about these dive bombers

[FLS]

3 confirmed kills, 1 probable. Audio of debrief for 2 kills on the Skyraider site.

[Vraciu]

You sure about that?

 

Yep.

Thank you, Arlo.

"During the war, U.S. Navy Skyraiders shot down two North Vietnamese Air Force (NVAF) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 jet fighters: one on 20 June 1965, a victory shared by Lieutenant Clinton B. Johnson and Lieutenant, junior grade Charles W. Hartman III of VA-25;[18] and one on 9 October 1966 by LTJG William T. Patton of VA-176.[12] Using their cannons, this was the first gun kill of Vietnam. While on his very first mission, Navy pilot LTJG Dieter Dengler took damage to his A-1H over Vietnam on 1 February 1966, and crash-landed in Laos.[19]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

They had kills over the La-11 (2) and a Po-2 as well as the two MiG-17s.   There may have been others but those are all I recall.

[icepac]

LOL.....kidding.

I know that "johnson guy" pretty well.

[Oldman731]

I know that "johnson guy" pretty well.

Heh.

- oldman

[MK-84]

My guess:
I think that before the war due to technological restraints a fighter had to be nimble and fast but was not built tough enough to handle the aerodynamic forces required to dive bomb and carry any significant payload.  Later in the war I think that the need for faster fighters required much more power and as a result a much sturdier air frame which naturally ended up fitting the requirements that dive bombers had sacrificed speed and maneuverability for.
Basically, to build the best possible fighter, it also fulfilled the requirements that previously needed a separate design.

[Vraciu]

Technology and tactics caught up to dedicated divebombers.

As for toughness, it's hard to beat a P-40 in that department, so I'm not sure that was the issue.

[Ack-Ack]

My guess:
I think that before the war due to technological restraints a fighter had to be nimble and fast but was not built tough enough to handle the aerodynamic forces required to dive bomb and carry any significant payload.  Later in the war I think that the need for faster fighters required much more power and as a result a much sturdier air frame which naturally ended up fitting the requirements that dive bombers had sacrificed speed and maneuverability for.
Basically, to build the best possible fighter, it also fulfilled the requirements that previously needed a separate design.

The USAAF also faced a similar issue in regards to their heavy bombers.  When heavy bomber losses were at its highest, the 8TH AF had two colonels look into the issue and come up with a viable solution to the problem.  The two colonels championed the idea of replacing the heavy bombers with fighter-bombers, since planes like the P-47 and P-38 were able to carry a heavy ordnance load, faster than the heavy bombers and able to fight their way to and back from the targets.  The colonels needed a fighter to test their idea on and looked at two planes, the P-47 and P-38.  After some studying, it was decided to go with the P-38 since a bomb sight and additional crewman could be housed in a modified nose, unlike the P-47.  The tests proved to be successful, though it didn't end up replacing heavy bombers, the tests did result in the P-38 Droop Snoop.

[Vraciu]

Droop Snoot.   (Surely a typo.)

[MiloMorai]

That is what it was called.

[Vraciu]

That is what it was called.

(Image removed from quote.)

Yes, Snoot, not Snoop.  I'm sure he typoed it so I just noted it politely.

[Zimme83]

Dive bombers were obviously too slow to have a chance in a contested air space but early on they were the only way to deliver ords with any kind of accuracy. With more powerful fighters you no longer had to choose between a fighter and a bomber and with rockets the accuracy wasn't much worse than for the dive bombers..

But its still fair to say that dive bombers played a crucial role in the war. The Stuka's ability to provide CAS with pinpoint accuracy was a key factor for the German victories the first years and the SDB dealt a decisive blow to the IJN at Midway..   

In AH the 'issue' is always that people do not want to be in an inferior plane, thus they take the best one available (not the dive bombers..) But they are not useless, The Stuka can deliver a respectable punch under the right conditions, the 1000kg bomb plus 2x 250 kg kills a hangar and if you are really accurate you can use the 1000kg AP for the job and save the 250kg:s for GV:s. Its also a good option for defending against tanks, just take the 500kg under the belly plus the big wing bombs.

unfortunately the SDB and the Val doesnt have that useful loadout for the MA but dogfighting with them is at least fun..

[bozon]

In AH dive bombing is not popular because as odd as it sounds, level bombers are more accurate than dive bombers. Not to mention that the level bombers are faster than the dive bombers, far better defended, carry more ordnance per plane, and have two drone bomb trucks in tow (that also means 3 "lives").

On the other hand, landing kills and 600lbs damage system message in an SBD is glorious.

[Lusche]

There is also no real incentive to use them for the AP bombs most of them can carry, as actual armor penetration isn't modeled in AH.

[Arlo]

There is also no real incentive to use them for the AP bombs most of them can carry, as actual armor penetration isn't modeled in AH.

What about shells bouncing off the front of a Tiger vs penetrating the rear/side (top)?

[Lusche]

What about shells bouncing off the front of a Tiger vs penetrating the rear/side (top)?

We are talking about bombs, not tank gun shells.

AP bombs simply have a larger damage value offset by a substantially smaller damage radius. They do not "penetrate", nor is the deck of a BB in any way more resistant to GP bombs.