about these dive bombers

[pembquist]

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.

[FLS]

You go to war with the aircraft you have. Carrying 2 1000lb bombs was probably not common for fighters because of the flight restrictions.

[asterix]

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.

[bozon]

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.

[Oldman731]

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

[FLS]

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.

[asterix]

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.

[Greebo]

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.

[Vraciu]

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.

[EagleDNY]

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. 

[bustr]

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

[EagleDNY]

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. 

[colmbo]

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"

[FLS]

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.   

[Oldman731]

The A in A-1 is for Attack.

...sort of like...the Douglas A-24....?

- oldman