Jump to content

Ju 87H - myth or reality?


MarkoZG

Recommended Posts

For many years, each publication about Stuka mentions trainer versions in H series, with subversions in similar division to D series.

Many of these publications further support it with side drawings showing different rear part of canopy.

However it seems that so far no photo of this version is known to exist, so I am not sure if H version was ever actually built or it

just remained a project that never left a drawing board. After all, even the most obscure trainers used by Luftwaffe are well documented

with photos, so there should be no reason not to have any photo of trainer Stuka.

I would appreciate to hear your opinion on this.

Thanks.

 

Marko

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

    reality

  thread linked here list a JU-87 H lost with a unit moving up to normandy on d-day 

 

44.06.06 SG 103 /Einsatz. St.Voves Notlandung infolge Bordwaffenbesch.  
Ju 87 H6 folgt 40 -/1/-

 

details here :-

 

 

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=20172

 

 

also this but it needs a translation

 

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.valka.cz/amp/14085-Lovci-Stuk

 

 

   cheers

      jerry

Edited by brewerjerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, but those things mentioned in this reports aren't Stuka subversions, so H mentioned in the report doesn't refer to H subversion.

That is quite obvious from other suffixes as there were for sure no such things as B-6, A-3, C-3, C-4 and H-6 (this one caused misinterpretation).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarkoZG said:

Thanks, but those things mentioned in this reports aren't Stuka subversions, so H mentioned in the report doesn't refer to H subversion.

That is quite obvious from other suffixes as there were for sure no such things as B-6, A-3, C-3, C-4 and H-6 (this one caused misinterpretation).

 

Hi

    interesting,

   i wonder then what they are ? 

  as on page 3 on that linked thread , it is a quote straight from the luftwaffe loss returns with that data 

 

  can't be aircraft fuselage codes as some are repeated (i.e. C-4 used twice ) 

 

    cheers

      jerry 

  

Edited by brewerjerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of photos of Luftwaffe trainers are of the prewar or impressed types, there are much fewer examples of wartime trainers or of the conversions of front-line types, fighters excepted.  I don't recall a lot of photos of the two-pilot trainer versions of the Ju.88 either, which suggests that the loss of Junkers archives is relevant.  However, I suggest that the variant may have existed without a revised canopy shape, thus making it a less effective trainer but effectively invisible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

  However, I suggest that the variant may have existed without a revised canopy shape, thus making it a less effective trainer but effectively invisible.

This would make considerable operational sense because it's in no way the same sort of training case as you would expect for something like a Harvard or a two-seat fighter, where most of the problem is teaching people to take off and land without destroying the equipment or themselves.  This is the case where being able to see round the student is important, and modifications to canopies tend to be most needed. But the Ju 87 was no real problem in the circuit or on the ground for anyone competent in a Jungmann from a handling point of view, so once they'd learned the systems they'd be fine. The most significant flight training need for the Ju 87 was surely the attacks, the use of the automated dive recovery system and all of that stuff. And for all of that you can manage with a standard canopy

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Warplanes of the third Reich, William Green states that a number of D-series airframes were converted to H-series by removal of underwing weapon racks, addition of dual controls and a new rear canopy "with glazed nternal blisters".

So he is suggesting that there was no production of Ju87Hs, just converted Ds. He also provides a profile.

But he doesn't have a photo . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this picture, labelled as an H, unfortunately the canopy is covered. Air brakes appear to be missing?

 

https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87/Ju-87D/pages/Junkers-Ju-87H-Stuka-Stkz-DJ+FU-during-tests-with-twin-ski-landing-gear-for-winter-ops-01.html

 

Whether this is an H or not, those skis are a neat twist

 

Trevor 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

I found this picture, labelled as an H, unfortunately the canopy is covered. Air brakes appear to be missing?

 

https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87/Ju-87D/pages/Junkers-Ju-87H-Stuka-Stkz-DJ+FU-during-tests-with-twin-ski-landing-gear-for-winter-ops-01.html

 

Whether this is an H or not, those skis are a neat twist

 

Trevor 

Airbrakes are there and this is another mislabeled photo. If you look at the shape of canopy under the cover, it has usual downward slope to the rear, unlike the drawings of alleged

H version where the upper contour starts with slope, but then continues straight in paralel to the datum line till the rear end.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's only true if you accept the unsupported profile drawings.  Green describes Perspex blisters, and I've previously found that his texts are more reliable than the associated drawings.  These could be out to the side, as on the fighters, rather than raised.  In which case they would not be visible in a view such as the one being discussed.  As said above, the Ju.87 had a reasonably good view from the back, more like a T-6 or any other trainer of the period, where the instructor sat in the back under a conventional canopy.

 

Whether this is an H or not I don't know, but I am inclined to doubt it.  I suspect that the SKZ will simply give us the original build standard.  The loss records may be more reliable, but not from a single example which could well be a misprint or misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...