Ju-87 Stuka vulnerability to fighter attack

[Crumpp]

I am also aware that on the vast majority of aircraft these are a heck of a lot smaller than a radiator.

That is not really fact. In an air-cooled engine, the oil becomes the primary coolant. The oil cooler and the oil tank tend to be much larger as a result.

Here you can see the differences in some air-cooled radials. It really is just a matter of picking your poison.

The FW190 system incorporated the oil tank and cooler under and armored ring. At extreme angles projectiles can get behind ring. I certainly wouldn't think it was more vulnerable than other unarmored systems.

[HoHun]

Hi Glider,

>I am aware that there are such things as oil coolers, I am also aware that on the vast majority of aircraft these are a heck of a lot smaller than a radiator.

That's quantitative thinking - just what I'be been trying to emphasize. I'm glad that you seem to consider it necessary for a meaningful assessment of vulnerabilities, too.

>To have the level of protection your hinting at, the Armour on a Ju87 Radiator would dwarf that on an Il2, loads of which were shot down my 20mm. Not likely.

I've got a Pilot Press cutaway of the Il-2 here that indicates a thickness of 6 mm for the Il-2 cowl armour, which encloses the Stormovik's radiator. The Ju 87D-3 cutaway in Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe" shows 8 mm ventral armour beneath the oil reservoir, and an unspecified thickness of armour for the radiator.

If you found out that thickness figure, please share it with us. If you didn't, well - difficult to make reliable statements on something you don't know.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Nikademus,

>Also, the "Parties" began even in the days of rifle only armed fighters.

But we don't know the armour status for the early Stukas, so we can't draw any conclusions on this for lack of data.

Hello!

We know they were armored, and that the Ju-87B-2/U3 featured "increased" armor for the close support role. One can at least assume this armor protection would resist rifle caliber bullets. The question does remain, how well the coverage of this armor extends as well as the quality of the self sealers. I suspect that the plane's stability might have more to do with it's vulnerability. As one author/ex pilot once said....you put any plane into a bullet stream long enough....its going to go down.

That might indicate that the Ki-43-II could have two 12.7 mm machine guns indeed, but unless they changed their synchronization technology too, it would still be a 12.7 mm not much more effective than the 7.7 mm of the Ki-43-I. (But that's really going off topic here

Effective enough to preform well in Burma. (but yes...off topic)

Hm, how could we know? Those targets who were hit really well would not return so you'd not know what brought them down, and those who did return were by definition not hit well.

We know from the accounts of the pilots. Lundstrom for example contains such testimony to the general ineffectiveness of 7.7 fire against their F4F's. When hit by a cannon shell...they usually were aware of it. Despite this, some F4F's did live to return after being hit. The F4F was amazingly tough. While one can't discount a lucky hit from a 7.7, odds are that F4F's brought down were done so by a combination of cannon and 7.7. Saburo Sakai stated in his book that the 7's were used to line up the target, and then the cannons employed to finish off said target.

You couldn't stop an attack by a cannon-armed fighter by piercing its radiator, though. It might be minutes before the fighter pilot even notices.

The 64th Sentai pilots used this tactic and it proved rather effective at stopping Hurricanes quickly. Similar accounts are in Shores' Fighters over the Desert. A coolant hit can very quickly disable a plane/pilot combo.

Besides, I have never seen data that actually proves the assumed greater vulnerability of liquid-cooled engines. It might be a case like the supposed greater survivability of the B-17 over the B-24 that many people take for granted, while 8th Air Force statistics show that the B-24 actually did better.

Statistics can be the greatest liars at times. I've heard about that said statistic yet i've never seen a source yet that claims the B-24 to have greater ruggedness over the B-17. When the issue of ground attack came up, the P-47 came up the preferred choice over the liquid cooled P-51.

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I would like to know more about these so called 'Stuka parties'. Did they only exist in the RAF folklore perhaps, ie. cases when fighters were claiming ridiculus amounts of Ju 87s shot down compared to the actual losses? I`d certainly like to see examples.

I listed a few on page 2. The losses listed exclude all those "claimed" by RAF pilots in total but not fully verified. I can add those if you want.

This might of interest, since this is the official British PoV about the Stuka, issued for RAF pilots as a tactical recommendation :

That would track with accounts in fighting vs. D3A's and SBD's. I was suprised by the comment in FotD regarding the Junkers being "most vulnerable" while in the dive. From accounts in Eagle Day, Fighter boys and Duel of Eagles the point of worst vulnerability was after the dives had been completed. Interesting there were multiple descriptions of diving brake failures that further slowed the planes after pulling out. Next worst/equal Point of vuln would appear to be before the dive.

[Njaco]

Next worst/equal Point of vuln would appear to be before the dive.

Nik, that point would be correct as in the Aug 18 battle Hurricanes from RAF No. 43 and 601 Sqdrns either latched onto them as they dived and followed them through the attack or went around and waited for the pull-out.

Were the Stukas really getting results against mainland targets? If I remember correctly only one radar station was taken out of action and even then it was only for a short period. Luftwaffe strategy of attacking RAF airfields and factories would seem to be better suited to medium bombers than the Ju 87

Negative, that was the point I was trying to make that the Stukas weren't really withdrawn only because of losses. It was a combination of factors including the Luftwaffe's failure to place any real importance on radar stations. On Aug 15 Goering ordered that "From now on we shall waste no more time on the British radar installations." With that kind of target withdrawn what exactly were the targets for the Stukas? Airfields aren't very vulnerable to pin-point attacks as shown the very next day, Aug 16 1940, 54 Ju 87s of StG 2 attacked Tangmere and caused some damage to 2 hangars and several other buildings including 7 Hurricanes, 6 Blenheims and a trainer. 10 minutes after the Stuka attack the airfield was attacked by Ju 88s and they were far more accurate and caused major damage, more so than the Stuka attack. Every building was hit and 14 aircraft on the ground were destroyed.

As the Stukas were returning they were bounced by RAF No 43 and 601 sqdrns and the Germans lost 8 Ju 87s with 6 more damaged. Not a good return for the damage caused.

Med bombers caused more damage than dive-bombers, radar stations were declassified as targets and then the coup-de-grace - heavy losses on the 18th. They were withdrawn from MAJOR operations in the BoB but not strictly because they were vulnerable. It was a change of tactics combined with no air superiority and the losses cemented it.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Nikademus

1. This would match what Shores wrote. a total of 7 F4F's. One of the seven includes Gerhardt and a pilot of VGF-29 who reported that his oil line had been cut and then was never heard from again. Shores suspects he fell afoul of a French fighter.

2. According to Shores, Flotilla IF's CO Vaisseau Folliot was shot down in his D.520 by Wildcats. The other 10 were Hawks though.

1. The VGF-29 pilot was Lt.jg George Trumpter; the loss seems operational from the description in Lambert "Wildcats Over Casablanca", left his formation after takeoff with oil leak, failed to return (to USS Santee). Since there were no known encounters with French fighters in the Southern Task Force's area, (and none mentioned in Mordal's account from the French side), it seems speculative of Shores to add that one. Especially considering again that among the other 6 there's doubt about the cause of three already: Mikronis (AA according to him, though during an air combat), August and Connor.

2. Foillot's loss was the one which matches the uncredited claim of VGF-26 at Port Lyautey I mentioned in the next paragraph. For Hawks I have a Squadron Signal book by Shores summarizing 6 lost (+5 'damaged') in first combat 4 in second. Do you get the details from "L'Aviation Vichy au Combat' or yet something else he wrote? But it seems low to me given the French-sourced named pilot casualties in Lambert for the 11/8 combat (5 KIA, 4 WIA, 'several other a/c inoperative') and Cressman for 11/9 (2 KIA, WIA, 2 forced landings). Another source is Ketley "French Aces of WWII" which quotes 5 KIA, 4 WIA and 2 killed in takeoff accidents in the 11/8 combat with 13 total GC II/5 a/c destroyed (including ground); and 4 downed in the second plus Plubeau's a/c belly landed.

I'm on the minutiae level well off topic I know , but seems to me a straight down the middle analysis would count a likely maximum of 6 F4F's, and having taken the maximum there, wouldn't then split hairs by not counting French planes whose pilots crashed in accidents during combat, bellied, etc, so would come out a few higher than 11. Shores is one of the greats, but I question that particular accounting.

Of course, besides the political/psychological factors, the first combat had most of the French at a disadvantage (taking off, though others already on CAP bounced the strafing Wildcats from above). But in the second combat neither side had initial tactical advantage, and GC I/5 outnumbered VF-9.

Joe

[HoHun]

Hi Nikademus,

>We know they were armored, and that the Ju-87B-2/U3 featured "increased" armor for the close support role.

I haven't seen any proof that the Battle of Britain Stukas were armoured, so where did you find this bit of information?

>We know from the accounts of the pilots.

Remember I replied to your comment on Japanese pilots knowing how to hit effectively with cannon. You'd not get the account of the pilot who had been hit effectively because he would not come back to tell about it.

>Statistics can be the greatest liars at times. I've heard about that said statistic yet i've never seen a source yet that claims the B-24 to have greater ruggedness over the B-17.

Oh well, my general impression from many internet discussions is actually that this is a conception usually born from poor understanding of the laws of statistics, and for some people perhaps from a refusal to part with their toy theories when they discover they are not supported by facts. Better to shoot the messenger

Here is the data on the B-17 vs. B-24:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...tml#post293977 (Hardest plane to take down in WW2?)

Note that the statistics do in fact point towards a greater survivability of the B-24, but not necessarily towards a greater "ruggedness" as the B-24 has different performance charactistics from the B-17. All we can say is that in the end, fewer B-24s were lost per sortie than B-17s. (If we mean to discuss this in depth, I suggest we continue it over in the original thread to keep things organized

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Nikademus,

>The 64th Sentai pilots used this tactic and it proved rather effective at stopping Hurricanes quickly. Similar accounts are in Shores' Fighters over the Desert. A coolant hit can very quickly disable a plane/pilot combo.

I was commenting on the effectiveness of the rearward armament of a dive bomber, and as far as I can tell the 64th Sentai was a fighter unit using its forward armament.

The difficulties of aiming a manually operated gun from a moving platform certainly make aimed fire at the radiator of an attacker impractical, and while the perception of any hits at all, effective or not, often (but not always) would make the attacker break off his attacks, I have read plenty of accounts showing that a hit in the radiator was only noticed by a pilot when the temperature gauge showed the engine was boiling.

That might lead to a "quick" end, but the dive bomber might have gone down as result of the continued attack all the same.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Glider]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Glider,

>To have the level of protection your hinting at, the Armour on a Ju87 Radiator would dwarf that on an Il2, loads of which were shot down my 20mm. Not likely.

I've got a Pilot Press cutaway of the Il-2 here that indicates a thickness of 6 mm for the Il-2 cowl armour, which encloses the Stormovik's radiator. The Ju 87D-3 cutaway in Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe" shows 8 mm ventral armour beneath the oil reservoir, and an unspecified thickness of armour for the radiator.

If you found out that thickness figure, please share it with us. If you didn't, well - difficult to make reliable statements on something you don't know.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

True as ever to a degree, but seeing as the 20mm would penetrate 19mm or armour at 400 yards at a deflection of 20 degrees, the bsis of my assumption is not unreasonable. Obviously if the range was closer or the angle less it would penetrate a lot more.
Your implication that the radiator still may survive this sort of fire made me smile.
I have this vision of a formation of Radiators flying along, imune to shell and shot with barely a scratch on the paintwork. The rest of the aircraft is of course shot to hell but never mind, the radiators carry on regardless.

[HoHun]

Hi Glider,

>the 20mm would penetrate 19mm or armour at 400 yards at a deflection of 20 degrees

Hm, which 20 mm, and which 20 degrees?

>Your implication that the radiator still may survive this sort of fire made me smile.

I implied and am ready to say explicitely that not every hit is going to penetrate. High-explosive incendiary and steel "ball" rounds, which made up a fair share of the belting for the British Hispano cannon, don't have the penetration of armour-piercing rounds.

And if you look at a typical armour protection diagram, for example that of the Wildcat that is praised in this thread as particularly rugged, you'll find that the cones of protection are remarkably small. The Wildcat is protected against rifle-calibre rounds in a 12 degree angle above, 40 degree below if you accept that the pilot's legs and thighs can be hit, but only 12 degree below if you mean to protect them, and 15 degree to either side. The vertical angles are even smaller for protection against 12.7 mm rounds.

Still, that bit of armour protection made a big difference in combat.

>I have this vision of a formation of Radiators flying along, imune to shell and shot with barely a scratch on the paintwork. The rest of the aircraft is of course shot to hell but never mind, the radiators carry on regardless.

Excellent picture - now imagine the same shot-to-hell aircraft with a happily purring radial engine in front. That's the radial's "big" survivability advantage ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Nikademus,

I haven't seen any proof that the Battle of Britain Stukas were armoured, so where did you find this bit of information?

Hi HH,

I havn't seen any proof that they wern't. . Recall I asked you when you suggested they might not be. I did a little digging and found this site indicating that they were. The discussion then moved on to the question of how much "better" protected the D varient might be over the B varient.

The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka.

Remember I replied to your comment on Japanese pilots knowing how to hit effectively with cannon. You'd not get the account of the pilot who had been hit effectively because he would not come back to tell about it.

I don't see how you can claim such a thing. It is fully possible to "effectively" target (i.e. "hit") a plane and not have it become an automatic kill.

Oh well, my general impression from many internet discussions is actually that this is a conception usually born from poor understanding of the laws of statistics, and for some people perhaps from a refusal to part with their toy theories when they discover they are not supported by facts. Better to shoot the messenger

lol. Maybe. My general impression, also from many many years of Internet discussions is that Statistics are a most popular course of action because they can be manipulated and interpreted in many ways to support whatever argument is currently being forwarded. Being 'statistics' (i.e. "data") they carry an automatic air of authority. Another way of putting it was a statement recently made from one of my professors when the subject of statistics came up; "Statistics don't lie....people lie using statistics" Point being here, that in the end as with any other form of "fact", interpretation and point of context are key. I don't discount statistics. But I take them with a grain of salt. Especially when they are bandied around during a political debate.

Here is the data on the B-17 vs. B-24:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...tml#post293977 (Hardest plane to take down in WW2?)

Ah yes....seen it. Big thread. Can you point me directly to where it shows the B-24 to be more survivable than the B-17? I really don't feel like rereading the whole thing.

Note that the statistics do in fact point towards a greater survivability of the B-24, but not necessarily towards a greater "ruggedness" as the B-24 has different performance charactistics from the B-17. All we can say is that in the end, fewer B-24s were lost per sortie than B-17s. (If we mean to discuss this in depth, I suggest we continue it over in the original thread to keep things organized

Indeed. Believe I already made some counter-arguments on that theory on that thread. I'll leave them there.

Back to the Football game

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Nikademus,

I was commenting on the effectiveness of the rearward armament of a dive bomber, and as far as I can tell the 64th Sentai was a fighter unit using its forward armament.
The difficulties of aiming a manually operated gun from a moving platform certainly make aimed fire at the radiator of an attacker impractical, and while the perception of any hits at all, effective or not, often (but not always) would make the attacker break off his attacks, I have read plenty of accounts showing that a hit in the radiator was only noticed by a pilot when the temperature gauge showed the engine was boiling.

Hello,

I have read numerous accounts as well, where the pilot, whether hit from behind/angle from a fighter or from a rear gunner, immediately knew when he took a hit in the engine/coolant system. Hence my comment that yes, there are times when the effect is immediately felt and the attack stopped in it's tracks.

That might lead to a "quick" end, but the dive bomber might have gone down as result of the continued attack all the same.

In some cases, but not all cases.

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by JoeB

1. The VGF-29 pilot was Lt.jg George Trumpter; the loss seems operational from the description in Lambert "Wildcats Over Casablanca", left his formation after takeoff with oil leak, failed to return (to USS Santee). Since there were no known encounters with French fighters in the Southern Task Force's area, (and none mentioned in Mordal's account from the French side), it seems speculative of Shores to add that one. Especially considering again that among the other 6 there's doubt about the cause of three already: Mikronis (AA according to him, though during an air combat), August and Connor.

Hi Joe,

Yes, it is speculation in part. Shores writes it as such (i.e. "possible") Per this source the transmission from the pilot (It might have been Trumpter or not) the statement was that his line was "cut", not that he had a leak. It seems strange to me that if he had a leak from the beginning that he wouldn't have immediately aborted his mission. Another wrinkle is that Shores states another pilot of the flight went down in a operational loss at sea. This might have been a reference to Trumpter.

Either way.....I certainly don't have a problem with the estimated loss being 6 as opposed to 7 F4F's. I included it though because the author felt it was possible. The French pilots made a number of claims (as do all pilots) anytime no connection can be made i discount them but if the author feels a poss exists, i'll at least notate it as possible.

2. Foillot's loss was the one which matches the uncredited claim of VGF-26 at Port Lyautey I mentioned in the next paragraph. For Hawks I have a Squadron Signal book by Shores summarizing 6 lost (+5 'damaged') in first combat 4 in second. Do you get the details from "L'Aviation Vichy au Combat' or yet something else he wrote?

Something else; Fighters over Tunisia by Shores, Ring and Hess. (1975)

I'm on the minutiae level well off topic I know , but seems to me a straight down the middle analysis would count a likely maximum of 6 F4F's, and having taken the maximum there, wouldn't then split hairs by not counting French planes whose pilots crashed in accidents during combat, bellied, etc, so would come out a few higher than 11. Shores is one of the greats, but I question that particular accounting.

that kill (and possible another i'll add) could be called into question. Its rare when 2 different sources agree completely. One must also use their own judgement as well. As mentioned, i included it because the author specifically wrote that he felt it was "possible" a kill took place. But if someone wants to say its 6 vs. 7. I don't have an issue with it. It doesn't disturb the conclusions i've made thus far on WWII air combat on a day to day basis.

[HoHun]

Hi Nikademus,

>I havn't seen any proof that they wern't. . Recall I asked you when you suggested they might not be. I did a little digging and found this site indicating that they were. The discussion then moved on to the question of how much "better" protected the D varient might be over the B varient.

The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka.

Hm, I found this post by you:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...tml#post308745 (Ju-87 Stuka vulnerability to fighter attack)

Notice you mentioned "one online source" without a URL, and an armour increase for ground-attack aircraft. As we were talking about dive bombers, I didn't think it was necessary to consider that, especially as I had pointed out the existence of an armoured version in the post I made directly before.

With regard to the armour status, I visited a friend today who has a well-stacked aviation library and asked him for information on the Stuka armour status. No final answer, but he had "Das geheime Typenbuch der deutschen Luftwaffe" by Manfred Griehl, which contains reproductions of the Flugzeug-Baureihen-Buch of the RLM, and it had very brief descriptions of the Ju 87 variants:

Ju 87A-1: "Ohne Panzerung"
Ju 87B-1: "Ohne Panzerung"
Ju 87B-2: "Ausführung ohne Panzerung läuft aus"
Ju 87D-3: "mit zusätzlicher Grundpanzerung"
Ju 87D-8: "wie Ju 87D-5 (Ausführung ohne Rüstsatzpanzerung)"
Ju 87R-1: "Mit und ohne Panzerung"

More variants are listed, but with no reference to armour.

("Ohne Panzerung" means "without armour". "Ausführung ohne Panzerung läuft aus" means "variant without armour is being phased out from the production line". "Mit zusätzlicher Grundpanzerung" means "with additional basic armour". "Wie Ju 87D-5 (Ausführung ohne Rüstsatzpanzerung)" means "like Ju 87D-5 (variant without equipment kit armour)". "Mit und ohne Panzerung" means "with and without armour".

>I don't see how you can claim such a thing. It is fully possible to "effectively" target (i.e. "hit") a plane and not have it become an automatic kill.

Well, depends on the definition of "effective". My point is that you only see part of the total hits because someone inevitably will fail to return, so it's difficult to judge the effectiveness of the attacking fighter pilots from looking at the planes that returned, even if they were holed.

>My general impression, also from many many years of Internet discussions is that Statistics are a most popular course of action because they can be manipulated and interpreted in many ways to support whatever argument is currently being forwarded.

Guess you are a burned child because of that Sherman-vs.-Tiger thread Interpretation of statistics may be difficult, but without any data at all, everything is open to imagination.

>Can you point me directly to where it shows the B-24 to be more survivable than the B-17?

It's a direct link to the relevant post - maybe it takes a while to load completely before jumping to the right position. I have switched off signature blocks, so maybe my load times are faster ...

>Believe I already made some counter-arguments on that theory on that thread.

Hm, I found comments you made on Koolkitty's posts, but not on mine. Perhaps you could post a direct link?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Glider]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Glider,

>the 20mm would penetrate 19mm or armour at 400 yards at a deflection of 20 degrees

Hm, which 20 mm, and which 20 degrees?

British Hispano II and its 20 degrees from angle of impact

>Your implication that the radiator still may survive this sort of fire made me smile.

I implied and am ready to say explicitely that not every hit is going to penetrate. High-explosive incendiary and steel "ball" rounds, which made up a fair share of the belting for the British Hispano cannon, don't have the penetration of armour-piercing rounds.

And I wouldn't disagree with you. Ball penetrated 9mm of armour at 400 yards at 20 degrees from angle of impact, HE obviously wouldn't

>I have this vision of a formation of Radiators flying along, imune to shell and shot with barely a scratch on the paintwork. The rest of the aircraft is of course shot to hell but never mind, the radiators carry on regardless.

Excellent picture - now imagine the same shot-to-hell aircraft with a happily purring radial engine in front. That's the radial's "big" survivability advantage ...

Again I totally agree. There is less of a target area on a Radial as the cooling system is mostly behind the engine. On an in line, the radiator is out in the open ready to be hit.