The two aircraft were designed for different purposes: The Stuka as a ground attack dive-bomber, the Spitfire as a fighter aircraft.
In air-to-air combat, the Spitfire would have had clear advantages in speed and maneuverability which would prove decisive. Once separated from its fighter escort, the Stuka was considered easy prey for Spitfires. It was withdrawn from the Battle of Britain within a few weeks following heavy losses.
The Messerschmitt 109 was a much closer match to the Spitfire. _____________________________________________________________ Agreed. The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka was a dive-bomber; a type of warplane developed in the 1920's and dispensed with at the end of World War II. A Stuka was absolutely no match for the Supermarine Spitfire (or the Hawker Hurricane.....or even the Gloster Gladiator for that matter). As stated above, Stukas were used in the Battle of Britain, but they were quickly withdrawn because of heavy losses. German and Italian Stukas, and Japanese Vals, scored initial success in World War 2, but if oppposed by Allied fighters they were easily shot down before placing their bomb on the target.
Chat with our AI personalities
John cena would win in a fist fight an 50 cent would win in a in a gun fight
Both breeds will not fight a bull. They would only chace them.
That is a trick question, if the fight were to be near a lake or forest, the bear would win. If the fight were to take place up in a rocky place, the mountain lion would win. if the fight were to be in a lake, the crocodile would win.
a single round trip to japan from U.S. would cost 1200 dollars
raiden would win