Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Mongoose on August 19, 2021, 12:19:40 AM
-
When dive bombing, what is the advantage of a dive bomber, such as an SBD, over a regular fighter, such as a Hellcat? If I am commanding a WWII CV, does the SBD, designed specifically for dive bombing, have an advantage over a Hellcat, designed primarily as a fighter? What makes the SBD a better dive bomber?
-
In AH the difference is minute but in realty it was huge:
1. Dive breaks - efficient - they help a lot to stabilise dive (SBD as an example)
2. Tools for automatic dive break - many dive bombers had automatic trim setting modification to optimal for dive exit (I know stuka had one) so the pilot wouldn't need to pull on his own and will work even if pilot backs out
3. Special aiming devices - famous Stuka's dive angle measurement. Pe-2 navigator could measure the wind drift on approach and dial it into dive bombing site so it will be wind corrected - stuff that gave very high accuracy for Pe-2 dive bombers with well trained crews.
Edit more:
1. bomb dropping device that extends the bomb out of the propellers circle
2. crew training
-
I'm going to argue that there isn't one.
The iconic dive bombers were all designed in the prewar years when fighters had little or no ability to carry bombs. Those designs proved to be obsolescent as the war progressed and newer types of dive bombers proving to be only marginally better. At the same time, newer fighter designs featured much more powerful engines and could carry bomb loads similar to the dive bombers at a much faster speed.
By 1944, the dive bombers were larger, slower, and had more crew with no advantages in range, payload, or survivability when compared to the front line fighters.
-
I'm going to argue that there isn't one.
The iconic dive bombers were all designed in the prewar years when fighters had little or no ability to carry bombs. Those designs proved to be obsolescent as the war progressed and newer types of dive bombers proving to be only marginally better. At the same time, newer fighter designs featured much more powerful engines and could carry bomb loads similar to the dive bombers at a much faster speed.
By 1944, the dive bombers were larger, slower, and had more crew with no advantages in range, payload, or survivability when compared to the front line fighters.
Agreed.
- oldman
-
Thanks for the input, Gentlemen. That makes sense. All of it.
-
I'm going to argue that there isn't one.
The iconic dive bombers were all designed in the prewar years when fighters had little or no ability to carry bombs. Those designs proved to be obsolescent as the war progressed and newer types of dive bombers proving to be only marginally better. At the same time, newer fighter designs featured much more powerful engines and could carry bomb loads similar to the dive bombers at a much faster speed.
By 1944, the dive bombers were larger, slower, and had more crew with no advantages in range, payload, or survivability when compared to the front line fighters.
And yet the A-36 had both a good record for both attack and air to air capability. Faster than a 109 on the deck with more firepower than P-51A/B.
-
Good point, drgondog. I'd forgotten about the A-36, and was thinking of the SB2C Helldiver as the culmination of dive bomber design.
IIRC, the A-36 wasn't a purpose designed dive bomber - the USAAF asked North American to add the dive flaps and other dive bomber features, so they could purchase the aircraft with a pot of money that had been reserved for bombers, or something like that?
-
And yet the A-36 had both a good record for both attack and air to air capability. Faster than a 109 on the deck with more firepower than P-51A/B.
That does not contradict my point, it only reinforces it.
-
Good point, drgondog. I'd forgotten about the A-36, and was thinking of the SB2C Helldiver as the culmination of dive bomber design.
IIRC, the A-36 wasn't a purpose designed dive bomber - the USAAF asked North American to add the dive flaps and other dive bomber features, so they could purchase the aircraft with a pot of money that had been reserved for bombers, or something like that?
Not quite. After visiting at the Vultee plant NAA engineers came up with the idea to mount dive brakes to the wing of the P-51, which had the problem of hitting 500mph in a full-power dive from 15k. They had to redesign the entire wing, add hard points for the bombs (coinciding with drop tank spots), and they chose to go with a special sea-level rated V-1710-87 engine to avoid overboosting in the recovery stage. That way they would get 1325hp at 3,000, even if the performance would drop off above 12k. Any way, it was Kindelberger that approached the USAAF, rather than the other way round. The A36 Mustang was another plane the British needed but hadn't asked for, and likewise the USAAF.
The original factory plans had a title block naming the project NA-73X Apache, but by the time the A36 was drawn up it became NA-93 Mustang. I just find that interesting.
-
Thanks for the correction, Chalenge!
-
The original factory plans had a title block naming the project NA-73X Apache, but by the time the A36 was drawn up it became NA-93 Mustang. I just find that interesting.
That might be the reason I keep reading that the Mustang was originally called the Apache, then renamed the Mustang. I have seen some pretty heated debates about this.
-
In AH the difference is minute but in realty it was huge:
1. Dive breaks - efficient - they help a lot to stabilise dive (SBD as an example)
2. Tools for automatic dive break - many dive bombers had automatic trim setting modification to optimal for dive exit (I know stuka had one) so the pilot wouldn't need to pull on his own and will work even if pilot backs out
3. Special aiming devices - famous Stuka's dive angle measurement. Pe-2 navigator could measure the wind drift on approach and dial it into dive bombing site so it will be wind corrected - stuff that gave very high accuracy for Pe-2 dive bombers with well trained crews.
Edit more:
1. bomb dropping device that extends the bomb out of the propellers circle
2. crew training
Lotta great points here. I think another example is how much more damage they could take from ground ack. I don't think planes like the A10 warthog would have been as popular if fighters could perform the same ground attacks as precisely. Obviously in real war, a lot of things you mentioned would have big impact on accuracy of bombs and overall strategy of using larger planes with more armor and diving control.
-
The dive bombers, specially those who could go in a very steep dive angle, could do a high-precision attack on a small target, something a fast fighter-bomber could not.
Remember air-to-ground rocket attacks during WWII were not precision weapons at all.
The only bomb type that could be launched from a regular bomber and compete with a Stuka, SBD and equals in precision, were the German radio controlled HS 293 and Fritz-Z bombs.
-
To Me the only advantage using a dive bomber in AH is the type of bombs.. I use The P47 in Near vertical dives on ships with great success. Some have dive breaks. I start My runs from about 15,000 to 17,000 and zoom climb to alt. Using a jabo allows You continue Playing the sim as a fighter.
-
a fighter set up in a jabo role is by far the better option in the game, but some of the best times I had in AH back when I use to play was flying stuka soties. The best sortie I ever had was 5 gv kills, 1 air to air kill, and several thousand in damage spread out over something like 5 or 6 reloads. Huge level of satisfaction seeing that name in lights message, not gonna lie