Well, obviously you need some braking device as you mentioned. The pull up stick force would be too great and the risk of overstressing the airframe was high. Thanks for the info.
And no you dont need a so step dive for accuracy but the capabilities was true, the Aichi dived at 80º and the stuka could go almost vertically down.
The F4U made a suprisingly effective dive bomber, it was good at it.
(See f.x. some older F4U Corsair thread here)
I remember reading about Rudel commenting about what it felt like to go virtualy strait down and pull out before you hit the ground, all the while people firing on you from below.
I’m sure, since you can’t dodge (and miss the target), it was no fun. Kind of like a real ‘Toko ri’ going strait down, if you’ve seen the movie.
Deaf
Read a book by a British test pilot who flew a Ju 87 after the war. He was very happy about it´s diving behaviour, it felt safe and controllable while “standing on it´s nose”, while some other DB´s (I can only recall the Blackburn Skua right now), made an impression of “running away” with to much speed for comfort.
Rare thing with the Skua, withdrawn from first line in RN service after the Norwegian campaing. Nevertheless some other more vintage planes like the Swordfish and Albacore remained in service. A formation of Sworfish tried to attack the Scharhorst and Gneseinau in february 1942 and was completely wiped out.
In relation of that one must say the the JU-87d was by far more “survivable” than both british biplane designs.
The inversion and reversal of meanings of words is common in aeronautics: sophisticated is an all to frequent example which shows sloppy thinking and limited vocabulary, neither of which we can afford today. The old, but utterly wise advices to test pilots given by Mr.David P. Davies, past Head of Flight Department and Chief test Pilot of the Airworthiness Division of the Civil Aviation Authority, however, richly deserves wider appreciation.
[i]1) Don’t believe other people – prove it for yourself.
Stick to what you have proved believable.
Don’t be overawed by other more senior people.[/i]
Our main problem, however, is that aircraft design is about people every bit as much as machines. The things said by different people about certain flying machines are reflecting their own experiences and their knowledge. That’s why in this subject written history must never be ignored. Especially the untold or lesser-known history, deeply buried in various dusty repositories, discarded and almost useless as the cartwheels on a modern heavy-traffic highway.
If you have a mind like mine, honorable ladies and gentlemen, it will go blank and the brain will stall at the first sight of a page of higher mathematics. Unfortunately, though, mathematics cannot be avoided in aeronautics, because we are concerned with physics, more precisely with shapes, proportions, sizes, weights, power, etc. And although certain simple mathematics are again and again insufficient for a completely scientifically based argumentation and validation, some simple mathematical operations are completely sufficient to emphasize the fact that our clumsy looking, completely outmoded, single-engined pants equipped dive-bomber actually was remarkably maneuverable by any standards – as a matter of fact, Ju 87 family actually possessed better maneuverability then otherwise highly respected Allied fighters of the WW 2 like Lavochkin La 5, or North American P 51 D, primarily due to its uncommonly low wing loading (the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing).
Yes, I know, honorable ladies and gentlemen: It sounds completely unbelievable, but the good old Ju 87 B-2, for example (maximum weight 4460 kg, wing area 31,90 m2) actually possessed a specific wingload of only 139,81 kg/m2 (179,31 kg/m2 in its D-3 variant), while this value by the renowned P 51 D was 192 kg/m² (La 5 FN on the other hand was only slightly better - 186 kg/m2). In capable hands, therefore, good old Ju 87 was completely able not only to outmaneuver enemy fighters in prolonged turning engagements, but even to attack adversary fighters, as described in a completely mind-boggling mission-report which was printed in a less-known Hungarian military magazine “Magyar Szárnyak” (Hungarian wings) [No. 3 – February, 1944. – pp. 11-12].
That fact often surprised and sometimes even endangered attacking Allied fighters, not even to mention that on some not so infrequent occasions aged Ju 87’s managed to shoot down their attackers with those rearwards-looking MGs. Such examples were numerous but less-known as well - even in late 1943 (November 19th),for example, a Soviet Yak 9 fighter was shot down by gunfire from a close formation of old Romanian Ju-87’s.
Ju 87 D-3s of the 3rd Dive Bomber Group, Royal Romanian Air Force – October, 1943
This subject remains relatively unknown not only to the general public, but also to people professionally involved in aeronautical research. For example, the story of Ju 87’s factual maneuverability rarely is a part of a modern textbook on WW 2 aviation, or a modern aeronautical course related to effects of aerodynamic brakes usage in low-speed level-flight evasive maneuvering – but with a little bit of luck we will be able to add some innovative resources to this highly intriguing issue. Perhaps the accurate translation of certain completely forgotten personal war-diaries from early 1944 is the best starting point. 
In the meantime, as always – all the best! 
:lol::lol::lol: me neither , you can get smashed even in the air before to get to the ground as the plain will get to pieces eventually with torn out wings and so on
Wow maybe their is some hope for this site afterall! Thank you mister Librarian.
I would like to add that the lack of speed was also one of the issues surround this fine dive bomber. Its engine power increased substantially during the war from about 700 hp to 1420 hp and the planes top speed moved from 210mph to 250mph in clean configuration. However the bulk of the increased power was bargained away to buy more armor protection to allow survival against the growing allied AAA threat and in increased range and payload. It started the war with pretty much 500kg load and this increased to 1400kg by mid war.
The plane had a top dive speed of 370mph, showing how much airspeed could grow if the engine power increase had been channelled into top speed instead of increased ordnance load and armor protection. An obviouse first step would have been to redesign the wing to allow retractable wheels. That could have increased this top clean speed by about 25% with out adversely effecting other performance targets.
One question I have is CEP of other comparable divebombers? The Stuka could do 30m CEP in Experten hands, although in regular hands it might be closer to 100m CEP. Level bombers in the hands of experts would be 400-500 CEP at low altitude in a shallow dive, while high altitude level bombers were 1-2 miles CEP. When you start to calculate how many bombs needed to saturate a target to reach the same accuracy as 30m CEP, it becomes clear why the Germans keep this DB going so long.
That fact often surprised and sometimes even endangered attacking Allied fighters, not even to mention that on some not so infrequent occasions aged Ju 87’s managed to shoot down their attackers with those rearwards-looking MGs. Such examples were numerous but less-known as well - even in late 1943 (November 19th),for example, a Soviet Yak 9 fighter was shot down by gunfire from a close formation of old Romanian Ju-87’s.
The maneouvrability is absolutely truth, in fact I ve read the Rudel memories ( and I am quoting Rudel not because I am a believer of everything he wrote but because is one of the few Stuka pilots memoirs book available in my home country) in wich described action of Stukas forming a defensive circle and evading russiam fighters with daring daring acrobatics somethimes damaging or shooting dow those with frontal machine guns fire. The big problem of the Stuka was the speed, the aircraft struggled to reach 402kmph and with bombs or 37mm guns cannot reach even 380 km/h. obviously it cant scape of a determined enemy.
I do believe that Rudel proved that even outmoded aircraft can be exceptional in certain roles (as did the Swordfish pilots at Taranto.)
THe Swordfish was also a decent ASW plane operating from escort carriers until the end of the war as I recall. That was one of the main reasons Admiarl Donitz caved in and with drew the Uboat fleet from the Atlantic Ocean in 1943.
I think the “niche” of the Sworfidh was the night operation in wich the aircraft was less vulnerable to flak. In full day loaded with a torpedo haveing no armor and only a weak machinegun as defense dont seems a very feasible line of work ( if you arent a kamikaze of course)
By the way…had anybody see this ? a proposal for Stuka, ugly as hell.
http://www.luft46.com/misc/hu136.html
Yes the Ju-87 was known for it’s maneouvrability (just as the Val and SDB.)
But, if the fighter did not play the turn-n-burn game and just B&Zed, it would be no contest. This was done very very often in the PTO.
I do not know if the Russians had a doctrine for fighting specific German aircraft. The Allies pretty much did, but I don’t know about the Russians.
Deaf
The doctrine was: shoot at short distance …when ammo run out you ramm it.
Well actually I am not sure if taht was the soviet doctrine but was pretty much the case , specially in early stages of the war in the east.:rolleyes:
A high-speed boom & zoom combat technique application whereas our good old highly maneuverable, air-brakes equipped old birdie is flying only 15-20 meters above the ground? Well, I hope that you do have a valid life insurance, my dear Mr. Smith…
Truly low-level flight of the Ju 87 – the very best protection form of flying against B&Z combat expertise
You see, a pure B&Z tactic will not work against a situationally-oriented and capable pilot who repeatedly performes air-brakes assisted flat scissors. Prediction of a future position of the good old Ju 87 in that case is quite impossible, because the flight pattern is constantly unclear, not even to mention that an high-speed pursuit airplane in that case is constantly suffering from both turn-rate performance weakness as well as a minimum speed disadvantage. 
Well if 15-20 meters is all the altitude they are going to get, I guess that’s fine. Then ground AAA will pick 'em appart. Even a tossed brick will work at that range.
Deaf
This response is what’s referred to as an “epic fail”!
Most English reading posters are educated in western history that basically starts WW-II in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor and in Europe in 1944 or at best Italy in 1943. In truth the Second Front and Pacific TO were sideshows to the Main event, the Eastern Front. WW-II was won and lost on the Eastern Front between 1941 and 1943. Everything before and after this is merely prequel and postscript to this main event.
Therefore anything that contributed to the Eastern Front during this period is of profound importance to the out come of the war. The fact that the Ju-87 was not used beyond BoB in the west is not relevant. It made a huge contribution to making Barbarossa possible and helped immensely through the long months of attritional warfare in 1942/43. Eastern Flak was not one of the Russians strong points. Also Stuka was pretty nasty customer in the Med and became quite proficient at sinking ships during 1941-42. Certainly the Red forces didn’t have a good tactical radar network so flying that low meant they would surprise the enemy wherever they went.
The other possible explanation for this type of response is the negative impact of war games especially computer games that take such military hardware completely out of context of their contribution to warfare at large.
BTW tests vs helicopters in such situations [High speed fighter vs low speed @ low altitude] showed the same case. High-speed fighters had no chance of putting the helicopter in their gun sights long enough for any kind of kill. They basically expended their combat fuel in a futile gesture.
Thank you very much for your truly excellent explanation, my dear Mr. UBC.
You see, my dear Mr. Smith, the extremely low-level flight actually will minimize the factual amount of time enemy gunners have to spot your aircraft and to effectually aim. If you are a truly capable pilot, sufficiently skilled to fly above the treetops with some 280-300 km/h, they will be completely unable even to fire a single shot in your direction!
Mathematically speaking, since ground-mounted anti-aircraft guns cannot follow low flying aircrafts with appropriate speed and accuracy at high angular rates, exposure values for low-level flying aircrafts are so small that statistical penalty for low flying engagement is absolutely feasible, especially if targeted airplanes are not flying in a straight line.
Extremely low-level flight - the best protection against classicistic AAA
Furthermore, if a couple of 50 kg SC 50s equipped with ElAZ-38 fuze positioned for 4 sec. delayed activation still are underneath our wings (like above!), I am assuring you that our virtuous AA gunners will instinctively jump to the ground to take cover. Like in this case near Pervomaisk:
Result of the low-level Ju 87 activity - Destroyed AAA battery of 85 mm air defense guns M1939 - Pervomaisk, USSR, 1941
Of course, sufficiently AAA saturated and stratified combat zone theoretically is capable to eliminate our old-fashioned low-level intruders, but that is completely unobtainable on a truly spacious front.
In the meantime, as always – all the best!
In favour of the soviets one might need to say the 85mm was designed fire at targets to operating inside a ceiling of 1000 to 7500 meters, if the stuka was very low is very difficult to aim a heavy piece, better try with a 37 or 25mm.
True, my dear Mr. Panzerknacker. However, if a truly capable Stuka-pilot was very low with his old-fashioned airplane, even the best Soviet light AA weapon intended for beating fast-moving, low-flying targets - that easy to aim, and permanently ready-for-action M-4 Quadruple Maxim mounted on the Gaz truck-platform - was incapable to stop our devoted birdie:
Remnants of the M-4 Quad Maxim destroyed by low-flying Stukas, USSR - 1942
As it was already proven numerous times, low-level flight always augmented the survival-probability of the aircraft crew and the combat efficiency in air-to-ground deployment to a maximum. The target could be approached unobserved from the surrounding area and overflown at the greatest possible speed to minimize the effectiveness of possible anti-aircraft defenses right from the start.
By this combat-methodology, and without any significant counter-activity of the Soviet fighters, even those highly defended objects, like a command center of the marshal Semyon Timoshenko, were successfully attacked without a single loss:
Destroyed command center of the Western Front, vicinity of Smolensk, July 1941 – photo taken by Chef- Bildoffizier I/C Bild of the Führungstab des Luftflottenkommando 2
Well, that’s all for today, honorable ladies and gentlemen. In the meantime, as always – all the best!