PDA

View Full Version : Diving bombing



rcocean
10-07-2006, 05:21 PM
Wonder why no one followed the Germans and emphasized dive-bombing. Ther Germans love dive bombers the JU-87 was the German Main attack plane, the Ju-88 - Could dive, the Germans even wanted the HE-177 to divebomb.

The USA had a few A-36s and put divebrakes on a few P-38s but otherwise all the USA attack planes were fighter-bombers or horizontal bombers like the B-26.

The USSR had the IL-2 as an attack plane, not a divebomber. The British didn't have any divebombers at all. I don't think the Japanese Army Air force had any divebombers, just the navy.

Did the Germans overrate divebombing for tactical support? Was it too vulernable to Flak?.

Strange since its the most accurate way to attack tactical ground targets. The JU-87 was a great success in France/Poland.

rcocean
10-07-2006, 05:21 PM
Wonder why no one followed the Germans and emphasized dive-bombing. Ther Germans love dive bombers the JU-87 was the German Main attack plane, the Ju-88 - Could dive, the Germans even wanted the HE-177 to divebomb.

The USA had a few A-36s and put divebrakes on a few P-38s but otherwise all the USA attack planes were fighter-bombers or horizontal bombers like the B-26.

The USSR had the IL-2 as an attack plane, not a divebomber. The British didn't have any divebombers at all. I don't think the Japanese Army Air force had any divebombers, just the navy.

Did the Germans overrate divebombing for tactical support? Was it too vulernable to Flak?.

Strange since its the most accurate way to attack tactical ground targets. The JU-87 was a great success in France/Poland.

Akronnick
10-07-2006, 05:46 PM
Dive bombers were too specialized. At the beginning of the war, fighters were to small/uderpowered to carry even a small bomb load, and heavy bombers couldn't place bobms accurately.

As the war progressed, things changed. Fighters got more powerful, allowing them to carry larger bombloads. Heavy bombers got more accurate, and even larger bomb loads. It also was realised that the attack profile of very steep dives was far more dangerous in actual combat than on the target range.

The only reason the Luftwaffe kept the concept was because Hitler made them. After their successes in Poland, France, and early victories against Russia, Hitler was unable to adapt his thinking to differing situatuions.

VW-IceFire
10-07-2006, 06:07 PM
Dive bombing left the attacking planes vulnerable to flak in the dive and to attacking enemy fighters at the end of the dive. The Stuka, although pushed by the Luftwaffe in the early years, met with a string of losses when faced against enemy fighters (starting in the Battle of Britan where the Stuka's were withdrawn after exceptional losses). It did alright on the Eastern front with the sheer size of territory and less chance of running into Russian fighters during the earlier years.

Later on you can see that they transitioned to the FW190F and G models for ground attack work. Stuka's were too vulnerable.

The F4U Corsair can also dive bomb and used this to great effect in the Pacific. The gear drops but doesn't lock and is left hanging in the wind causing the plane to slow during an attack dive. The AI does this if you give them a high altitude GATTACK point in a Corsair.

IL2-chuter
10-07-2006, 06:12 PM
The Speedy-Dee is the Stuka of the Pacific.


And let's not forget that Udet was instrumental in getting the Luftwaffe dive-bombing program going after witnessing a demonstration in the US.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

p-11.cAce
10-07-2006, 10:40 PM
Its also important to remember the role the Spanish Civil War played in the development of tactics and equipment by the Third Reich. The entire assault plan for Blitzkreig relied on a combination of Strong mechanized infantry supported by close air support and tactical - not strategic - bombing. This obviously proved to be very successful in the early days of the war. However, once the war on the ground slowed the war switched from one of tactical attack to strategic morass. By the time D-Day rolled around air superiority had been lost and with it the primary infantry support. No dive-bomber could survive without air superiority, and since the development focus had been on tactical weapons and not strategic weapons the war was lost.

WTE_Googly
10-08-2006, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rcocean:
The British didn't have any divebombers at all.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blackburn Skua. But that was Fleet Air Arm.

Kernow
10-08-2006, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rcocean:
Wonder why no one followed the Germans and emphasized dive-bombing. Ther Germans love dive bombers the JU-87 was the German Main attack plane, the Ju-88 - Could dive, the Germans even wanted the HE-177 to divebomb.

The USA had a few A-36s and put divebrakes on a few P-38s but otherwise all the USA attack planes were fighter-bombers or horizontal bombers like the B-26.

The USSR had the IL-2 as an attack plane, not a divebomber. The British didn't have any divebombers at all. I don't think the Japanese Army Air force had any divebombers, just the navy.

Did the Germans overrate divebombing for tactical support? Was it too vulernable to Flak?.

Strange since its the most accurate way to attack tactical ground targets. The JU-87 was a great success in France/Poland. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually quite a few did. The IJN, RN and USN have already been mentioned, but the Soviets were also impressed with the Stuka's early successes. The SPB-Zveno thing is a long range dive-bomber. The I-16s for that had their cannons taken out so the wings could be beefed up for a dive at 670 kph or thereabouts - 1C just 'forgot' to do either of those things to the game SPB I-16. Then they developed the Pe-2, which was really a high speed dive-bomber that just happened to be able to level-bomb as well.

You'll note it was often navies, not air forces, who were interested in dive-bombing. Partly because navies needed to hit small, moving targets, but really air forces weren't interested because dive-bombing didn't fit the independent war winning theories that the RAF and USAAF were heavily into. (In the USSR it was eventually the navy who used the Zveno in the early days of the war: a time when the air force still had strategic bombing aspirations.)

Even when the effectiveness of dive-bombing had been demonstrated air forces tended to remain willfully ignorant. The RAF pretended to know little of the Pe-2, despite a detailed report on it from an RAF officer in Russia who had flown one, sitting on an Air Ministry desk (and reports from Hurricane fighter pilots at Murmansk who mentioned they had great difficulty in keeping up with Pe-2s they were supposed to be escorting). When talking of the Eastern Front the exploits of the IL-2 were emphasized instead as they fitted more closely the developing western method of battlefield support, and dive-bombers were dismissed as 'too slow.'

The RAF did use some Vengeances in the Far East, but there was little official guidance on their use and the crews had to make it up as they went along. Likewise, I suspect the USAAF A-36s operated in a bit of a vacuum; they don't seem to have enjoyed the same success as their navy counterparts.

Oh, the RN also operated the Barracuda, a dive- and torpedo-bomber. It was used as a dive-bomber against Tirpitz.

Even the USAAF and RAF had to take note in the end, as I believe Spitfires, Mustangs and P-47s sometimes employed quite steep dives when attacking ground targets, such as the V-1 sites.

WWMaxGunz
10-08-2006, 04:32 PM
Maybe when your tactical support roles are being well-fulfilled by heavy fighters you don't
need something new? US used P-38, P-39, P-47, P-51 all in ground attacks. The P-47's could
carry a load equal to B-17 with long range fuel and drop from considerably closer, or fire
rockets. What a 190F or G did perhaps better armored? Stukas require fighter cover, Jabos
less so.

tigertalon
10-08-2006, 04:43 PM
Luftwaffe was designed as an aerial support for quickly advancing ground troops. It was designed for 'blitzkrieg' (this also explains the lack of strategic bombers in Luftwaffe). They used their bombers more like a long range artillery. No other armed forces were designed like that. I consider Ju87 a counterpart to a modern A-10A. Worst nightmare for ground troops when airspace is secured and doomed when it is not.

han freak solo
10-09-2006, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
The Speedy-Dee is the Stuka of the Pacific.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. Yet I suck so bad with it in the game.

http://mil.jschina.com.cn/afwing/intro/sbd/art2.jpg