Russia Putting Battleships in Syria: Sources (China and Iran) Video

Larry Kudlow Show (CNBC) ^ | June 18,2012 | John Batchelor

[jboot]

Hi Jeff. I appreciate your analysis. The notion that the Stuka was the most successful naval dive-bomber came from a book in my collection and is not on the web (to my knowledge). I'd give a cite to the book, but I have several thousand titles and I cannot recall for the life of me which one it was in. I don't recall that it was backed up with any statistics in the original text. I can say that:

All marks of the JU-87 were in view, not just the JU-87R.

All kinds of watercraft targets were in view and no particular distinctions were made. It is likely that small craft and riverine craft were included. I don't know.

Anyway, feel free to disregard. I suspect that the supposition, even if true in some context or another, is not proveable.

[jboot]

Not a problem. When one talks facts one must always be prepared to defend them. It's cool, and it is how we learn.

I don't think my source meant that the Stuka had sunk more shipping than US Naval aircraft in WWII, but that it had sunk more tons of shipping than any other type of dedicated dive bomber in service. (I highlight the notion of "dedicated" because many DB attacks were performed by aircraft that were not dedicated dive bombers, i.e. B-25s, A-20s, JU-88, etc.) As I told Jeff, I can't lay my hands on the book, so I am not quite sure how the author arrived at the conclusion.

[Jeff Head]

Well, I believe the Stuke awa a very effective Dive Bomber aircraft. It suffered from poor dogfight manueverability, it was relatively slow, and did not have enough protection, so unless it had escorts later in the war, it was absolutely ravaged by allied fighter aircraft.

But at dive bombing it was vey good, and particulalry in the Blitzkrieg style attacks Germany conducted early in the war.

But, the 12-13,000 Dauntless and Helldivers produced accounted for, IMHO, far more actual numbers and tonnage of shipping sunk in World war II when you just look at the PAcific Therater of Operations (PTO). Either aircraft. Just far too many aircraft and far too many targets for them in the water in the PAcific where that was the principle place the fighting occured, when compared to what Germany faced.

...and that does not include the Dauntless (and to a lesser extent) the Helldivers in other theaters, particularly the North Atlantic and Med.

But, it is a great discussion and when you read about all that occurred in World Wr II you realize, though any war is very tough and hell...exactly what our fathers and grandfathers and their families went through during that global conflict and the losses incurred.

The US lost 11 aircraft carriers in World war II in the Pacific, and 71 destroyers...not counting any losses in other areas. And yet we fought on, just as hard if not harder than before because we faced enemies that our citizens actually knew could destroy our nation and liberty if they prevailed.

Today, such losses would be very difficult to sustain without a similar absolute knowledge on the citzenry’s part.

Google “US Naval Losses in World War II.” There’s a link out there that lists every single vessel we lost, and someone has gone to the trouble for all of the major vessels (including all subs and destroyers and everything higher) to set up links to wikipedia sites for them all that give their history and how they were sunk. Some amazing reading there to understand what those people went through in defending our nation and well worth the read.

BZ.

[jboot]

The JU-87 was a crude aircraft and was already obsolete when Germany went to war in '39. It had all the shortcomings that you describe and more. It is a testimony to the skill of the pilots that flew it that it carved out the reputation that it did.

Fortunately for the USA a carrier in 1941-1945 represented a far smaller investment and strategic impact than a supercarrier does today. We were also fortunate that only 4 of the 11 cariers lost were fleet carriers. This does not diminish the sacrifices of our brave men. I personally do not believe that the current generation could make even a fraction of those sacrifices, or would have the fortitude to spend blood and treasure on that scale. It is not a reflection on our warfighters, who are just as valorious now as they ever have been. But the general public would not be able to bear a war that large for that long, and they would not understand that their freedom and way of life is at stake. Even if they were somehow made to understand, they would likely decide that freedom and the American way aren't particularly valuable or worth fighting for. Just my two cents.