Talk:Junkers Ju 87/Archive 4

Ju87-D5 with MG151/20 wing cannons
There's lots of archived material of e.g. H-U Rudel's units using D5s and they all had MG151/20 wing cannons so it was not a D4 or D7 specialty.

The anecdotal evidence, material reports, loss reports and unit in action pictures support this.

For reference see Rudel's "Mein Kriegstagebuch" (1983 Limes Verlag)

FF —Preceding unsigned comment added by FockerWulfer (talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was not saying it was, it was just missed out. I thought I had worded the D-4 paragraph above to say all subsequent variants had upgraded to this but I didn't. I have revised your wording and put in the ammunition capacity using Manfred Griehl. Good spot. Dapi89 (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ju 87R
I would break out all of the material relating to the R model into its own section, rather than leave it in the B section. Also it would be useful to add a column for its specifications if the data is out there. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is is shortens the B section. It would look odd for the one of the most widely produced Ju 87 variants to have a small section. Dapi89 (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Weaknesses
Can we say something like: "During the Battle of Britain, it was strong in formation but when diving to attack targets, was easy prey for the British fighters" ? TheStarter (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ju 87 was not strong in formation. Were did you get that idea? Dapi89 (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hans-Ulrich Rudel in Lede Paragraphs
Does the Hans-Ulrich Rudel stuff need to be in the Lede paragraphs? A lot of space is dedicated to him including medals recieved which seems a bit excessive. I feel that he is discussed enough in the article and is not something that someone would need to know at a casual glance. Be Bold In Edits (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. He is mentioned quite a few times in the article and his mentioning in the lead will explain who he is and why his contribution to the history of the Ju 87 is special. On another point, this man was the most decorated German serviceman in the entire Wehrmacht, not just the Luftwaffe. This was achieved flying the Ju 87, an obsolete aircraft. I believe it should discussed in the introduction as much as Erich Hartmann or Hans-Joachim Marseille and their records are on the Messerschmitt Bf 109 page. Dapi89 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Purpose Of Jericho Trumpet
This is speculation on my part, but I think that we might be wrong about the purpose of the Jericho Trumpet (though pilots might have been told that its purpose was to demoralise defensive forces). When I used to play football, I went through a phase when I would scream loudly as I went for a 50-50 ball to put my opponent off. This phase was short, because I found the tactic to be completely ineffectual. When rally driving, I have noticed that, for me, driving at reckless speed is easier when there is loud noise in the car, as this seems to blot out fear. IMO, these experiences would be shared by dive bombing pilots: tactically, making noise is a bad idea, because it alerts defenders to fire at you. However, I think that it is likely to distract the pilot from feeling fear, and hence reduce the probability that he would pull out of the dive before the optimal moment. New Thought (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The siren was initially intended as a pyschological weapon. It had an efect in the early periods, 1939-41 against forces with poor training and low morale. But like the so-called Blitzkrieg concept, it fails against an enemy who has high morale and knows what its doing. The Soviets in particular got used to the noise and the siren was removed on some of the D variants. I believe in the Luftwaffe field manual, it said that using pyschology was useless against the Soviets, and letting them dig in for more than 24 hours meant you would have a hell of a job shifting them. The only way was using physical means - a lot of ammo! Dapi89 (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As is usual with psychological topics, it is impossible to know the inner thoughts of anyone. Any discussion about hidden or subjective reasons for the siren are necessarily based only on speculation.Lestrade (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * I disagree. The sirens were added as a psychological weapon based on a suggestion by Urnst Udet. Dapi89 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how I feel about the sirens, yes in one sense if I worked in a building and knew that sound meant something was about to blow up. I would run from the building. Than again the secrets of war keep this lost. If I was in another Stuka, and knew people, enemy would be running out of the building. I think I would be flying low picking off the enemy with my machine guns,as they fled. "After I got trained and the instructor asked if we had any questions" I would have to say yes. "Where is the button or lever that says GO HOME", you just shown me 3 buttons that take this plane apart while I'm flying it. Not only do you want me to fly into battle with it, but you also have a siren on it to announce my arrival. I am not the Red Barron, he painted his plane red to announce his arrival. I think I want to go home now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.65.167 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A-class review
This article has an open A-class review for WP:Aviation at /Assessment/Junkers Ju 87. Please review the comments and address them if you can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Closed as not Promoted. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note: Was the welding avoided because it was manufactured partially by prisoners, who could not be trusted with a welder? Just a note from a less-than-perfect and relatively foolish aviation and WWII enthusiast. Ork Rule (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No they did not want to use welding simply for easy field repair and for easy transportation. As far as repairs go, it is much faster to unbolt sub structures and replace whole substructures. For transport it also was simpler to unbolt, load and rebuild without having to break/grind welds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.65.167 (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Translation of "Stuka"
"Sturzkampfflugzeug" does not mean "dive bomber." It means "falling fighter airplane."Lestrade (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Please try again, that's a completely wrong translation. --Denniss (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sturz" means "fall." "Kampf" means "fight." "Flugzeug" means "airplane." There is no mention of "bomber." "Fall" could be understood as "dive," though.Lestrade (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Is this a debate between two German speakers? Dapi89 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like an argument between a woodenly-literal translation of word componenents, and a translation of the word's useful meaning. Generally, the latter is perfectly acceptable, while the former tends to be confusing, and often inaccurate. - BilCat (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything goes.Lestrade (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Who Let the Dogs Out? - BilCat (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Noting that the German wiki article defines a Sturzkampfflugzeug as a dive bomber . Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    02:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sturzkampfflugzeug" means "falling battle airplane." "Taucherbomber" means "divebomber."Lestrade (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade


 * That (changing) literal translation means nothing in English. The closest Engliah meaning is evidently "dive bomber". - BilCat (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke here ? You can't pick a foreign word, separate it into parts, translate these parts and still hope to get a correct translation. Sturzkampfflugzeug IS translated into dive bomber, there's no other english equivalent for this. And Kampfflugzeug is a general term for a military aircraft but was also the common term to describe a bomber, at least in the early years of WW2. So was the unit naming, Kampfgeschwader was the common term for a bomber unit, Sturzkampfgeschwader the common term for a dive bomber unit.--Denniss (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Using such practices, I could just as freely say that "Schutzstaffel Einsatzgrupp" means "Young Men's Athletic League."Lestrade (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Somehow, I sincerely doubt that. Anyway, I think I now understand the issue. Lestrade stated: "Sturz" means "fall." "Kampf" means "fight." "Flugzeug" means "airplane." There is no mention of "bomber." "Fall" could be understood as "dive," though.


 * So he is hung up on the word "bomber", as the Ju-87 is a relatively small, single-engine aircraft, not a 2-4 engine level bomber. Yet the term "dive-bomber" is used in English to describe the North American A-36, the SBD Dauntless, the SB2C Helldiver, and other similar single-engine combat aircraft that drop their bombs in a dive. If these can be called "dive bombers" in English, so can the Ju-87. It's seem to be a perfeclty legitimate translation of Sturzkampfflugzeug to me, though not a woodenly literal one. - BilCat (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of Sturzkampfflugzeug you could also say Sturzkampfbomber, that would be a 100% translation into dive bomber. The usage of Sturzkampfflugzeug was later extended to the Ju 88 (although not a 100% dive bomber like the Ju 87, was dive-bombing capable at a smaller angle) and the failed experiments with the Do 217 and He 177. The latter two were initially designed to be dive-bombing capable but were merely capable of glide-bombing (way too much stress for the airframe, even the Ju 88 were worn out fast with dive-bombing). All of these aircraft were Kampfflugzeuge (combat airaft, as I said earlier the usual german term for bomber). --Denniss (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

BilCat, you are very wise for one who has lived only one lifetime. I bow to common [ignorant] usage.Lestrade (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * btw: "Sturz" does not only mean "fall". For example, a hawk "stürzt" on his prey. And in Germany, both words "Sturzkampfbomber" and "Sturzkampfflugzeug" today are used for the same thing.

--93.207.36.139 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Lestrade

Sorry, my friend, you forgot, English language is - in contrast to higher cultural languages like ours - very "simple" and restricted! "English" is just an "offshot" of German https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angeln. In minute 6 Stuka-Pilot Heinz-Georg Wilhelm Migeod called it "dive bombers" himself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxDkoIVcq6o. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.241.173.247 (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The description of an object in German is not always, or even usually, identical to that in Englisch. Something called a dive bomber, nowadays probably called an Attack Aircraft, in English was referred to using a different description in German. But keep in mind that Das Kampfflugzeug refers to any combat aircraft, fighter, bomber, what have you, and not to, for example, a reconnaissance aircraft, which is, quite logically, ein Aufklärungsflugzeug. I do not recall anyone ever saying "Sturzkampfbomber," instead of Sturzkampfflugzeug, but since the Luftwaffe does not have them anymore that is not surprising. Sturz, like many words in English, and I daresay French, has many different applications: fall, drop, downfall, labefaction, overturn, overthrow, downthrow, slump, collapse, spill, camber, and the one which really fits the bill in this particular instance is plunge, and Sturzflug translates to nosedive, although there is no mention of nose in the German. It invites misunderstanding to translate word for word between languages. If I say I am full in English it means I have eaten enough and am not hungry. Speaking German, Ich bin voll means I am drunk or I am pregnant. It is inaccurate to describe English as an "offshot" or offshoot of German. Modern German and Modern English are both evolutions of an old Germanic language that changed isolated from one another in different environments. The German language in Germany varies in different areas, marked in the main by the Benrath and Speyer lines. Upper German underwent changes that did not occur to a great extant in the Central or Low German (Northern), Dutch, Scandinavian Languages, or at all in English. Perhaps someday someone shall quantify exactly how much Kultur various societies contributed to Mankind. I doubt that either English or German shall be found wanting. Thank you to: www.duden.de             www.leo.org www.langenscheidt.com Bundeswehr (Luftwaffe) United States Air Force  Gwynfared (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As a native german i have to say:

1.) You are mostly correct but your example regarding "full" is not. The german "voll" is in any sense equivalent to the english word "full" and can mean for example "not hungry" or "drunk" (full of alcohol). But both examples are not high german and not really polite to say. The word "satt" is correct for not hungry, it means the exact opposite of "hungry" (german: hungrig), while "drunk" would be "betrunken". But my main point here is: It is NOT used for "pregnant", I have never heared it to be used in that way and can only imagine it to be used in that sense as a bad joke in a very vague way.

2.) Regarding the original question, user Denniss is absolutely right.

I want to add that "Kampf" means "fight" OR "combat", "Kampfflugzeug" means "combat aircraft" nowadays and in a broader sense, while in Nazi-Germany it was used more specifical to describe bombers. Although "Bomber" is also a german word having the same meaning as in english. It seems that "Kampf" was tried to be used in an offensive way by the Nazis. (carrying bombs to the enemy)

"Fighter aircraft" is "Jagdflugzeug" in german, the term "Jagd" meaning "hunt(ing)". So you cannot take words apart, translate them literally and put them back together to get the correct translation, as shown in my last example as there is no "hunting aircraft" in english.

Beside this, "Sturz" in this case meaning "dive", so "Sturzkampfflugzeug" can only be translated to "dive bomber" as there are no other combat aircraft that are diving. (I know that a fighter aircraft can too dive on its target, but there are no "dive fighters") Truedings (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Spatted undercarriage
There is a link for "spatted" in the 2nd paragraph that goes to a page that never mentions "spatted". Something more helpful would be appreciated. 121.98.218.165 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Martyn

The page does mention "spats" (from which spatted is derived): "Wheel fairings are often called wheel pants, speed fairings or, in the UK, wheel spats". Not ideal but the content is there.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

youtube.com
Stuka pilot interview 45: Diving sirens of the Ju-87

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-CQ5Sko3mk&feature=relmfu

Rainer E. 84.150.2.16 (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit war Lgfcd vs. Bzuk?
Do I see an edit-war looming? That would be regrettable, as both contributors have put a lot of effort into this hitherto excellent page. Bzuk, my I request you explain your reasons? Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears the recent edits are in contravention of WP:Retain, besides introducing a number of errors in formatting. The past MOA appears to be a series of similar actions. FWiW (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC).
 * As the main contributor to the page and one that got this article to G.A, it most irritating to see the references altered. The former style is the sounder choice, not least because they easily understood/used by everyone on the mil/aviation circuit. I'll throw my hat in with Bzuk on this one. Dapi89 (talk)

Bold
What's up with this huge overuse of bold in an article? In a second part of the article nearly every paragraph has at least one word in bold, sometimes few. And to make it even worse: I can't see any logic in how bold is used in this article. For example: Through most of the article word **Stuka** is bolded but in section Diving procedure - it's not (with two exceptions) - while in fact it doesn't make any sense to have it bolded anywhere aside of first paragraph of the article. Could we please follow some convention and get rid of all these unnecessary bolds? SkywalkerPL (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure I see your problem, bolding is normally only used for headings and in aircraft articles when a new name or variant is used. The only Stuka in bold I can see is the first use in the introduction. That said all the other stukas are labelled as italic Stuka, if they show as bold Stuka it may be a problem with your browser. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Italics and German
Please note that names of things that have been accepted in English works, like "Stuka", as per the Manual of Style (and overall usage). This is reserved for isolated non-English terms, like the German translation of Jericho Trumpet or when Reichweite is mentioned as the basis for the "Ju 87R". Using italics for the name of ministries or organizations is also rather gratuitous. It's about as uncalled for as italicizing any other name in German.

Naturally, this also goes for common Anglicized terms like Blitzkrieg or Wehrmacht.

Peter Isotalo 23:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied via talk page. Edits contain errors. Dapi89 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Replied copied from user talk:Peter Isotalo:
 * Ah, the Ju 87 article. Point about the way-ward edit accepted. The changes still dumb down the article. I will restore some, but I can't be bothered at the moment. Appreciate the relatively cordial exchange. Dapi89 (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole point of WP:OBVIOUS and WP:JARGON is to simplify. To "dumb down" seems merely to be a disparaging description of simpler prose. It's not a tenable argument. Please reply to my pointer the article talkpage if you want to motivate reverts.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Peter. It is very tenable. With respect, you don't appear to be familiar with the subject matter never mind be in a position to judge what is jargon and what is not. It is the norm to use German labels where appropriate. Changing Sturzkampfgeschwader for "Stuka Squadrons" is not only DUMBING DOWN, it is factually incorrect. Translations have already been made before as well. Which is why I would say it is best to stick to the subjects you know about.
 * I will (as the greatest contributor to the article) change the altered passages as I see fit and where there are errors in translation. I don't need to discuss it nor do I require your permission. All the best. Dapi89 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I know German terms are very popular when describing WWII, such as the widely-known "panzer" or "Wehrmacht", but it doesn't extend to any and all German military terms.
 * If I confused squadrons and wing, go ahead and correct the mistakes. I'm not saying I'm an expert on this. It doesn't strengthen your point, though. You are are yourself confusing translations with explanatory terms, like "German aviation ministry". It's not supposed to be a word-for-word equivalent of the official German term (it's not in quotes). And the closest approximation would actually be "Reich Aviation Ministry". So let's stick to discussing content.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Reichs means Imperial. I changed that before I read this post. Nevertheless, I think a reasonable balance has been struck. Dapi89 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. It's a compound form of "Reich" that in this case means "national" (as opposed to regional or limited to Prussia or Bavaria or whatever). In English, there's a major difference between the German Empire and Nazi Germany and the latter is never reffered to as "Imperial". It's simply referred to as the "Reich" if needed, since that term has no direct English equivalent. In Germany, the term is tainted by Nazi use, but it retains the original meaning in modern Danish, Norwegian and Swedish rigs-/riks- as in Rikspolisstyrelsen or Rigspolitiet. This is expounded on in the Reich article. The proper equivalent of "imperial" in German would be kaiserliche. And, again, we're still not talking about an attempt to "translate" but a simple statement of fact, as in "RLM was the German aviation ministry". To underscore all of this, referring to the kaiserliche Reichskriegsflagge, while excessively detailed, is not a tautological statement. It would translate to the "imperial national war flag", not the "imperial imperial war flag".
 * Peter Isotalo 08:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it does Peter. This convoluted explanation cannot escape the fact Reich = Empire. Please buy the Collins German dictionary. Dapi89 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Empire is used for the timeframe where Germany was ruled by emperors like Wilhelm I and II. I have never seen it used for the time past WW1. There are multiple translation option for Reich, Empire is typically used if a King/Emperor was involved; examples would be the ancient Roman Empire (Römisches Reich). --Denniss (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dapi, it would be quite helpful if you matched your strong convictions with factual arguments instead of merely retorting that contrary opinions are based on ignorance.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am with Petr Isotalo on this. The most correct translation of "Reich" into English is "Realm", not "Empire". That is why in German a kingdom is a Königreich and an empire is a Kaiserreich, and why (along with treaty concerns) East Germany still could have a Reichsbahn despite being as far from the concept of Empire as possible. Constantine  ✍  10:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How about leaving Reich in German as "Reich" in English? This is an article on an aircraft, not German politics. There's no substantial need to explain the meaning of the term, just to give a clearly specified (if not defined) term.  "Reich" is adequately common in English for this purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Kicking myself I just didn't say that earlier Andy. Dapi89 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to "leave". This is a clarification, not a translation. RLM was the German aviation ministry. Period. Just like the State Department is the US foreign ministry. In German, it's the "Foreign Ministry of the Unites States" not the "Staatsabteilung" or something equally obtuse.
 * Frivolous use of non-English terminology is jargon. Readers should be informed about the topic itself, not the specialist terminology related to it.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A couple of small modifications required...
Afternoon All,

In Section 5.2. under the Norway sub-heading the article states "Armed trawlers were used under the German air umbrella in attempt to provide smaller targets. Such craft were not armoured or armed." Errr... What? So were they armed, or weren't they armed? The two sentences appear to contradict each other.

Under France & the Low Countries, "...lost 29 of its 40 destroyers used in the battle (8 sunk, 23 damaged and out of service)." 8 + 23 = 31; 8 + 23 n= 29! ;-)

I'm sorry that I cannot provide a correction in either case. I can only point out that a correction would appear to be needed!

Regards,

86.172.29.215 (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Rædwulf (non-member)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Junkers Ju 87. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928043210/http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/RLM/RLMMar44.html to http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/RLM/RLMMar44.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Junkers Ju 87. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717075646/http://koti.welho.com/msolanak/news.html to http://koti.welho.com/msolanak/news.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

ENGVAR
Per this old revision ("recognisable"), I'd say this article was first written in British English. --John (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dive brakes, "30mm cannon", "6 round magazines"?
What exactly is meant by "automatic pull-up dive brakes under both wings to ensure that the aircraft recovered from its attack dive even if the pilot blacked out from the high g-forces". I am no engineer, but I was under the impression that dive brakes are for the purpose of keeping airspeed below safe, controllable limits while in the dive, not for pulling the aircraft out of the dive. Indeed I have trouble imagining any way in which retracting (or deploying) underwing airbrakes could initiate a 6 G pullout maneuver. I seem to recall reading that the underwing location helped keep the aircraft in dive trim (that is, they help to pull the nose down a bit), but I've never heard anything about them being used as a part of the pullout process. I was under the impression that the auto-pullout system worked via the elevator trim: when engaged, the dive brakes automatically deployed (to keep the dive speed safe), the dive was initiated by the pilot, and when bomb-release altitude was reached the elevator trim automatically kicked into a hard "pitch up" angle, and then once the pullout was safely initiated, the dive brakes retracted, automatically I believe, but I'm not as sure about that. The way this is (and has been) phrased makes it sound like the dive brakes are included merely to implement the auto-pullout feature. I think they are not the same thing. Next, in the section on the "G" variant, it says "the G was given 30mm cannon" (or something like that). What "30 mm cannon" are these? The last guns mentioned in the article were the MG 17s being swapped for MG 151/20s in the "D" variant. The only cannon I'm aware of the G model carrying is the 3,7cm Bordkanone. In the D model, the MG 151/20 is very distinct, sticking out well ahead of the leading edge. I don't see how you could fit a 30 mm cannon and ammunition into the wing of a Ju 87, and if you did I don't see how you could do it without it being very obvious. Perhaps an MK 108, but what is the point of that? It's not an AP weapon at all. I also don't see what good a 30 mm would do if the thing is going to carry a 37mm as well; you'd be better off with a mix lighter and heavier guns, not two such a close match. And seeing how heavy a 37 mm is, I think trying to carry both twin 30 mm and twin 37 mm would be problematic. Maybe some Gs carried in wing 30 mms, which were removed to carry the very heavy 37 mm guns in other aircraft? If there was some 30 mm gun carried, more detail is needed. If its a mistake, it needs to be fixed. Last, same section, it claims the 37 mm is fed by "two 6 round magazines". I don't think this is correct. If you look at a BK 3,7 you can see that the two "wings" are not symmetrical; one is significantly "deeper" than the other. They are not both magazines; IIRC one side holds spent cases, one is the magazine. Why design a gun that can feed from the right and left at the same time? What is the advantage over just feeding from a box on one side? From what I've gathered, there is a feed magazine that holds two six-round CLIPS (which isn't the same thing), in two layers of 6 shells (37 mm shells are so large as to prohibit this or require spreading the weight to both sides of the gun, etc). The other side holds the spent cases after they are ejected from the gun.

70.105.240.20 (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed successor, Ju 187
There already is a seperate page on the 187. May I take some text from there and link that page as the main article? Just feels a bit wrong to take a bunch of text from another page without permission, so that's why I'm asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achtungpanzer44 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

First photo
Quick comment. I searched for Ju 87 (on iPadOS 13 Safari) and it shows a photo of Udet rather than the airplane. It’s such an iconic plane that you should see a Stuka, so perhaps another inline image could be added before Udet. Roches (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you are looking or what search engine you used but I just did a search using Google for Ju 87 and it shows the lead image in the infobox as the first result. Doesnt appear to be aything wrong with this page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)