| Stuka - overrated?
Did any of you read Ad Harvey's article in BBC History magazine this month; a revisionist view of the Ju87 Stuka?
He basically says that their contribution to the Blitzkriegs in Poland, France and the Soviet Union were much exaggerated by Nazi propagandists; that level bombers were better at bombing and the Henschel 123 biplane better at harrassing troops. Its success later in the hands of Rudel etc was as a cannon-armed anti-tank aircraft rather than a dive-bomber.
Statistically, all that could very well be true. But what I find difficult to swallow is his assertion that: "Dive-bombing was less accurate than conventional bombing from altitudes of less than 10,000 feet"
Surely the whole point of the dive-bomber was its accuracy. The United States Navy pioneered the concept, and Luftwaffe observers of tests were impressed. Would either have continued with the concept without evidence of efficacy? Harvey quotes the sinking of Konigsberg, Gurkha, & Marat as examples of several successful attacks by dive-bombers on ships, requiring great accuracy. Later in the war there was the crippling of Illustrious, the hits on the Tirpitz by Barracudas in the dive-bombing role, and of course any number of such attacks in the Pacific and Mediterranean. Is the key to what he says the 10,000 feet issue - did it take that height for a dive-bomber to stablise in a dive? |