About German long range bombers....

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The USN used torpedo and dive bombers exclusively in the Pacific theatre. The A-36 Apache was a diver bomber. The Hudson and Vengeance were dive bombers.

This is not entirely true. The TBF and SBD were both used in the Atlantic to interdict uboats, using both depth bombs and torpedos. As far as I know you are correct if you mean none were ever used in Europe proper.

Calling the Hudson a dive bomber is kinda like calling the B-25 a dive bomber

Originally Posted by plan_D

The thing is with dive bombers is any fast and agile aircraft that can carry a bomb externally can dive bomb.

Not really. A true dive bomber has dive brakes and can dive much more steeply to a much lower altitude and still recover. They often also had more specialized bombsights. Fighters with bombs on them were generally steep glide bombers, and multi-engine planes like the Hudson a dive bomber is really just wrong, the were level bombers or glide bombers. It takes more than a slight decent to qualify as a dive bomber. In my opinion for a plane to be considered a true dive bomber it requires that it go below 5000 feet before releasing the bomb and that the bomb be released onto an actively sighted target. Most fighter bombers either released above 5000 feet or were in the act of pulling out of their dive when they released the bombs (and the pilot could no longer actually see the target over the nose).

=S=

Lunatic

[schwarzpanzer]

IIRC the Stuka had a kind of primitive auto-pilot, in case the pilot blacked-out?

[Piaggio108]

The Fw-200 was good in the role it was used for: long range missions attacking convoys. I don't think it would have done well as a bomber attacking well defended targets.

The germans probibaly favored dive bombers so much because of the Ju-87. It was very sucessful early in the war, and was used frequently in propaganda. Then, the Ju-88 is also capable of dive-bombing. The idea was to scale it up, produce a dive-bomber with an even larger bomb load.

The Ju-87 had an automatic pull out system, so the plane could pull out of a dive itself if the pilot blacked out. It was introduced on the B series.

[Lunatic]

As I think has already been pointed out, Hitler and Goering did not really believe in strategic air war. To them the Luftwaffe' was just an extension of the Army. They viewed bombers as airborne artillery.

Lots of Allied (and probably German) fighter bomber pilots would trim their aircraft to automatically pull out of the dive should they black out. I know this was the case particularly with the Typhoon.

=S=

Lunatic

[syscom3]

Didnt the first G-Suits get their first trials with the US dive bomber pilots? It worked well enough that it was then adopted for the fighter pilots.

[schwarzpanzer]

Thanks Piaggio108 for the Ju87 info.

- I thought it was a myth I'd bought!

I didn't know Typhoons dive-bombed?

I suppose dive-bombing saves HE material?

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Didnt the first G-Suits get their first trials with the US dive bomber pilots? It worked well enough that it was then adopted for the fighter pilots.

As far as I know the Berger G-suit was designed from the get-go for fighters. The develper (Berger) was a Candian WWI ace.

The British had a hydrolic G-suit which was basically like wearing two sets of chest high rubber waders one inside the other with water between. When under G force the water would be forced down squeezing the lower body. I'm not sure if these were tried for dive bombing (the Brit's didn't really have a dive bomber) but in any case the thing was so uncomfortable pilots refused to use it. Furthermore, it made it impossible to bail out because of the weight unless you could roll the plane upside down.

=S=

Lunatic

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

I didn't know Typhoons dive-bombed?

I suppose dive-bombing saves HE material?

Well again it depends what you define as "dive bombing". Typhoons really just did a steep gilde bombing attack as I define things.

The stuka was very accurate. It could reliably hit a slow or stationary enemy tank, or a pill box. Allied fighter-bombers by comparison typically missed there targets by more than 100 meteres.

In the Pacific the Dauntless was an accurate dive bomber. Attacking an evading ship using a fighter-bomber glide bombing attack would most likely be a wasted effort.

=S=

Lunatic

[schwarzpanzer]

I don't know, I would've thought rockets could sink a moving target fairly easily?

Not torpedoes though, which is what I supppse was the only other option?

I suppose dive-bombing would be good for HEAT or HEAC rounds or (those things, forgot what they're called, but kinda like darts or flechettes, but for anti-tank usage. )

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

I don't know, I would've thought rockets could sink a moving target fairly easily?

Not torpedoes though, which is what I supppse was the only other option?

I suppose dive-bombing would be good for HEAT or HEAC rounds or (those things, forgot what they're called, but kinda like darts or flechettes, but for anti-tank usage. )

True dive bombing can be pretty accurate, especially if there is not strong AAA defending the target area.

As it turns out, rockets were not very effective against tanks.
The best anti-tank aircraft weapon by a huge margine was NAPALM. Next would be large caliber anti-tank cannon, then dive bombing, then rockets, glide bombing, and finally level bombing.

=S=

Lunatic

[schwarzpanzer]

Rockets weren't good against tanks?

The Typhoons killed a lot of British tanks, scared a tankie who was there.

NAPALM was'nt around in WW2 was it?

I thought that for a cannon to kill a tank, it would have to fly close to the (moving) tank vertically (I mean 90 degrees @ <500m!?)

Mind, the Ju87 racked up the kills...


Oh, BTW I was wrong about the A36 PlanD, very sorry.

Also have a smidge of info on the Spit XXI. (same book)

[Erich]

yes napalm and oil was used in the war. Rocket kills were so so from both sides

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Piaggio108

The Fw-200 was good in the role it was used for: long range missions attacking convoys. I don't think it would have done well as a bomber attacking well defended targets.

I agree. Attacking Defended targets would not have been a good idea. The aircraft was not armed eneogh for a good defence and it had a tendency to go up in flames.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and she was incredibly weak structuraly, whe could even break her back just landing!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

She was not that terrible but yes she had some structural problems.