This is the best dive bomber of the second world war. literally

The low effectiveness of the Luftwaffe at Dunkirk was ultimately one of the reasons why England could evacuate so many of their soldiers.

Well they escaped
And Stukas got massacred over Britain
Germany should've just scrapped Stuka production from the beginning and used the Bf 110 as fighter bombers from the start on
110 could carry 2 tons of bombs, was faster and had a longer range than the Stuka
And at least in the early war it wasn't totally defenseless against enemy fighters like the Stuka was

Their only real use by then was sinking ships. Which is why the SBD was the best dive bomber of ww2, because it accomplished the most to affect the outcome of battles.

It also shot down zeros then blew up their carriers.

Germans were terrible at developing multirole fighters. P-51, P-47, P-38, F6F, F4U, all could carry a shit ton of bombs and rockets, and be the best fighters of the war at the same time. (well maybe not the p38)

An excellent plane for what it was designed for: a precision dive bomber for use against strategic targets (ships, bridges, factories, etc). The problem is that it required an escort on nearly every mission, and the mission changed from hitting strategic targets to offensive/defensive anti-armor, which it was not very good at. There were exceptions (lookin at Mr Rudel) but on the whole there were other planes better suited for those roles. It was fairly obsolete in the second half of the war.

The real shame is that something like 6500 of these were built and, to date, there are something like 2 remaining intact airframes, and 0 airworthy Stukas.

Attached: 48675704-C360-43F5-B43F-2005327D9EA7.jpg (984x1500, 224K)

Bf 109 was simply too small
Fw 190 was a fine multirole fighter

>Fw 190 was a fine multirole fighter

You are joking right?

StuKa was my favorite plane in Bf1942

500kg of bombs, rockets could be fitted too
Not on the level of a P-47 which could carry 1 ton but still

youtube.com/watch?v=Wnlf3IK8a8I

Not so fast!

Attached: Aichi B7A Ryusei.png (1280x905, 731K)

>P-47 which could carry 1 ton
Most of the US fighters could carry 2k lbs of bombs or more, and the USA didn't have to make ground attack specific variants like the autistic germand did with the 190. The same F6F could be dropping 2 1k bombs on a jap airbase one day and flying CAP the next.

True multirole fighters are the way to go. Same pilots same, plane, same repair crews, same parts. Logistics are simpler etc.

Oh dear, video games again.

>modifying the plane so it can carry bombs = le German autism xD
cringe
agree with your post tho

You didn't even watch the video

Germany had to create a different production line for the F series 190.

That's retarded bro. There was no variant for the F6F, F4U, P-47, or P-51 made specifically to be better at ground attack.

>USA didn't have to make ground attack specific variants like the autistic germand
Fast forward a few decade later...

Attached: 800px-A-10_-_32156159151.jpg (799x543, 69K)

>(well maybe not the p38)
>Richard Bong. Major Richard “Ace of Aces” Bong was the highest scoring pilot in the US Air Force, with 40 kills recorded in battle against Japan. Bong scored all his kills in the twin engine Lockheed P 38 Lightning, making him the deadliest twin engine pilot in history.

p38 was fantastic.

This so much. Objectively the best.

Congress has had to save that thing from extinction more than once. The F-16 does it's job, better.

Scratch one flat top.

>p38 was fantastic.

Not int he ETO. Vs Jap garbage, it was great.

Attached: 1509457552273.jpg (221x250, 9K)

fpbp

All these American planes are younger than either the Bf 109 or the Fw 190 (both mid/late 1930s designs)
Before the war dedicated ground attack aircraft like the Ju 87 were seen as sufficient whereas the 109 and 190 were pure fighters
A fairer comparison would be the P-40 for America and the Hurricane/Spitfire for Britain
Also P-47 and P-51 were designed as long range escorts and thus had to be larger (bigger tanks, bigger range)

>Also P-47 and P-51 were designed as long range escorts

No, they were designed as multi-role from the start, and the FW-190 first flight was 1939.

Attached: 1280px-Fritz_X_Guided_Bomb.jpg (1280x853, 221K)

Are you an idiot?
This thing has been in service since world war 1.

Attached: download.jpeg.jpg (272x185, 6K)

Late 30s as I said, there was no combat experience available yet unlike at the start of P-47/P-51 development

Every US fighter had payload requirements. Even the P-40 was designed ground up as multirole. The USA just understood it's far easier to maintain one plane that does multiple roles than it is to maintain a dedicate dive bomber and dedicated fighters and interceptors etc.

The advantages you gain from having dedicated roles are lost when you can't produce as many, you have to have different pilots based on the planes, different training, different maintenance crews, different replacement parts etc.

It's a failed philosophy.

If Germany focused on building a proper fighter/bomber from the ground up with good range, they might have won the battle of Britain or at least had far more success in eastern front.

What's retarded about wanting a better ground attacker?
None of those US fighters had armor to protect them from heavier shells to belly. P-51's water cooling system was vulnerable to even .30cal.
Also some F4U variants were build for better ground attack capability.

Pretty sure the US had more (major) aircraft types deployed and used than the German air force
The US simply had the better designs and stronger (plus more secure) industry

>What's retarded about wanting a better ground attacker?

I've explained why multiple times in this thread, and it's also why multi-role continues to dominate today.

Why isn't the F-22 multi-role then?

it's a relict of the cold war (which is why production was ended after only 200 aircraft)

Which is why only 200 were built and it's mostly useless and why the airforce has had to shove bombs into it to make it useful. Thanks for the perfect example.

But didn't the US realize that true multirole fighters are the way to go since WWII?

I recall hearing they had the F-22 set up to drop bombs if needed.

True multi-roles dont' make as much $$$$$ for the military industrial complex.

Which is why they never last that long in service, except the A-10, which has been kept alive single highhandedly by John McCain.

Honestly, I wouldn't call the A-10 a multirole. It's a ground attacker through and through.

Today it's no issue to include ground attack capabilities to any fighters when they are already very expensive, though it's not so simple with pilots. In few exercises the Finish totally molested other Euro pilots. That was simply because Fins trained air to air a lot while the rest needed ground attack training to pound sandpeople. Flight hours are so expensive.
In WWII flight hours were of course so much cheaper, but it was still better to train separate guys for dedicated ground attack and high altitude fighting, specially if your country was running out of oil.
>The USA just understood it's far easier to maintain one plane that does multiple roles than it is to maintain a dedicate dive bomber and dedicated fighters and interceptors etc.
While producing 8 different fighter types and many single engine attack crafts at the same time?
Ground attacker doesn't need high altitude performance or good climb rate. The huge ass P-47 with fuel guzzling double wasp could do most things decently, but it was also very expensive plane.

You are like a little baby

Attached: Ju88-A5-406f-s.jpg (1131x625, 45K)

AVG P40s bombed Japanese soldiers.

"Shiroyama intensifies!"
You there have integrity!

Basically like this... youtube.com/watch?v=NvIJvPj_pjE

take it from a german, its engine is underpowered as shit

>the same goes for most of the dive bombers in WW2.
Aichi D3a was quite OK.

When you're so autistic, even your planes go REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: 9jVbW9C.jpg (948x716, 60K)

What happened if the dive breaks got stuka'd in the wrong position? Would it crash?

HA no

Can you imagine being a durkadurka and all your buddies start exploding around you followed by the sound of that GAU8 echoing through the valley

That's not an SBD or SB2C, so no.

Poor aircrews in the first versions couldn't even control the sirens. They went off at a certain airspeed.

>dive bomber
Pfffft

Attached: Oh Bother.jpg (498x360, 45K)

Stuka bomb loads are simply too small to undertake any significant strategic bombing campaign against industrial facilities. The Luftwaffe learned this the hard way during the Blitz..

I'd give title "best of the war" to the SBD. The SB2C had a lot of teething problems and even when those were corrected, and the planes accepted were for service, the crews did not like them as much. The two areas where the SB2C were an improvement over the SBD were in being able to carry some more weapons and in being better suited to carriers with their folding wings.Overall, the SBD was a better handling aircraft.

Attached: Douglas SBD Dauntless In Color1.jpg (1280x883, 134K)

it did will in Mediterranean theatre as well and its poor performance in NW europe is highly exaggerated and mostly due to problems with training and supply

the P-38s also bore the heaviest brunt of the fighting in Europe, as they arrived when the luftwaffe was at their strongest and most well trained
they also had identical attrition rates to the p-51, so they weren't really so much more likely to be shot down

>The two areas where the SB2C were an improvement over the SBD were in being able to carry some more weapons and in being better suited to carriers with their folding wings

40mph of extra top speed apparently not being of relevance to anyone.

AHAHAHAHAHAA

Attached: 1485860264028.jpg (481x452, 33K)

It appears my superiority has caused some controversy

Attached: 1505792186052.jpg (602x912, 26K)

How many ships did it sink?

>Congress has had to save that thing from extinction more than once. The F-16 does it's job, better.
This guy gets it. A-10(and the Iowas) only survived as long as they did because of Fudds like Cancer Brain McCain who don't understand battle

>Why isn't the F-22 multi-role then?
It is. The F-22's only combat mission so far was dropping bombs in Syria

>Ground attacker doesn't need... good climb rate
USAF in Iraq 1 discovered you are wrong

>cough...coughcough

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel

Are you fucking retarded? Ask anyone who has ever seen combat in the military, and they swear by the A-10. The ability to just bomb and strafe the shit out of something not only is effective, but scares the shit out of your enemies.

FROM
THE
DEPTHS
OF
HELL
IN
SILENCE

Attached: sweeping intensifies.jpg (1080x720, 54K)

Eric winkle brown said it was the only plane that could, i dont even like that faggot
Stuka pilot, that skg leader that got captured in north africa, and bauer said it could dive vert and i think you can even see it on youtube, but a 70-80 degree angle will help you hold more energy and egress quicker

Stuka could carry a 1800kg bomb and enough fuel for a 40min flight and still take off

Attached: 32EBB229-7352-4B5F-B026-8DA6DE72E5C1.jpg (300x199, 24K)

Rudel's records are hilariously suspect

suffer in silence, ruskie. the truth hurts.

Attached: 1550041123160.png (452x510, 402K)

ironically, the russians probably had accurate or even underreported kills for their aces due to strict counting for kills

the irony is due to handing a cash prize to aces, in a communist system
to discourage cheating, kills needed to be witnessed by a wingman or ground observer then have the crash verified
so kills made over german territory would have gone uncounted due to inability to verify the crash

i would understand this if the pilot in question was russian, but mr rudel died in '82 so i guess this ends in mystery?

Attached: Haynes-H6141-cover.jpg (2563x3260, 2.33M)

i know rudel was german, but you brought up ruskies so i had to bring up russian rules as to why you shouldn't be mean to the soviet air force

they did their best despite poor leadership and inferior fighter craft

From Niklas Zetterling:
"I too find it difficult to believe in the 12 kills in this instance, but also his "score" of 500+ for the entire war. I am of course speculating here, but I believe that Wittman probably destroyed more tanks than Rudel. It would surprise me if one is not forced to knock off at least three quarters or more of Rudels claims. In any case, it would be good to have some specific events to check against Soviet primary sources. The bruno Meyer event certainly suggest that it would be possible, given sufficiently detailed data on where and when Rudel was supposed to have "scored"."

TL;DR: Rudel's record is for the most part, pure fiction.

>uncontrollable REEEEEE
It just gets better and better

Attached: REEEEE.jpg (500x503, 75K)

>having to manually pull up frm your dive.
pathetic and NEXT.

>P38
>bad
Tell that to the Japs and Germans.

Is +40mph that big of an improvement if lowspeed handling is so crippled? Obviously, some more speed is a good thing but does it compensate for the other issues that exist within the design?
I like the Helldiver because it looks kind of freaky, but I understand why pilots were reluctant to make that switch.

Attached: z3kedqbz7sclgwj9y7ng.jpg (1300x885, 462K)

>>USA didn't have to make ground attack specific variants like the autistic germand

>A-1 Skyraider, 1st flight march 1945

Attached: skyraider1000x500.jpg (1000x500, 72K)

Here's a pretty good summary about the Dauntless and Helldiver:
airvectors.net/avsbd.html

Both were very good designs (once earlier problems were fixed) Dauntless was a sturdy plane but it was beginning to show its age around the middle of the war. Sturdier construction meant the Helldiver could shake less when diving, and the ability to mount HVARs eliminated the need to divebomb in some cases entirely. Unless you were dropping an armor-piercing bomb; rockets would be fine for knocking out merchant ships, destroyers,lighter cruisers, and for supporting ground forces. Too bad the Helldiver's rocky start really contributed to dealing a deathblow to Curtiss aircraft.

Russian 'aces' were chosen for propaganda and the truth was considered totally irrelevant, as with every other hero of the motherland they carefully developed.

I'd say actual combat pilots weren't likely to become an ace. Easier to make one out of a good looking actor.

>USA didn't have to make ground attack specific variants like the autistic germand did with the 190

Fw-190Fs were literally just some plates dropped in next to the engine and some hard points on the wings, same as the P-47s, 38s, and 51s.

>Fixed landing gear

even as an unapologetic weeb I cannot believe Japan did a single fucking thing right in WWII.

Tell me you're joking.

Those idiots designed their fucking rifle sights thinking it was possible for infantrymen to shoot down planes.

>I'd say actual combat pilots weren't likely to become an ace.

w-w what?

Attached: 1550334947795.jpg (421x800, 53K)

Because it's VISIBLE. They HEAR it. It FEELS more impactful.

Ask British veterans from Dunkirk about the RAF that day and they'll say those fucking wankers didn't do dick, because they didn't SEE them. They were constantly flying CAP but the battles happened out of sight and out of mind.

>all these wrong answers for best CAS of WW2

How is this a debate. The real choice for best ground attack platform during WW2 is pretty obvious

Attached: CAS.jpg (1843x896, 199K)