Hi Volker,
You said,
<<I am looking forward to reading the background information as well. I heard hardly anything about this plane before, this is going to be interesting........... You probably talk about dive bombing, which would be "Sturzkampf". >>
Thank you. I hope it will match or exceed your expectations. It may challenge some widely held prior assumtions. The issue you sought to clarify has served as a timely reminder of the need to explain the difference between 'sturzkampf' and 'sturmkampf' doctrine carefully within the product documentation. However despite assertions in many histories, based on inaccurate contemporary journalism, the Ba 65 could not 'dive bomb' and was therefore not a 'Sturzkampf' (Stuka). In the Regia Aeronautica 'Sturzkampf' = 'Tuffatori'.
The Ba 65 lacked dive brakes and had neither the necessary structural integrity, nor the necessary elevator control authority to sustain a prolonged dive. It was therefore as stated a 'Sturmkampf' = 'Assalto' employing a quite different tactical doctrine to achieve the same mission objective. The relevant combat doctrine will be explained in full within the product documemtation so that we can practice the relevant skills.
The Regia Aeronautica did not believe in dive bombing and the only Italian designed 'sturzkampf' = 'tuffatori' that actually flew combat missions for the RA in the relevant timeframe was the truly awful Savoia Marchetti S.M.85;
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/Regia2/SM85-401f.jpg
The historical importance of the Ba 65 is that it was the aeroplane which resolved all the competing theories about superiority of individual ground attack doctrines, that had never been fully tested in combat, by demonstrating during combat in Spain that 'sturzkampf' was unnecessary to achieve precision bombing of immobile tactical land targets. Unfortunately it also demonstrated the overall inferiority of Italian single engined 'assalto' doctrine to Soviet multi engined 'Skorostnoi Bombardirovshcick' = 'Schnell Bomber' doctrine. Those who continued to procure and deploy both the Fairey Battle and Junkers Ju 87 failed to learn the relevant lessons.
The product documentation will explain why 'sturmkampf' doctrine was a more widely adopted doctrine than 'sturzkampf' for attacks on immobile tactical land targets and why the locally over valued ideology of 'sturzkampf' did not survive WW2.
--
FSAviator
