Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

German navy had focused on naval bombers.

Discussion in 'What If - Other' started by IntIron, Sep 7, 2008.

  1. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Sorry, but I found no numbers for the Ju-87 on the link you provided, nor any substantiation for the claims being made for the plane. In fact, there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about the claim that the JU-87 was the "ship-killer" some people seem to think. There were some numbers posted for the Japanese Val dive-bomber which seem way too high and probably reflect nothing more than Japanese sinking claims, rather than verified sinkings. I did noticce the ridiculous assertion that the JU-87 was the only dive-bomber in WW II which could dive vertically; this is nonsense, the SBD could, and on occasion did, dive vertically, and there is even one verified account of an SBD passing through the vertical in a dive on a Japanese warship.

    I believe that, as another poster pointed out, the proper claim for the JU-87 was that it was the highest scoring German anti-shipping strike aircraft. The evidence just isn't there for it outscoring the SBD.
     
  2. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Skip bombing was a very effective method of sinking ships which were not well armed with AA guns, but if the Italians tried it in 1941, they were far from being the first to use the method. As far as I can ascertain, the skip bombing technique was first tried out in the late 1920's or early 1930's, by A Capatain Kenney, (later Gen. Kenney, commander of the Fifth Air Force in the SowesPac). The British also apparently developed a similar method independently and used it successfully early in the war against German ships. General Kenney also had his heavy (B-17's), and medium (B-25's) practice skip bombing and develop it to a high art in the Pacvific in 1942.
     
  3. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Indeed I didn't claim there were. There are some links to other sites as well as statements (again not proof) that the JU-87 sinkings were claims and some of them may have been due to U-boats. If they were just claims there's also the possibility that some of them were not even sinkings. Certainly the Japanese in the Pacific claimed a fair amount more in the way of sinkings than actually occured.

    I have seen the numbers posted but I'm not sure where. It may have been over on J-aircraft. I'll have to ask there as they don't keep inactive threads around for all that long.

    Oh I also found out that the JU-87 got an even earlier start than I thought. Apparently they made some anti shipping strikes during the Spanish Civil War.
    At this point I'm less convinced than when this thread started that it's the case but still think it is possilbe. May also hinge on what one calls a "ship".

    Found some more data. Still nothing defintive one way or another:
    http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/wor...gation/battle-of-the-atlantic/sources/docs/1/
    shows allied shipping lost in 41 and 42 and breaks it out by sub, aircraft, surface ship, etc. NOthing beyond that or even a mention of theater.
    http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/th...rch-guide-c10-the-merchant-navy-world-war-two
    lists some other possible sources
    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/JANAC-Losses/JANAC-Losses-2.html
    list Japanese losses. According to it the Japanese lost 3,032 ships during the war. Of these army aircraft sun while the navy and marines sunk 619. Together they got another 32. The implication here is to me any way is that the Dauntless can legitimatly claim something under 500 sinkings. From just 41 (so not many Pacific losses) and using the chart in the first referance, it shows the British loosing 360 and allies another 580 to aircraft. Of course the chart may be wrong or I could have made some errors but the numbers tend to indicate that the JU-87's claim may have at least some basis in fact.
     
  4. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Then I must apologize for misunderstanding your previous post. It seemed to me that you were saying there was documentation of sorts in that link, for some hard numbers. There do not seem to be many sources which have broken out by aircraft type, the maritime and naval losses for any belligerent. BTW, in my opinion, tonnage is the significant figure, otherwise just comparing numbers of ships gives equal weight to a non self-propelled 200-ton barge and a an aircraft carrier.

    I'm going to see if I can get some information from a friend of mine who has a series of documents issued by JANAC a year or so after the end of the war. If I'm not mistaken, JANAC assigned credit for enemy losses to specific units wherever possible. Although JANAC was primarily interested in looses to submarine activity, it does, I believe, list losses to aircraft.
     
  5. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    No apology necessary. My wording was sloppy. I should have said there were pointers to some potential documentation and numbers with some if limited bearing on it. Indeed I found that thread tended to make me more skeptical of the claim rather than less.

    As to tonnage that thread and others I've seen suggest that the JU-87 was not the tonnage leader implying it sunk a lot of smaller vessels which is not unreasonable.

    As implied there the "claim" also seams to be based on just that claims by JU-87 pilots as to ships sunk. The ability of aircraft to make certain a ship is sunk in a warzone is pretty limited. I don't know what sort of confirmation process if any the LW used on shipping claims.
     
  6. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    142
    Luftwaffe shipping claims were quite wild. I read a bit on Luftwaffe torpedo bomber operations in 1940, to study their effectiveness if the Germans had launched Operation Sealion, and I found that Luftwaffe claims were high (one unit alone, 3./Ku.Fl.Gr 506 was credited with sinking 124,000 GRT) but when checked against British losses, Luftwaffe torpedo bombers probably sank a total of 7 or 8 Allied merchant ships of around 50-60,000 GRT in 1940.
     
  7. Carl W Schwamberger

    Carl W Schwamberger Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    81
    I've been told the Italians were a lot more effective at sinking ships than the Germans. Anyone know where we might find handy comparative data?
     
  8. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    On the Fw 200. Comparatively, it was really pretty ineffective. For example, from July to October 1940 KG 40 had a maximum of 15 aircraft in service of which about quarter or less were operational at any given time.
    These sank an estimated 90,000 tons of shipping during this period. But, mitigating this was the fact that 42, 348 tons of this consisted of just one ship, the liner Empress of Britain. And, that ship was not really sunk only crippled and then finished off later by a U-boat.
    In 1940 just 26 Fw 200C-1 were manufactured.
     
  9. Shadow Master

    Shadow Master Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    19
    An interesting thread. You seem to be thinking along the lines of "the Germans need to be able to win at sea" to win their war against the UK. Have you ever given a thought to amphibian aircraft? This link takes you to one of my first (and admittedly, poorly written) threads that brings up such a theme, ie, naval aviation need of the KM to win the war.

    http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/12126-german-tonnage-war-strategy.html

    Best regards!
     
  10. IntIron

    IntIron Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    20
    Mr. Shadow Master,

    Your link is kaput! I'd really like to see it though so if you can put one up that works...


    Yours,

    Bill
     
  11. Shadow Master

    Shadow Master Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    19
    http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/12126-german-tonnage-war-strategy.html

    This link should work.

    Remember, that posting was along time ago, lol. :eek:
    I want to redo that thread when I can find the time to do it properly, because I believe that the promise of amphibian aircraft of the period was largely overlooked and thus no real 'combat' aircraft of this type were developed by the LW or KM.
     

Share This Page