Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: pembquist on September 11, 2017, 11:31:09 AM
-
I know it is a video game but I am struck by how much better as dive bombers the heavy fighters seem to be than the actual dive bombers like the SBD Stuka etc. and the naval level bombers too.
So first off I'm guessing that this is just an artifact of a video game but as hindsight seems to suggest that the allies would have been better off flying nothing but Mossie bombers in terms of destructive power vs aircrew lost can anyone point out why it wouldn't have made equal sense to have nothing but F6s with 1000lb bombs and rockets? The hangers of the enemy would have quaked in fear.
-
You go to war with the aircraft you have. Carrying 2 1000lb bombs was probably not common for fighters because of the flight restrictions.
-
SBD and Stuka were pretty early designs compared to F6F and it seems they did move towards heavy fighter design in favour of dive bombers.
-
Everything shifted towards fighter bombers towards the end of the war. I dont recall a single dedicated dive bomber to enter service in 1945. The allies having lots of fighters and no one to fight in the air was also a factor in this trend.
The end result is 1939 era dive bombers that somehow made it to the end of the war and 1945 fighter-bomber mosters.
...and then there was the mossie. Everyone wanted "schnell bombers" multi-role airframes after that.
-
hindsight seems to suggest that the allies would have been better off flying nothing but Mossie bombers in terms of destructive power vs aircrew lost can anyone point out why it wouldn't have made equal sense to have nothing but F6s with 1000lb bombs and rockets? The hangers of the enemy would have quaked in fear.
No one had Hellcats in 1939. Planes that could carry big bombs for medium distances and drop them with accuracy, could not also act as fighter planes. The engines were not big enough, the fuel tanks were not big enough, for Spitfires and Bf109s and Zeros to carry useful loads over distance. Once that equation changed, countries stopped producing dedicated dive bombers, because the fighters could do the job better.
...well...except us...with the SB2C and, later, the immortal AD series.
- oldman
-
The Skyraider was never a dive bomber. It was and is the most awesome single prop attack aircraft ever built and it's amazing that it first flew in 1945.
-
Another direction seemed to be twin engined light bomber type aircraft like A-20, A-26, Pe-2, Tu-2 etc.
Edit: as bozon already stated.
-
I recall reading that during its protracted development the USN wanted to scrap the SB2C and fill its decks with TBMs, Corsairs and Hellcats. It was realised the fighters could drop almost as accurately, and were much more versatile, able to defend both themselves and the fleet. Politics got involved though, senators with interests in Helldiver manufacture insured it continued into production.
-
Ultimately dedicated divebombers had more range with payload than fighters but were not as good at defending themselves. The Strike Fighter concept of the Hornet was in a way a repeat of the lessons learned in WWII with dive bombers and arrived at similar results.
-
I really think the way to get dive bombers used in this game more is to give them a more accurately represented bombsight. I'd like to be able to toggle F6 and get an up close and personal view of the bombing crosshairs and dive angles. I don't expect lead computing easy-mode, but a better view that enhances the bombing accuracy makes the case for bringing up a dive bomber instead of a heavy fighter.
-
I used to post a link to all of my WW2 manuals for fixed gunnery, bomber crew gunnery, and NAVY glide bombing. Everyone still tried to get Hitech to program in no-brainer aids.
Follow this link, click on the book and you will get an E-reader with the manual. No one had anything but their reticle and hours of training in WW2 unless they had a level bombing sight which had some aids and still needed hours of practice.
https://aviationshoppe.com/wwii-us-navy-glide-bombing-how-to-do-it-a-66.html
-
I'm OK with just a decent reticle on a dive bomber. If you look at the cockpit on an SBD all the pilot had was essentially a fixed telescope forward. An F6 into that sight with diving speed and angle displayed would make a lot of difference in bombing accuracy.
-
The Skyraider was never a dive bomber. It was and is the most awesome single prop attack aircraft ever built and it's amazing that it first flew in 1945.
You sure about that? "The piston-engined Skyraider was designed during World War II to meet United States Navy requirements for a carrier-based, single-seat, long-range, high performance dive/torpedo bomber"
-
The A in A-1 is for Attack. Maybe the D was for Dive when it was the AD-1.
My buddy CAS that I flew with in Dawn of Aces and Aces High flew the A-1 in SEA.
He said it was a fighter. :D
-
The A in A-1 is for Attack.
...sort of like...the Douglas A-24....?
- oldman
-
Isn't that A for Army?
-
.
-
You sure about that? "The piston-engined Skyraider was designed during World War II to meet United States Navy requirements for a carrier-based, single-seat, long-range, high performance dive/torpedo bomber"
The more I think I know ........
(https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Skyraider-with-torpedo.jpg)
-
Max Loadout 8000lbs, same as a B-17. :D
-
Nuke capable via toss bombing.
(http://i.imgur.com/1I652ts.jpg)
-
You sure about that? "The piston-engined Skyraider was designed during World War II to meet United States Navy requirements for a carrier-based, single-seat, long-range, high performance dive/torpedo bomber"
You are correct.
The A in A-1 is for Attack. Maybe the D was for Dive when it was the AD-1.
My buddy CAS that I flew with in Dawn of Aces and Aces High flew the A-1 in SEA.
He said it was a fighter. :D
The A-1 lineage starts as a Torpedo/Dive Bomber (BTD and subsequent BT2D)--and even as the AD had massive dive brakes.
-
Quibbling over prototypes. If you want to call it a dive bomber I'm cool with that.
If dive brakes make it a dive bomber then the F4U is a dive bomber. :D
-
Isn't that A for Army?
You know, I never thought of that! I'll bet you're right.
...that must mean that the planes I fly...were purchased from the Navy...?
- oldman
-
You know, I never thought of that! I'll bet you're right.
...that must mean that the planes I fly...were purchased from the Navy...?
- oldman
Actually I think you're correct, it was A for attack, just like they used B for bomber, C for cargo, P for pursuit and PT for primary trainer.
-
The F4U prototype was a bomber, an aerial bomber. It was designed to have 30 bomblets inside of each wing to drop on enemy bomber formations.
The SB2 Helldiver was such a horrible aircraft that aircrews turned to using the SBD and fighters as an alternative to get away from using it. This is all well documented in Hugh Ambrose's book "The Pacific". One specific flaw was aileron rollers snapping on dive pull outs. The plane would enter a dive, drop ord, and on pull out the control cables on the ailerons would go slack, or in many cases, cause the plane to characteristically go inverted. Multiple aircrews were lost until one plane finally made it back to base to report what happened.
Another problem was that the landing gear lever could not be reached without loosening the shoulder straps. So pilots would take off with loose shoulder straps. If they had to ditch immediately on take-off, they would bash their head on the gunsight, usually killing them.
-
Before too long I'd like to see the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver get a shot in AH. It can carry 2,000 lbs of bombs or a torpedo internally, another 1000lbs of bombs or 8x5" rockets on wing hardpoints, and has 2x20mm wing-mounted cannon for strafing ground targets.
Plus it is one wicked-cool ugly aircraft:
(https://i.imgur.com/NZtLQnm.jpg)
Helldivers saw a lot of action after their introduction in late '43. They fought over Rabaul, the Marianas, Philippines, Taiwan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Japan, helped sink the battleships Mushashi and Yamato. Despite a reputation for being difficult to handle at low speeds, was responsible for the destruction of more Japanese targets than any other aircraft.[1]
[1] http://www.warbirdalley.com/sb2c.htm (http://www.warbirdalley.com/sb2c.htm)
-
The F4U prototype was a bomber, an aerial bomber. It was designed to have 30 bomblets inside of each wing to drop on enemy bomber formations.
The SB2 Helldiver was such a horrible aircraft that aircrews turned to using the SBD and fighters as an alternative to get away from using it. This is all well documented in Hugh Ambrose's book "The Pacific". One specific flaw was aileron rollers snapping on dive pull outs. The plane would enter a dive, drop ord, and on pull out the control cables on the ailerons would go slack, or in many cases, cause the plane to characteristically go inverted. Multiple aircrews were lost until one plane finally made it back to base to report what happened.
Another problem was that the landing gear lever could not be reached without loosening the shoulder straps. So pilots would take off with loose shoulder straps. If they had to ditch immediately on take-off, they would bash their head on the gunsight, usually killing them.
The Helldiver wound up being a good platform. It suffered in part by its design requirements, namely having to fit on existing elevators. The Stirling had issues for the same reason (hangar size being the culprit). Eventually the Helldiver became a potent weapon. Many sources cite it as the leader in ship tonnage sunk during the war.
-
I'd like to see the rear gun retraction/ rear canopy open/close modeled Iif we ge the SB2C.
Closed could give a bit more speed, but the open cycle would take a few seconds from closed to to open.
-
Before too long I'd like to see the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver get a shot in AH. It can carry 2,000 lbs of bombs or a torpedo internally, another 1000lbs of bombs or 8x5" rockets on wing hardpoints, and has 2x20mm wing-mounted cannon for strafing ground targets.
Plus it is one wicked-cool ugly aircraft:
(https://i.imgur.com/NZtLQnm.jpg)
Helldivers saw a lot of action after their introduction in late '43. They fought over Rabaul, the Marianas, Philippines, Taiwan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Japan, helped sink the battleships Mushashi and Yamato. Despite a reputation for being difficult to handle at low speeds, was responsible for the destruction of more Japanese targets than any other aircraft.[1]
[1] http://www.warbirdalley.com/sb2c.htm (http://www.warbirdalley.com/sb2c.htm)
:aok :aok :aok
But also .....
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7a/02/8d/7a028d43e58d6a27ea4afad20bde5f8c--aviation-art-military-aircraft.jpg)
:D (Events)
-
The A in A-1 is for Attack. Maybe the D was for Dive when it was the AD-1.
Had time for a little reading , the D in AD-1 stood for Douglas, the manufacturer. The A was for Attack. So the production version was always designated an attack aircraft even though the design spec was for a combination dive bomber, torpedo bomber, attack aircraft.
-
Had time for a little reading , the D in AD-1 stood for Douglas, the manufacturer. The A was for Attack. So the production version was always designated an attack aircraft even though the design spec was for a combination dive bomber, torpedo bomber, attack aircraft.
Just like F is for Grumman, U is for Vought, A is for Brewster, etc. The AD (Skyraider) became the A-1 when the designation system was changed in the early 60s.
-
Had time for a little reading , the D in AD-1 stood for Douglas, the manufacturer. The A was for Attack. So the production version was always designated an attack aircraft even though the design spec was for a combination dive bomber, torpedo bomber, attack aircraft.
:aok
-
:aok
Nobody said otherwise.
Oh wait, your friend said it was a Fighter. :aok
-
Imagine flying it light with just the 4 20mm. 2700 HP. :D
-
Imagine flying it light with just the 4 20mm. 2700 HP. :D
It would be a fat F8F bearcat :)
-
The SBC2 had a lot of problems and was generally disliked by almost all who used it. The SBD stayed in service till the end of hostilities. The Japanese and Germans were still working on DBs until nearly the end. Lack of targets was a major factor in USN scaling back DB use. Adding more modern DBs would help increase the use. and coordination of missions with propper fighter defense.
-
It would be a fat F8F bearcat :)
It was also designed to be able to fight it's way back home after dropping ord and has been known to handle a bearcat........or two.
http://skyraider.org/skyassn/warstor/Grishamwarstor.htm#anchor279778
-
It was also designed to be able to fight it's way back home after dropping ord and has been known to handle a bearcat........or two.
http://skyraider.org/skyassn/warstor/Grishamwarstor.htm#anchor279778
Cool story. :aok
-
Taken from a page describing the "cathay pacific shootdown".
"On 26 July 1954, during the survivor search operation, two Douglas Skyraiders from the aircraft carriers USS Philippine Sea and Hornet shot down two Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force La-11s off the coast of Hainan Island. It is not known whether they were the same La-11s that shot down VR-HEU."
-
They also claimed two MIGs in 'Nam.
-
This is another nice A-1 site. http://www.abledogs.com/
-
A related question for long time players without memory problems: Was there a time when say the old "early war" arena had enough players to make it fun that the dive bombers got more widespread use? It seems a shame that they don't get used much at all these days.
-
A related question for long time players without memory problems: Was there a time when say the old "early war" arena had enough players to make it fun that the dive bombers got more widespread use?
They din't really get widespread use even then.
From CV, players would use the TBM over the SBD and the Val. From landbases, the Ju-87 could not really compete with the Ju-88, B-25C, 110C or the HurriIIC. Big fat bomb, but very difficult to bring it to your target in the face of any enemy resistance.
-
They also claimed two MIGs in 'Nam.
You sure about that?
-
You sure about that?
"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
-
3 confirmed kills, 1 probable. Audio of debrief for 2 kills on the Skyraider site.
-
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.
-
LOL.....kidding.
I know that "johnson guy" pretty well.
-
I know that "johnson guy" pretty well.
Heh.
- oldman
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Droop Snoot. (Surely a typo.)
-
That is what it was called.
(http://www.americanairmuseum.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/media/media-19706.jpeg?itok=yTYvKxYg)
-
That is what it was called.
(http://www.americanairmuseum.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/media/media-19706.jpeg?itok=yTYvKxYg)
Yes, Snoot, not Snoop. I'm sure he typoed it so I just noted it politely.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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.
-
So it is modeled, just not universally (which it technically could be - after all, what's a bomb compared to a shell?).
-
The problem is the all-or-nothing damage model, it means that a hit with a 1600lbs AP bomb on a ship is next to useless since the ship is still fully functional, all you can destroy is a few guns. CV damage heals in 5 mins so your hit will not help others kill the cv either. In real life such hit would most likely force the ship out of the battle or even sink it.
It might not be possible to do but one solution could be to have the flight deck as a separate object that you could destroy w AP bombs and thus make it impossible to launch planes, It could have a 15 min damage like a hangar.
-
It might not be possible to do but one solution could be to have the flight deck as a separate object that you could destroy w AP bombs and thus make it impossible to launch planes, It could have a 15 min damage like a hangar.
Ironically, as an avid CV ops player, I think I may like the idea of a carrier that is 'disabled' by fire and deck destruction. As long as there would also be a 'damage control party' option (players who select man guns on the ship also being considered factors toward damage control). The DC function could merely be speeding up the repair time. The factor being tabulated as # of players manning guns would simply be a way for players to actively defend the ship (ie: have something to do other than hold a hose) yet also be something the game could measure.
As you said, though, dunno if this could be practically implemented. Basically, if the other side is trying to sink your CV and your side is having a hard time stopping that this may be a way to buy your ship some time until enough players decide its worth defending.
-
The problem is the all-or-nothing damage model, it means that a hit with a 1600lbs AP bomb on a ship is next to useless since the ship is still fully functional, all you can destroy is a few guns.
And for that, even smaller GP bombs are much better than the AP, thanks to the much larger damage radius.
There is, for example, no point in taking the 800kg AP bomb in the G4M over the 4x250kg GP bombs. Those four small bombs do 14% more damage (combined); over an area 25 times as large (per bomb).
-
And for that, even smaller GP bombs are much better than the AP, thanks to the much larger damage radius.
There is, for example, no point in taking the 800kg AP bomb in the G4M over the 4x250kg GP bombs. Those four small bombs do 14% more damage (combined); over an area 25 times as large (per bomb).
Yes. The AP bombs have no advantage over the GP bombs against any target with the sole exception of the 1000kg AP on the Stuka - if you drop it through the roof of a hangar it will go down. But all the other AP-bombs are useless since the extra damage doesn't help you destroying anything that cannot be destroyed with the GP bombs available.
-
The term Stuka refers to a type of airplane not the model Ju87.
-
The term Stuka refers to a type of airplane not the model Ju87.
Yes and no, the term is a short for "dive bomber" in german but it has become so associated with the Ju87 that it is in reality refers to the Ju87.
-
I suspect he's thinking of "Jabo."
-
Sturzkampfflugzeug = "Dive Bomber." (Germans have a rather painful way of saying simple things, hence the Anglos fixing it for them.)
-
Sturzkampfflugzeug = "Dive Bomber." (Germans have a rather painful way of saying simple things, hence the Anglos fixing it for them.)
:rofl
-
Sturzkampfflugzeug = "Dive Bomber." (Germans have a rather painful way of saying simple things, hence the Anglos fixing it for them.)
There are others that are even worse; for ex Hävittäjälentolaivue (fighter squadron in Finnish) or our own Granatkastarpansarbandvagn (a mortar equipped APC)...
-
Granatkastarpansarbandvagn (a mortar equipped APC)...
Granatwerferpanzerkettenfahrz eug - Works in German, too :D
Actually, it sounds very 'official' as the Bundeswehr still uses a lot of similar behemoth (and kinda outdated) German terms... :old: