Ju87 opinion

[InProgress]

..from the author of controversial topic about il-2 community opinion.. :D

 

Well I was looking at statistics of WoL server and did not everyone's favorite planes is not ju87*. Most people fly bigger bombers because you can have more bombs and you have more guns to protect yourself. Because of it stuka is not that popular in multiplayer.

 

In my humble opinion ju87 should get some stuff that would make it better and worth using. Mostly people just drop big bomb and destroy factories, horizontal bombing is ad accurate as dive bombing and safer.. :/ why not add targets that could be destroyed by direct hit only, some bunkiers for example. (I know tanks, but it's something for cannons mostly) also find it weird, I am not bomb specialist but if 500kg would explode like 2m from tank should not it be destroyed? Because tanks seem only to be destroyed by direct hit.

 

Also another thing that would be great is making siren useful. It was suppose to bring terror but now it only takes 12km/h of speed. It would be nice to make ground forces scared of it, when you dive they would stop trucks and run away, AAA would do the same, it could be random, sometimes they could run, sometimes their aim would be worst due to stress etc.

 

I guess that would be nice addition, il2 just got amazing little bombs that can be carried in over 200 :o would be nice to make some cool ju87 stuff as well.

 

*I did not see stats of every player, just first few pages.

Edited May 27, 2017 by InProgress

[BlackHellHound1]

IRL the stuka was a formidable weapon platform. However, it could only achieve its full effectiveness in situations with certain operational peramiters:

 

Fighter cover had to be profitioned so that the stuka's would be mostly save from enemy planes

Pilots has to be well trained in the art of divebombing. Something which only comes with experiance. 

An effective attack plan had to be designed to give the pilots time to climb and a "save" route back home.

 

It is extremely rare that all these conditions are met. In situations where these conditions are not met, it is easier to fly with a larger plane like the 110, 88 or 111. 

 

The Ju-87 is a plane that can be much more efficeient and effective then any of the other german planes. But it also a plane that requires lots of training, practice and skill to become effective.

 

I do not find it strange that the stuka is a plane less used. But I do agree that the targets need to be tailored a bit more to allow the stuka to show its potential. 

I have noticed that on TAW the stuka can be more effective than the 110 or 88 but even then it is only because of the 37mm guns. 

 

On WoL especially the stuka is useless, all targets are bunched up and close groups of buildings. For these targets, a single big bomb simply does more damage...

 

Hopefully some more targets will be improved to make the stuka more useful. 

 

BlackHellHound1

 

[Finkeren]

WoL could probably benefit from more moving ground targets, which the Stuka is better suited to take out.

 

As for HE bombs' ability to destroy tanks. This has been a hotly debated topic before. I'm on the side that thinks, that BoX more or less gets it right (obviously a 500kg bomb going off just 2m from a tank would be lethal - but just 5-6m is enough distance for both tank and crew surviving)

 

Basically a tank protects its crew really well against all effects of a close proximity explosion but is very vulnerable to direct hits with large amounts of HE. I think the sim models this quite well.

[InProgress]

@BlackHellHound1

 

I have seen interviews with stuka pilot, it did not really need escort, it was good yes but not always needed. Big group of ju87 in formations, from what I remember some were high and some below them could protect them from enemy, also it was great against ships, which is my favorite thing to do, sinking them :]

 

@Finkeren

Like I said, I am not expert on that, but if it could destroy buildings I think bomb even 5m away could at least kill crew, but I really don't know, just my opinion. Would be nice to know more about it.

 

 

Well found this topic:

https://forum.axishistory.com//viewtopic.php?t=167142

 

So if bombs fall within 25m then it really would not do much, but 5m should do some damage, tracks for example, maybe kill crew or wound them if it was 500kg and tank was light or medium.

 

That only means it really need some targets stuka could bomb, not only concentrations of buildings that are bigger bombers targets.

 

On the other hand 500kg or 250kg feels like a waste for 1 tank, it's more like a job for cannons, especially when bombs will miss mostly, direct hit is more luck than skill. Especially if it's moving tank.

Edited May 27, 2017 by InProgress

[Finkeren]

High explosives are really good at knocking down buildings but are surprisingly bad at killing people. In general, when a bomb goes off, people are killed by shrapnel or by having falling buildings land on top of them, not by blast overpressure. A blast overpressure that can cause wooden buildings to collapse won't even rupture the eardrums of people standing next to it.

 

 

The potential lethal range of the overpressure from s 1000lbs TNT-equivalent explosion is just 28m for a completely unprotected individual (that individual will normally be shredded by shrapnel at much longer distances anyway)

 

Inside a tank the crew are almost completely immune to the effects of shrapnel and most collapsing buildings, and if hatches are closed, they are fairly well protected against overpressure as well. A tank escaping a 500kg bomb at 5-6m distance is fairly likely, though obviously the crew inside would not be having a good time, probably being half-deaf and having had their heads knocked against something.

[HandyNasty]

I would say give the stuka the D-5 'modification', which swaps the 2 machine guns for two 20mm's, which would be available for missions in the appropriate timeframe (more BoK than BoS afaik - not sure on that). Would make it better at strafing and better able to defend itself.

 

Although that seems a straightforward implementation, I just read on wikipedia that the D-5 has longer wings, and thus there would have to be a recalculation of the flight aspects, slightly new visual model etcetc; more work than just the simple armament swap

 

 

The Ju 87 D-5 was based on the D-3 design and was unique in the Ju 87 series as it had wings 0.6 metres (2-feet) longer than previous variants. The two 7.92 mm MG 17 wing guns were exchanged for more powerful 20 mm MG 151/20s to better suit the aircraft's ground-attack role. - wikipedia stuka page

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well found this topic:

https://forum.axishistory.com//viewtopic.php?t=167142

 

So if bombs fall within 25m then it really would not do much, but 5m should do some damage, tracks for example, maybe kill crew or wound them if it was 500kg and tank was light or medium.

 

That only means it really need some targets stuka could bomb, not only concentrations of buildings that are bigger bombers targets.

 

On the other hand 500kg or 250kg feels like a waste for 1 tank, it's more like a job for cannons, especially when bombs will miss mostly, direct hit is more luck than skill. Especially if it's moving tank.

 

Tanks are not the ideal target for Stukas but neverthanless it's clear that attacking tanks ingame is more difficult than it should be (simplified damage model + lack of terra forming technology). Light tanks could be turned ouver by the blast or fall into the blast crater and get stuck rendering it out of action which is not really possible ingame.

 

Ships, bunkers, bridges, ect...thats targets favouring the use of a precise dive bomber without a giant payload. Only few servers bother usign them though because mission designers seem to be obsessed with largely clustered and well defended target areas.

[Monostripezebra]

designers seem to be obsessed with largely clustered and well defended target areas.

 

psssst! all the big bomb heinkel fanboys will be after you, if you keep saying the obvious secret!! ;=)

Edited May 28, 2017 by Monostripezebra

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

psssst! all the big bomb heinkel fanboys will be after you, if you keep saying the obvious secret!! ;=)

Fricking designers cluster all the targets together, then they disable all our heaviest munitions rather than spread the targets out.

[InProgress]

@6./ZG26_5tuka

If that's not possible then maybe it would be considered as destroyed tanks, it would have destroyed tracks and would just stay there but counts as kill. No need to flip them if it's not possible.

 

Yeaa bridges aren't that often but it's fun to bomb them, would be nice if columns could drive there so 1 bomb and tanks would also sink  same ships, quite rare but also fun to bomb, shame you dont get any score for them :/

 

and now when russians got their little anti tank bombs it's going be even harder with tanks.. (for germans)

Edited May 28, 2017 by InProgress

[Lusekofte]

 

 

As for HE bombs' ability to destroy tanks. This has been a hotly debated topic before. I'm on the side that thinks, that BoX more or less gets it right (obviously a 500kg bomb going off just 2m from a tank would be lethal - but just 5-6m is enough distance for both tank and crew surviving)

 

 

The effect of a bomb in real life was largly depending on what ground it landed on, soft or hard. The effect was verry different, in terms of distance to target and damage

[Finkeren]

 

 

The effect of a bomb in real life was largly depending on what ground it landed on, soft or hard. The effect was verry different, in terms of distance to target and damage

Obviously. Still doesn't change the fact, that bombs are only able ti disable tanks at very short ranges of just a few meters, even for large bombs.

[InProgress]

 

Although that seems a straightforward implementation, I just read on wikipedia that the D-5 has longer wings, and thus there would have to be a recalculation of the flight aspects, slightly new visual model etc

 

 

Actually ju87 D5 got new engine Jumo 213 so they did not make them with longer wings anymore. Stuka with Jumo 211P or Jumo 211J-1 had longer wings, but 213 did not need that. So no need to make longer wings if we would get better engine.

 

Also some D3 versions got MG 151/20 with 2x 180 bullets. Would be nice to get this as optional mod.

Edited May 28, 2017 by InProgress

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Actually ju87 D5 got new engine Jumo 213 so they did not make them with longer wings anymore. Stuka with Jumo 211P or Jumo 211J-1 had longer wings, but 213 did not need that. So no need to make longer wings if we would get better engine.

 

Also some D3 versions got MG 151/20 with 2x 180 bullets. Would be nice to get this as optional mod.

Sources Please?

[JtD]

Actually the Ju87D-5 was equipped with MG151/20, a larger wing span and powered by the same Jumo211J that powered the D-3 before.

 

I don't know where you found the information you shared above, but please make sure you destroy the source, it's all wrong.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The current Ju87D-3 is highly capable when it comes to dropping bombs on target. Even if the largest of them are disabled, the smaller payloads are somewhat more efficient in my mind because you get to target higher and faster and you can still do a lot of fairly precisely placed damage.

 

The problem is more that many folks either want to see a lot of big booms and take a larger bomber (not unappealing ) and that many are unpracticed in the art of dive bombing. Also the Stuka is highly vulnerable to interception by fighters. Those MG81Z are pretty good if they approach badly... but otherwise you're in a lot of trouble without escort.

[InProgress]

Well if i am wrong then it does not matter then, at least i was corrected  I read about that in some article that in 1943 they used 213. For the guns i dont know, maybe it was just something they would change in hangar if they had some 151/20 but it was not build that way. 

 

@ShamrockOneFive

Yeaa.. I guess what could solve this problems is adding more targets like bridges or making bunkers where it's better to take 250 and 4x 70 and drop it all there than one 500. I did not mean that stukas could fly alone and take 100 spitfires alone I mean if there is for example 3x 3x 3x stukas then it's not an easy target for fighters as well, of course if there will be let's say 6 or more then ju87 could be in trouble. It's all about numbers :]

[Guest deleted@83466]

My opinion of Stukas:  The role of the JU-87 is to act as bait for the fighter pilots, while making scary siren sounds.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Ju 87s never were fitted with the Jumo 213 (it was predominntly used for the Fw 190 Dora series). They were all fitted with variants of the Jumo 211.

 

The Ju 87 D-5 was fitted with the same Jumo 211J as the D-3 but had an increased wingspan to improve flight characteristics (which the D-3 was criticized for by it's pilots). That and the slightly increased weight also made it a bit slower.

 

The jumo 211 P is said to have only been fitted to selective machines converted into D-7 and D-8 nightbombers. Other additions to these aircraft like exhaust mufflers meant this increase in engine power had neglible effect on performence.

[InProgress]

What do you think about butterfly bombs? not as good as IL2 little anti tank bomhs but that could also be nice, especially if you set fuse to explode when touched. Imagine enemy taking off and wheel touches it ^^ boom planes broken. Could be nice for light vehicles or artillery/aaa guns with time fuse or on impact.

 

SD2/4

I hope when they will move to pacific we can still get at least premium planes for ostfront, would buy D5 with pleasure.

Edited May 28, 2017 by InProgress

[BMA_Hellbender]

The Stuka was a blitzkrieg weapon, perhaps the blitzkrieg weapon along with the light Panzer.

 

What it achieved historically in terms of sheer psychological warfare is difficult to simulate in a flightsim. It's akin to Hannibal's war elephants. Embarrassingly impractical in actual combat, but bring a few of them across the Alps on your front lines and the average Roman soldier who's never in his life seen anything bigger than a horse will positively crap himself. By the time they've figured out how easy it is to make them run amok, the war should be over. In theory.

 

As for the Stuka and its actual use as a divebomber, it's best kept to anti-shipping operations, as the Americans and Japanese had correctly deduced.

[Wulf]

The Stuka was a blitzkrieg weapon, perhaps the blitzkrieg weapon along with the light Panzer.

 

What it achieved historically in terms of sheer psychological warfare is difficult to simulate in a flightsim. It's akin to Hannibal's war elephants. Embarrassingly impractical in actual combat, but bring a few of them across the Alps on your front lines and the average Roman soldier who's never in his life seen anything bigger than a horse will positively crap himself. By the time they've figured out how easy it is to make them run amok, the war should be over. In theory.

 

As for the Stuka and its actual use as a divebomber, it's best kept to anti-shipping operations, as the Americans and Japanese had correctly deduced.

 

 

The so-called "Blitzkrieg" is largely propaganda fabricated by the Allies, in haste, in an attempt to disguise their own military incompetence.  The Ju 87 was an adequate, at best, tactical ground support aircraft, much like all of the other bombers the Germans utilized throughout the War.  Good enough in the opening stages of the War but only so in the absence of adequate defensive counter-measures.  In simple terms the Ju 87 was nothing more than a logical extension of the same tactical innovation the Germans employed during WW1; firstly with heavy artillery and then artillery in combination with ground attack aircraft and assault troops.  The fact that these German combined arms tactics were so successful in the early stages of the War had far more to do with the way the Germans structured and organized themselves and much less to do with the weapons they had available to them.  The so-called "light panzers" you mention were in fact little more than a joke.  The British, and the French in particular, had much better tanks at the outset of the Battle of France but had neither the organization nor the will to use them effectively.  Instead of doing the honorable thing and taking responsibility for their own incompetent bungling and lack of intestinal fortitude in the face of a determined enemy, the western Allies fabricated a myth called 'Blitzkreig'.  

 

Much the same can be said about  the opening stages of the war in the East.  Soviet military incompetence, as it turned out, was even worse than western military incompetence.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Wulf

[BMA_Hellbender]

The so-called "Blitzkrieg" is largely propaganda fabricated by the Allies, in haste, in an attempt to disguise their own military incompetence.  The Ju 87 was an adequate, at best, tactical ground support aircraft, much like all of the other bombers the Germans utilized throughout the War.  Good enough in the opening stages of the War but only so in the absence of adequate defensive counter-measures.  In simple terms the Ju 87 was nothing more than a logical extension of the same tactical innovation the Germans employed during WW1; firstly with heavy artillery and then artillery in combination with ground attack aircraft and assault troops.  The fact that these German combined arms tactics were so successful in the early stages of the War had far more to do with the way the Germans structured and organized themselves and much less to do with the weapons they had available to them.  The so-called "light panzers" you mention were in fact little more than a joke.  The British, and the French in particular, had much better tanks at the outset of the Battle of France but had neither the organization nor the will to use them effectively.  Instead of doing the honorable thing and taking responsibility for their own incompetent bungling and lack of intestinal fortitude in the face of a determined enemy, the western Allies fabricated a myth called 'Blitzkreig'.  

 

Much the same can be said about  the opening stages of the war in the East.  Soviet military incompetence, as it turned out, was even worse than western military incompetence.

 

History is certainly written by the victors, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Blitzkrieg as an Allied fabrication.

 

The French were certainly prepared to fight and win another defensive trench war, and indeed had the better tanks - they just didn't have the numbers, nor the mobility. One of the better examples of so-called Lightning War was the Battle of Fort Eben-Emael during the invasion of Belgium, where German paratroopers used gliders to disable one of the most heavily fortified positions in the world. This was an entirely new concept of warfare. The fact that the German invasion force also managed to take so many bridges without defenders being able to blow them up first, through sheer speed and the disarming of explosive charges, is a credit to the type of unconventional warfare that was being practised. In many ways, the Great War was the last great conventional conflict, the war to end all wars, while the Second World War was the first modern conflict, a lightning war and a total war, and every conflict ever since has been built upon this doctrine, including the Pacific War and the American island hopping strategy.

 

As for the Eastern front and price of winning it for the Soviets, well, the numbers speak for themselves:

 

 

http://www.fallen.io/ww2/

[Finkeren]

What is termed "Blitzkrieg" was essentially a huge gamble by the German high command born out of necessity, because the Germans needed to bypass most of the French Army to have any chance of success in 1940.

 

It only became a standardized doctrine after the fact, and in reality it is little more than a slightly altered version of the Soviet doctrine of "deep battle" that was developed in the early 1930s, but which the Red Army only got really good at themselves by 1944.

[JtD]

The Germans also fielded armed forces they knew they were unable to sustain in case of a prolonged war, and from that arose the necessity to win any major campaigns within a short time span.

 

Interestingly, the Ju87 was planned to be phased out of production in 1939/1940, and it appears that the success of the aircraft in the Poland campaign had a major influence on the decision to not convert the manufacturing plant to another type. Possibly another factor was the lack of production of the Ju88 at that time, which was supposed to replace it. The Ju88 program didn't get going until well into 1940, and it's pretty hard to fight a war without any tactical support aircraft in production.

[Wulf]

What is termed "Blitzkrieg" was essentially a huge gamble by the German high command born out of necessity, because the Germans needed to bypass most of the French Army to have any chance of success in 1940.

 

It only became a standardized doctrine after the fact, and in reality it is little more than a slightly altered version of the Soviet doctrine of "deep battle" that was developed in the early 1930s, but which the Red Army only got really good at themselves by 1944.

 

 

The Germans had initially intended to start the assault on France essentially where they left off in 1918.  However, when it became apparent that their battle plans had inadvertently fallen into French hands (as the result of a plane crash) a 'Plan B' became necessary.   At this stage of the War, no Plan B even existed.  Because the French (and British) were also expecting the Germans to attack through Belgium, as they had done previously, they advanced their forces towards the Dyle River (in Belgium) to block the anticipated invasion route.  This response to a German invasion had been planned for some time.  When it became apparent that the German main thrust was coming behind their deployments, via the Ardennes, the French military and civilian establishment essentially panicked.  Once the French made the decision to throw in the towel (which they did in pretty short order) the BEF's deployment in France became untenable. 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Wulf

[Wulf]

History is certainly written by the victors, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Blitzkrieg as an Allied fabrication.

 

The French were certainly prepared to fight and win another defensive trench war, and indeed had the better tanks - they just didn't have the numbers, nor the mobility. One of the better examples of so-called Lightning War was the Battle of Fort Eben-Emael during the invasion of Belgium, where German paratroopers used gliders to disable one of the most heavily fortified positions in the world. This was an entirely new concept of warfare. The fact that the German invasion force also managed to take so many bridges without defenders being able to blow them up first, through sheer speed and the disarming of explosive charges, is a credit to the type of unconventional warfare that was being practised. In many ways, the Great War was the last great conventional conflict, the war to end all wars, while the Second World War was the first modern conflict, a lightning war and a total war, and every conflict ever since has been built upon this doctrine, including the Pacific War and the American island hopping strategy.

 

As for the Eastern front and price of winning it for the Soviets, well, the numbers speak for themselves:

 

 

http://www.fallen.io/ww2/

 

 

The French had a larger army and air force than the Germans in 1940.

[unreasonable]

The French had a larger army and air force than the Germans in 1940.

 

I think not:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France  - if this is incorrect please share sources. 

 

The Allies combined had more tanks and guns, but fewer aircraft and about the same number of men overall deployed in the theatre.  Remember that in 1940 the population of Metropolitan France was only half that of Germany.

 

The Germans were much better organized, plus of course they had already had the experience of invading Poland to work up their systems.  

 

To the extent that "Blitzkrieg" was a propaganda fabrication, however, it was largely a German one. 

[Wulf]

I think not:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France  - if this is incorrect please share sources. 

 

The Allies combined had more tanks and guns, but fewer aircraft and about the same number of men overall deployed in the theatre.  Remember that in 1940 the population of Metropolitan France was only half that of Germany.

 

The Germans were much better organized, plus of course they had already had the experience of invading Poland to work up their systems.  

 

To the extent that "Blitzkrieg" was a propaganda fabrication, however, it was largely a German one. 

 

 

This all depends on how you want to slice the stats and which numbers you're actually including (or not) in the count.  Ultimately it's misleading and futile.  It's like saying the War against the Germans cost the Soviets  X million inhabitants.  True, millions and millions.  But how many were lost through Stalin's decision to force the relocation of entire populations, because of the relocation of industry, because of the Soviet scorched-earth policies that left millions of their own citizens to starve to death in the face of the German onslaught.

 

The question here is whether the Germans really brought sometime revolutionary to the battlefield in 1939-40 (i.e. Blitzkrieg) or whether they simply came to the table with what were essentially the same, if tarted-up tactics, they'd developed before the end of the previous war (i.e. combined arms tactics).    With what the western allies had available to them in terms of men and equipment in 1940, could they have been reasonably expected to hold out against the German offensive or were they faced with weaponry and tactical innovations of such magnitude that they were effectively powerless to resist?  If you want the answer to that question, just compare the tanks fielded by the Germans and French in 1940.  By far the most numerous German tanks were the Mk 1 and IIs.  The Mk I (the most numerous of all of the German tanks) was little more than an under-powered machine gun carrier.  The Mk II was hardly much better and fielded a 20 mm main gun of all things.  Heinz  Guderian, Germany's foremost tank expert at the time had characterized the two vehicle types as being "unsuitable for combat".  This was demonstrated, in the case of the Mk I, during the Spanish Civil War and, in the case of the Mk II, during the conflict in Poland where it was found to be of little or no use in tank on tank engagements. The Mk III, if it had been produced to the original spec, (and in reasonable numbers) would have been pretty good but instead of producing it with the planned 50 mm HV main gun  the decision was taken to use the existing (and obsolete)  37mm instead.  As a consequence the vehicle was all but useless against the heavy tanks deployed by the French.  And to make matters worse, the standard German anti-tank gun of the period (the PAK 37) was also quite incapable of defeating the French heavy tanks.  The Mk IV, the biggest German tank used during the BoF was also of no help. Build as an infantry support vehicle and armed with a low velocity 75 mm it too couldn't take on the French heavy tanks and even if that had been possible, it existed in such low numbers at the time of the Battle as to be all but irrelevant.  These were the tanks that supposedly swept through France like an unstoppable force and brought the French Army to it's knees.

 

Now have a look at what the French had.  Now, it would take some time to describe them all but in short they had about 3000 or so tanks and in almost all respects they were qualitatively better than their period German counterparts.  Looking at the bigger vehicles, the B1 and B1 bis were both capable of destroying any German tank.   The Somua S35 armed with a 47 mm HV gun, was also capable of destroying any German tank of the period.  Although these tanks didn't exist in great numbers, they were at least as numerous as their German counterparts.

 

You say if the so-called Blitzkreig was propaganda it was largely German propaganda.  Not so.  The Germans didn't attribute their success in France to Blitzkreig.  They argued that it was largely a case of Nationalist Socialist zeal that turned the battle at decisive moments.  In some respects that probably isn't as unlikely as it might sound.  The Germans had something to prove in France.  They had never believed that they'd been defeated on the battlefield in WW 1 and they felt unjustly blamed for starting the First WW.  Also, it was the French in particular who went out of their way to punish the Germans through the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.  Is it any wonder that they went into France in 1940 with a certain level of underlying determination to redress the felt injustices of the past.  I don't think so.

 

 

Post script

 

So where did the Germans out perform their contemporaries on the battlefield, if their success during the early phase of the War couldn't be neatly explained away be superior weaponry and revolutionary tactics?  In short, leadership, at both the officer and NCO level.   The post WW1 German army (which was limited to just 100,000 men) placed most of it's emphasis on the selection and development of it's leadership cadre upon which any future expansion could be based.  

Edited May 30, 2017 by Wulf

[unreasonable]

Wulf, to a great extent I am agreeing with you, both the Allies and the Germans thought the Allies would resist much more effectively. French defensive strategy, political division and defeatism had a great deal to do with the loss of the battle.  There was a serious intelligence failure. And to a certain extent, the Germans just got lucky.  No-one expected the French divisions guarding the Meuse crossings to just run away after a being dive-bombed and suffering trivial casualties.  But you do not have to exaggerate the strength of the Allied forces in 1940 to make your point.

 

Again: the Allied tanks were not qualitatively better than German tanks in "almost all respects".  The French tanks with one man turrets were ergonomic nightmares, (as discussed in the thread "Was the T-34 a tank?"  ).  The British tanks were either armed with only a machine gun, or a good AT weapon (for the time) but without an HE shell.  The German light tanks might have been no use in tank vs tank engagements, but these are only a small part of what tanks do.  

 

You seem to be unaware that German doctrine at the time avoided tank on tank engagements except in the most favourable circumstances.  Tanks were to be defeated by AT guns, the tanks were there to break open infantry positions with their own infantry and artillery support and then exploit into the rear areas.  Rock-paper-scissors.  A PzKw II with an MG and a cannon is as much a mortal threat to infantry lacking a good AT weapon as a Panther. Once the front line was broken and the tanks were in among the support and logistics units the most important variable was speed and the ability to keep going without breaking down. It is true that the Chars gave the Germans a hard time: but they were ground down with flame throwers and satchel charges. The British Matildas gave the Germans a hard time too at Arras: but were eventually defeated by artillery and 88s. 

 

 "Blitzkreig" might have been coined by a Western journalist, but it encapsulates the novelty, speed and violence of combined arms offensives designed to penetrate enemy lines and isolate formations.  This was not a completely new concept, I agree, the British and French used combined arms tactics in WW1, while the Germans had used envelopment tactics in the Eastern front in the same war.  Everyone had experimented with it between the wars.  But the modern weapons were new, and in my view most importantly the ablity to get inside the Allied decision cycle.

 

Hence the appeal of the term. It was "Blitzkrieg" because the speed of planning and execution at all levels was much faster than the Allies could match at that stage of the war.

 

German public opinion was just as worried that the war would be another long blood-letting as everyone else, and the emphasis on tanks and air-power in German propaganda was Goebbels way of reassuring the German public that this time would be different.

[InProgress]

What it has to do with stuka? 

[PatrickAWlson]

Blitzkrieg was not a propaganda fabrication.  It was also not the brilliantly planned strategy that it is sometimes made out tobe.  It was a combination of older ideas married with new technology, plus new ideas, plus trial and error, plus some stumbling luck: "hey, that worked really well, let's keep doing it".  The lack of perfecr foresight does not mean that Blitzkrieg should be discredited as propaganda.

 

The idea that penetration tactics were thought of in WWI is absolutely true.  The problem with WWI was that the technology did not provide the mobility to take it to its logical conclusion.  In WWII the technology led to mobility, and that mobility allowed Blitzkrieg.  Did it work beyond Germany's wildest expectations?  Absolutely.  But give some credit to somebody - they recognized what they had and kept going.  

 

Blitzkrieg is what allowed the Germans to win despite technological inferiority.  Those glorified MG carriers were useless against tanks, but not against rear echelon troops, communications, and supply lines.  The whole idea was NOT to fight head to head with heavy enemy tanks, and it worked.  So yes, I would argue that the French and British were hit with something new and overwhelming.  Not new tactics, but tactics married to new mobility that allowed results  that were unimaginable 20 years earlier.  It wasn't about equipment or the courage of the French soldier.  Communications and command and control were completely disrupted.  Supply lines were critically threatened.  Not defeat by annihilation but defeat by mass confusion.

 

Now back to the Stuka (it actually does tie into Blitzkrieg ).  It was not about mass destruction.  It was about pinpoint tactical support.  Imagine that you have troops that you want to keep moving.  Imagine that they are held up by a few strong points.  Imagine that you had a weapon that could eliminate those strong points.  One would think that would be very valuable.  It was.

 

Stukas were the mobile artillery of the German army.  German artillery was largely horse drawn and rail dependent, just as it was 20 years earlier.  Stukas solved that problem, at least well enough for 1940. And that's what it has to do with Stukas

[Finkeren]

Pat said it.

 

The fact is, that we are using the Stuka in an environment, where historically it had already run into massive trouble because of its low survivability against fighter attacks and the fact that the Luftwaffe couldn't maintain air superiority (in 1942, that was still primarily due to inferior numbers).

 

Flying a Stuka shouldn't really be much less dangerous than flying an IL-2.

[Wulf]

So, if the question is, did the Germans win the Battle of France because they successfully used combined arms tactics to overwhelm the Allies the answer is, no.  The Germans won because the French allowed themselves to be panicked by a tactical set back.  That tactical set back arose because the Allies allowed the Germans to get behind their troop dispositions.   As Von Clausewitz once observed, mistakes in the initial disposition of forces are often difficult if not impossible to overcome.   However, there was no classic Fuller-like armoured penetration at Sedan.  In fact the penetration was largely achieved by  the infantry.  Tanks were involved, of course, but to suggest it was primarily an armoured breakout is just wrong.  And if the Germans had the same anti-aircraft defenses as the British and French, the German assault would have ended right there and then, but they didn't,  So what should have been a death trap for the German Army turned into a four-lane highway.  Could the Allies have recovered?  Quite possibly.  However, instead of remaining calm the French military and civil establishment lost the plot and capitulated.  

[unreasonable]

So, if the question is, did the Germans win the Battle of France because they successfully used combined arms tactics to overwhelm the Allies the answer is, no.  The Germans won because the French allowed themselves to be panicked by a tactical set back.  That tactical set back arose because the Allies allowed the Germans to get behind their troop dispositions.   As Von Clausewitz once observed, mistakes in the initial disposition of forces are often difficult if not impossible to overcome.   However, there was no classic Fuller-like armoured penetration at Sedan.  In fact the penetration was largely achieved by  the infantry.  Tanks were involved, of course, but to suggest it was primarily an armoured breakout is just wrong.  And if the Germans had the same anti-aircraft defenses as the British and French, the German assault would have ended right there and then, but they didn't,  So what should have been a death trap for the German Army turned into a four-lane highway.  Could the Allies have recovered?  Quite possibly.  However, instead of remaining calm the French military and civil establishment lost the plot and capitulated.  

 

This (bold) is incorrect.  As you say, and I stated elsewhere as a major criticism of the "How Russia stopped the Blitzkrieg" Video, the crossing of the Meuse was achieved by Infantry and Engineer units covered by air attacks - few tanks could get across until the day after the bridgehead was secured.  The infantry and engineers that did the job, however, were part of the Panzer divisions and the Panzer Corps. Ie a combined arms unit.  These units were all motorized (very few tracked at that time).  The break in was an opposed river crossing - of course this will be not led by tanks.  But to say that "the infantry did it" is potentially misleading. The distance from Bonn to Sedan is 283 km by road. This is just an indication of how long the approach march was to arrive opposite the crossing points. Un-motorized units could not have made that approach and deployment in much less than a week, perhaps even two.  The Germans invaded on May 10th - by the 14th they had tanks over the Meuse. Completely impossible for a non-mechanized unit, and it would probably have failed without the air support. (There is your Stuka relevance, OP ).

 

Once the bridgeheads had been secured by the infantry and engineers - the break in to the position - the  break out was led by tanks and recce armoured cars heading as fast as they could for deep targets, with motorized infantry following to mop up troublesome pockets of resistance. This is now considered to be perfectly standard combined-arms practice, but at the time was innovative. Foot infantry - had it been able to establish the bridgeheads a week later, might not have been able to break out at all, since the speed of their advance would be such that the Allied forces could have been redeployed. Sedan to Boulougne is 262 km in a straight line - the Germans reached the Channel thereabouts on the 20th of May and had to fight several battles to do it. Again completely impossible for the infantry divisions.

 

It is the speed at which the attacks unfolded that bamboozled the Allied commanders, and that speed was made possible by mechanization, crucially combined with command and control arrangements (and occasional initiatives bordering on insubordination) that made for much quicker planning and execution than either the French or British armies could match.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Stukas were the mobile artillery of the German army.  German artillery was largely horse drawn and rail dependent, just as it was 20 years earlier.  Stukas solved that problem, at least well enough for 1940. And that's what it has to do with Stukas

Yes, Stukas were also referred to as the "aerial artillery" especially in the early years of war for their close cooperation with ground forces in knocking out key positions and highly prioritized targets out of reach of conventional artillery. The compareable high accurancy meant that troops could call it in close to their own position without being cought by the blast.

 

That leads back to my earlier statement that due to the lack of such targets the effectiveness of Stukas in MP is severely limited.

[InProgress]

That's a great idea!! Making target close to friendly units so dropping 1000kg is not option, 250kg and 70kg to destroy some bunkier with mg etc. Something that cannot be destroyed by guns, because artillery for example, it's all over the place so bombs can't kill many but it's something that can be destroyed even by fighters. He will kill more with his guns than stuka bombing it.

 

Not sure if game has bunkers, it has shelter near airfields but would be nice to have actual bunkers with mg inside, AT guns behind sandbags etc

Edited May 30, 2017 by InProgress

[PatrickAWlson]

So, if the question is, did the Germans win the Battle of France because they successfully used combined arms tactics to overwhelm the Allies the answer is, no.  The Germans won because the French allowed themselves to be panicked by a tactical set back.  That tactical set back arose because the Allies allowed the Germans to get behind their troop dispositions.   As Von Clausewitz once observed, mistakes in the initial disposition of forces are often difficult if not impossible to overcome.   However, there was no classic Fuller-like armoured penetration at Sedan.  In fact the penetration was largely achieved by  the infantry.  Tanks were involved, of course, but to suggest it was primarily an armoured breakout is just wrong.  And if the Germans had the same anti-aircraft defenses as the British and French, the German assault would have ended right there and then, but they didn't,  So what should have been a death trap for the German Army turned into a four-lane highway.  Could the Allies have recovered?  Quite possibly.  However, instead of remaining calm the French military and civil establishment lost the plot and capitulated.  

 

Apologies if I am reading you wrong, but it seems to me that you are separating Blitzkrieg from its results.  I disagree.  It's kind of a circular set of cause and effect.  Combined armed tactics mated with unprecedented mobility allowed tactical successes.  That lead to destruction of command and control.  That lead to confusion among the generals  That lead to panic among the politicians.  That lead to ineffective resistance.  That lead to more successful attacks using combined armed tactics mated with unprecedented mobility.  Rinse, wash, repeat until the French have surrendered and the British are boarding anything that floats at Dunkirk.

 

All of the things that you suggest caused the Allied failure IMHO were the direct result of Blitzkrieg.  Blitzkrieg is why the French lost the plot.  The death trap that you speak of was never there, because the command and control required to spring that trap had been eliminated.  

 

If the allies had maintained effective C&C then yes, resources could have been marshalled, German thrusts cut at the root and WWII would have ended in German defeat in 1940.  But without effective C&C what you had was individual units cut off from each other, not knowing where the enemy was or wasn't, not knowing what to do next, and not in touch with anybody that could provide coherent direction.  

 

Back to the Stuka - it played a major role in keeping the whole thing moving at the pace needed to cause the destruction of allied C&C.

[Lusekofte]

That lead to destruction of command and control.

 

Yep this is blitz for you, There was no chance getting the orders out,and the staff got the news too late to give orders. And then the jokes about the French morale and bravery started to pop up.

 

Anyway What people bomb online is in many cases  based on stats. People tend to choose dense targets to get up to 100 targets (German bombers) in one blast and 50 on a PE 2. 

Bombing a bridge only give one target. Personally I think the stats on a online server ruin the gameplay more than it does good. 

I know many mission-builders are trying to make strategic bombing count for the progression on a mission ( test Coconut´s server) I think he is on to something that make it worth while to go for logistical targets

Edited May 30, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[InProgress]

I must agree with that unfortunately.. I like stats but at current state it kinds of ruin game. Like you said most people fly to bigger places and bomb it then got 150+ kills, more points, medals and better ranking and statistics while you bomb bridge and get around 4 "kills" that are worth nothing in score.

 

I know people should not fly for stats but well, many does. All I have in mind is to make targets that can be destroyed bombs only and spread so it wont be 1000kg bomb destroying everything + it should be worth way more in points on WoL website than bunched up buildings.

 

To be honest if there is bridge, train/station i always go for it (: more fun than buildings.

Edited May 30, 2017 by InProgress