Dive bombing discussion

[MiloMorai]

The Brits and Americans preferred fighter bombers over dive bombers. Dive bombers (A-36 and Vengeance) were quite successful in the MTO and SEA theatres.

I contend that if in the ETO that the f/bs were dumped and replaced by dive bombers the war in Europe could have ended earlier. F/bs were notoriously inaccurate but the dive bomber could take out any enemy strong points that were holding up the advance of the army.

[gyrene81]

Disagree, and you're assessment totally disregards the effects of strategic bombing. Combined operations where air superiority could be gained with fighters had more to do with the success of attack aircraft than what you give credit as well. That aside, if the Allied dive bombers success was that great, the Germans would never have gotten as far as they did in the MTO.

[Guppy35]

The Brits and Americans preferred fighter bombers over dive bombers. Dive bombers (A-36 and Vengeance) were quite successful in the MTO and SEA theatres.

I contend that if in the ETO that the f/bs were dumped and replaced by dive bombers the war in Europe could have ended earlier. F/bs were notoriously inaccurate but the dive bomber could take out any enemy strong points that were holding up the advance of the army.

In reality the A36 was really a fighter bomber.  They often wired shut the dive brakes on them.  The Vengeance can hardly be considered a successful bird. 

The ground attack guys got quite good at their jobs, at a price with the ack they had to fly through.  I think survivability in the ETO in a dive bomber would have been a huge issue.  Don't have to look much further then the Stuka to see that

So in this case Milo I have to disagree with you

[Masherbrum]

The Brits and Americans preferred fighter bombers over dive bombers. Dive bombers (A-36 and Vengeance) were quite successful in the MTO and SEA theatres.

I contend that if in the ETO that the f/bs were dumped and replaced by dive bombers the war in Europe could have ended earlier. F/bs were notoriously inaccurate but the dive bomber could take out any enemy strong points that were holding up the advance of the army.

ETO had higher concentrations of ack, as such the divebombers would have been slaughtered wholesale.   The Allies would have had a longer time if they "followed your post".   

[Soulyss]

No I don't think it would have had any more effect.  Dive bombers made sense in naval warfare because they represented one of the more accurate ways of delivering ordinance to a moving high value target, losing a few planes with the possibility of getting a capital ship in return isn't a bad trade off in war's cruel math.  

Conversely when the army deployed the SBD to the SW Pacific Theater (as the A-24)the plane did not do nearly as well, the loses vs results no longer were acceptable.  I believe that while the army understood the need for an aircraft to strike a specific target they found that a fighter aircraft loaded with bombs was accurate enough to take out a fixed positions.  

[Oldman731]

Dive bombers made sense in naval warfare because they represented one of the more accurate ways of delivering ordinance

Perhaps I'm simply misinformed.  I thought the only reason for producing dedicated dive bombers at the beginning of the war (and before the war) was that the fighters of that period weren't able to carry heavy ordnance loads (1000 lbs or more) for any meaningful distance.  Once better performing fighters became operational - the Hellcats and Corsairs in the Pacific, the 38s, 47s, 51s and Typhoons in the ETO - there was no longer any need for a purpose-built dive bomber.  Certainly there was nothing unique about dive bombers other than their ability to carry loads over long distances.  The delivery technique was the same.

What have I missed?

- oldman

[Soulyss]

Perhaps I'm simply misinformed.  I thought the only reason for producing dedicated dive bombers at the beginning of the war (and before the war) was that the fighters of that period weren't able to carry heavy ordnance loads (1000 lbs or more) for any meaningful distance.  Once better performing fighters became operational - the Hellcats and Corsairs in the Pacific, the 38s, 47s, 51s and Typhoons in the ETO - there was no longer any need for a purpose-built dive bomber.  Certainly there was nothing unique about dive bombers other than their ability to carry loads over long distances.  The delivery technique was the same.

What have I missed?

- oldman

There's probably some truth to that, however I think that the dive bomber would have been able to hold a steeper dive angle and hold it longer than a bomb laden fighter due to the air brakes.  The lower airspeed would also allow for a lower drop and pull out which are all important things when attacking maneuvering warships.

I'm not sure if you can take it as evidence supporting that theory or not, but the Navy kept ongoing development of the SB2C going despite initial problems and the Helldiver proved useful in battles later in the war.  Although dive bombers also tended to have longer ranges and were used as scout planes which were critical in carrier battles so that may have had an influence on events as well.

[Simba]

Ever wondered why even the most famous of all dive-bombers, the Ju 87 Stuka, wasn't employed as such much after mid-1942?

The dive-bomber's main asset was its ability to hit a small or otherwise difficult target, such as a moving one - and its main weakness was its predictable and easily-tracked dive-path. In the early days of the war, the shock to morale of those beng dive-bombed was such that they often ducked for cover instead of shooting back, and the frequent lack of effective close-range mobile AAA meant they didn't have much to reply with anyway. Where those conditions remained the same later in the war, dive-bombers still had their place, not least the Lend-Lease Vengeances operated by the RAF over Burma, where the type was highly regarded - but when AAA and fire-control improved, particularly with the arrival of radar-control and improved ship AA armament, the Stukas and Vals fell in droves.

Allied dive-bombers remained effective a while longer against Japanese ships with little or no radar and weak CAPs, but the dedicated dive-bomber's day was really done by 1944, even the Curtiss SB2 Helldiver often bombing at a shallower angle than that regarded as true dive-bombing.

 

 

[Ack-Ack]

  Once better performing fighters became operational - the Hellcats and Corsairs in the Pacific, the 38s, 47s, 51s and Typhoons in the ETO - there was no longer any need for a purpose-built dive bomber. 

- oldman

That's pretty much what did in the dive bombers for the US.


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

There's probably some truth to that, however I think that the dive bomber would have been able to hold a steeper dive angle and hold it longer than a bomb laden fighter due to the air brakes.  The lower airspeed would also allow for a lower drop and pull out which are all important things when attacking maneuvering warships.

I'm not sure if you can take it as evidence supporting that theory or not, but the Navy kept ongoing development of the SB2C going despite initial problems and the Helldiver proved useful in battles later in the war.  Although dive bombers also tended to have longer ranges and were used as scout planes which were critical in carrier battles so that may have had an influence on events as well.

In regards to the Helldiver, operational experience showed the US Navy that the Hellcat and Corsair were able to carry just as heavy of a bomb load and were better able to defend themselves against fighters once the bombs were dropped.  The use of air to ground rockets allowed the attack of ships and shore based targets without the stress and weight/performance issues that dive bombers had to endure.  This led to the US Navy's ultimate decision not to develop the Helldiver further and became the last purpose build dive bomber for the USN.

ack-ack

[MiloMorai]

OK guys, I was playing devil's advocate on this.

Please take a look at this thread, http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=21746

[Oldman731]

I think that the dive bomber would have been able to hold a steeper dive angle and hold it longer than a bomb laden fighter due to the air brakes.  The lower airspeed would also allow for a lower drop and pull out which are all important things when attacking maneuvering warships.

Guppy can back me up (or not), but Earl Miller, who flew P-47s in Italy, told us that he always did his dive bombing at full throttle.  We were a bit surprised by this, but he was firm.

- oldman

[Ack-Ack]

Guppy can back me up (or not), but Earl Miller, who flew P-47s in Italy, told us that he always did his dive bombing at full throttle.  We were a bit surprised by this, but he was firm.

- oldman

I remember a discussion on the BigWeek forums when Earl was talking about that, got a chuckle when some tried to tell Earl he was mistaken.

Speaking of which, I heard he had passed away, anyone know if this is true?

ack-ack

[Rino]

     I figure Dan would know Ack.  I sure hope he is still with us.
I do remember a couple things that Earl told us about his bombing.  First they always
carried 500 lb bombs, second that they usually released at 3000 feet.  He would set his
trim so that the airplane would "unload" at a certain speed <forget what that was now>
they would then start their dive at a specified altitude. 

     He said the system worked very well and was very reliable accuracy wise.

[MiloMorai]

Would that be dive bombing or high angle attack bombing? There is no way a P-47 could do a near vertical dive and survive becoming a lawn dart.