![StukaAttack6[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/nvnGmzp.gif "StukaAttack6[1].gif")
>let's take this tactics developed by the US muhreens for concentrated, high value naval targets and use it for general CAS against shit like artillery guns
>by the way muhreens are totally not known for being suicidal
>by the way let's make all bombers do this
Why were the Nazis so...out there?
They were an evolution of the British concept of a "Trench Fighter", an aircraft designed to attack hard to hit targets with higher accuracy than a conventional flat-flying bomber.
The Germans simply had the first opportunity to refine this technique before WWII in the Spanish Civil War.
>>29158264
That's racist.
I'm a Marine and havnt committed suicide. Yet.
Looking at the fact that Stukas were the only bomber type with an accurancy worth a shit in WW2.
They were pretty good.
>>29158303
That's not true in the slightest.
>>29158303
You don't need dive bomber-level accuracy when you are using HE bombs against immobile targets. Dive bombing makes sense against boats moving at 35 mph, that are so valuable that 50% loss rate per sortie is not a big deal as long as you hit your target. Against anything else, it doesn't make sense at all.
>>29158303
But they weren't accurate enough for use against tanks and other small targets.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/
>>29158319
>fortifications
>buildings
>trains
>stations
you can use them in a cas role with high precision
The psychological impact must have been part of it, they even fitted sirens so the enemy knew exactly how fucked they were about to be. The Stuka's sirens were the BRRRRRTTTTTTT of the day.
>>29158331
>dat meme article
A classic case of statistics being lies and damned lies. You need to learn to put the numbers in context to understand it and not be misled by a dumb blogger.
The book relied on by the dumb blog states that about 5-10% of tanks were directly destroyed by aircraft. That's about the same rate as number of tanks destroyed by tanks.
>>29158340
prove it
>>29158348
Only if you promise to stick a beer bottle up your asshole and upload a pic of it with timestamp if I prove it.
These aircraft also carried rockets and bombs. Both of these were much more devastating when they hit armor. However that is the problem; they had to hit their target. Both bombs and rockets were utterly abysmal in terms of accuracy. A trial conducted by the RAF had fired 64 rockets from 4 Tiffies(2 flights) at a stationary Panther painted white. A total of 3 hits were recorded giving the rockets a 4.69% accuracy rating in the most perfect of circumstances. Near misses did no damage to the tank. In real combat the Panzers would have some some camouflage, some flak protection(which downed hundreds of Allied fighter-bombers over NW Europe and greatly reduced accuracy of bombs and rockets), and crews that would know to seek cover when they realize they are being shot at. Bombs were even worse in regards to accuracy. It had been concluded that overall it took 800 rockets or 3500 bombs to hit a tank sized target in battle conditions.
>>29158358
>tanks had to scatter and hide whenever aircraft appeared
>supply columns fucked
>all the supporting infantry either dead or zombified
>>29158372
nice greentext
Too bad greentext can't melt tank steel.
>>29158358
thats a little misleading, given the target density when they made their attacks some of the misses could be expected to hit another target even if they missed the intended target.
so even if it does take 800 rockets to hit tank A during a battle its a pretty good bet that one or more of those rockets may also have hit tank B or exposed infantry C.
as for why dive bombing was adapted by the germans the idea was to use them as a from of very fast moving artillery to keep up with a armored thrust when conventional artillery failed to do so, so the accuracy was important
>While Steinbock was unsuccessful, the He 177 did achieve some successes. They typically carried two 1,800 kg (3,970 lb) and two 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bombs. Climbing to 7,000 m (22,965 ft) while still over German territory, the He 177s approached the target in a shallow dive, each aircraft throttled back, the pilot putting his aircraft into a gliding descent to take it across the bomb release-point at about 4,500 m (14,760 ft). After releasing the bombs the pilot re-opened the throttles, but continued the descent at approximately 200 m (656 ft) per minute. The bombers typically re-entered German airspace at an altitude of 750 m (2,460 ft), and headed back to base. By such means, the He 177s were able to keep up speeds of about 600 to 700 km/h (370 to 430 mph) during their withdrawal phase.
>not wanting to go 700 km/h in a four engined bomber.
>>29158406
I prefer not to fly over engineered turds, thank you.
>>29158337
How would you even make an onamotopiea for that?
>Muh MRRRRAWWWWNOWWWW
>>29158882
>REEEEEEEEEEEE
>>29158319
Nonsense. The Ju 87 sank more ships than the SBD, was an integral part of German doctrine (which, if not facing an overwhelming amount of fighters, succeeded), served throughout the entire war (thanks to its planned replacement being perhaps the biggest failure the Luftwaffe ever suffered) and remained competetive on the Eastern front because >slavs.
>>29158882
It's a real shame there are no flying stukas left.
The true sound of the jericho horn will never be heard again.
>>29158377
jet fuel can, though
>>29158264
Stuka is best, and Luftwaffe
>>29163056
what an ugly girl
>>29163137
don't worry, RAF is here to remove any ugliness
>>29164373
GRRRR!
I'LL SHOW YOU WHO'S UGLY!!!!
STUKA BLYAT
>>29164394
What did you say? I couldn't hear you over the roar of the Merlin engines of my beautiful Spitfires!
