuka had a smaller bombload than the Heinkel level bomber, but the Stuka did more damage to tanks because of it's greatly increased accuracy in the diving profile. tongue.gif

[Jack Ryan]

Originally posted by Panzertruppe:
Stukas, Hurricanes,Spits......you *******s just made me start digging for my European Air War game to reload!!!!!! You guys should be banned from the CM site for this!!!!

Stukas, Hurricanes,Spits......oh my! :eek: lol EAW rocks :D

[Bastables]

Originally posted by von Nev:
I remember watching a video on the Stuka a couple of years ago and the interesting piece of info from the video was that the Stuka flew combat missions from the first day of the war to virtually the last day. There is a reel from early May 1945 on the eastern front where a late model Stuka destroyed a IS-2 in a farm. It showed a couple of very weary looking German soldiers spying around the corner looking at the smoking Stalin tank after the attack. The Stuka looked as if it was flying at maybe 50 feet on its attack run. Pretty incredible video. The pilot must have been insane to fly such a slow bird with literally no fighter cover. Although I did hear that the Luftwaffe was able to gain air superiority for a short periods of time with their limited assets so maybe this was one of those last occasions.

v. Nev During the immolation of Warsaw and its uprising vet Stuka pilots were given not only building targets but which window they were to bomb.

[Conhugeco]

Haven't done any PC flying in quite some time. Can anyone fill me in on the current state of WWII flying sims?

Thanks,
Dick

[Pzman]

Originally posted by SeaLion:
One more thing -- the Stuka had a smaller bombload than the Heinkel level bomber, but the Stuka did more damage to tanks because of it's greatly increased accuracy in the diving profile. tongue.gif Maybe that's becaues the HE-110 (nor the JU-88 etc) wasn't made for destroying tanks? It was made for level bombing, not ground attack. The Stuka tank buster didn't carry bombs, it had two 37mm cannons. Not to say that the early JU-87D was unable to KO tanks, in fact that did a good job early in the war. Comparing a dive bomber to a level bomber is silly because they are made for two different roles. As for flight sims try War Birds III. Free download for Mac OS9 or OSX and PCs. Download page for WB III (http://www.totalsims.com/index.php?page=downloads)

[ July 08, 2003, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Panzerman ]