Spitfires. How good/bad at ground attack

[fastmongrel]

I have been reading about the Normandy campaign mainly from the British and Canadian perspective. Air support gets a lot of pages but mainly concerned with RAF and RCAF forward observers who worked with any unit bigger than a platoon and suffered very heavy casualties.

Typhoons and the Cab rank system are mentioned a lot but Spitfire Vs and IXs are mentioned as well used as dive bombers and strafers.

How accurate was the Spitfire dive bombing and were they modified in any way. I am guessing the flaps were used as dive brakes.

 

[pbehn]

I have been reading about the Normandy campaign mainly from the British and Canadian perspective. Air support gets a lot of pages but mainly concerned with RAF and RCAF forward observers who worked with any unit bigger than a platoon and suffered very heavy casualties.

Typhoons and the Cab rank system are mentioned a lot but Spitfire Vs and IXs are mentioned as well used as dive bombers and strafers.

How accurate was the Spitfire dive bombing and were they modified in any way. I am guessing the flaps were used as dive brakes.

From what I have read the Typhoon was much better/ preferred by pilots in strafing attacks, being more stable and less prone to side slip. For dive bombing one unit I read used to fly past the target, when it appeared behind the wing they rolled over into a dive, pointed to the target and released as they pulled out of the dive. I dont think flaps were used (cant remember). Such things require a lot of training and practice which was quite rare and in places like Normandy it was very easy to attack something that wasnt a target.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

From what I have read the Typhoon was much better/ preferred by pilots in strafing attacks, being more stable and less prone to side slip. For dive bombing one unit I read used to fly past the target, when it appeared behind the wing they rolled over into a dive, pointed to the target and released as they pulled out of the dive. I dont think flaps were used (cant remember). Such things require a lot of training and practice which was quite rare and in places like Normandy it was very easy to attack something that wasnt a target.

Operation Big Ben - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Greyman]

I have been reading about the Normandy campaign mainly from the British and Canadian perspective. Air support gets a lot of pages but mainly concerned with RAF and RCAF forward observers who worked with any unit bigger than a platoon and suffered very heavy casualties.

Typhoons and the Cab rank system are mentioned a lot but Spitfire Vs and IXs are mentioned as well used as dive bombers and strafers.

How accurate was the Spitfire dive bombing and were they modified in any way. I am guessing the flaps were used as dive brakes.

I don't think there were any real modifications, just standard Spitfires (with bomb racks, of course).

Spitfires were fine ground attack aircraft from a flying and accuracy standpoint.

Re: Dive bombing, they were one of the more accurate types in the shallower type attacks (45 degrees) but the centreline bomb precluded it from delivering the more accurate, steep (80-90 degrees) attacks.

The Spitfire flaps were very unsuited for assisting a dive-bomb attack.

I've read the opposite re: sideslip vs. the Typhoon, and that the Spitfire was definitely better in this regard. Though if the initial bank into the dive isn't flown 'round the turn' properly and the Merlin cuts this can disturb the trim badly for the initial part of the attack.

The relatively light bombload put a major damper on its efficiency vs. many types of targets as well.

 

[nuuumannn]

Just looking through trials information, Spitfire IX MJ823 was tested in March 1943 with a centreline 500 lb bomb and 2 X wing-mounted 250 pounders, with handling being little affected, even with a fuel tank replacing the centreline bomb, although at 8,675 lb all-up weight the stall was normal and occurred at 87 mph. Trials in September 1943 with the same aircraft revealed that handling and release up to speeds of 450 mph presented no problems, but release of all three bombs simultaneously was considered unsatisfactory - no indication of what that actually means, though. Firing the wing guns with bombs attached caused shells to ricochet off the bombs, which deflector plates were recommended.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Just looking through trials information, Spitfire IX MJ823 was tested in March 1943 with a centreline 500 lb bomb and 2 X wing-mounted 250 pounders….

Indeed, 1,000 lbs of bombs and twin 20 mm cannons. That's a pretty good start for a ground attack bird.

 

[nuuumannn]

There's extensive writing about the LF.IX variants in Morgan and Shacklady's Spitfire bible, which goes into how an attack went, which I'd like to add, but don't have time as I'm about to go out, nonetheless, the LF.IX came about after Coningham in North Africa requested LF.V Spitfires as in his words 80 percent of operations were conducted at low altitude, therefore Supermarine believed that the Vs should be converted to IXs and thus trials were carried out at Boscombe with MJ823. There is more in the book about those specific trials as well as a couple of recollections of the 'Bombfires' in action from guys who flew them.

 

[fastmongrel]

Firing the wing guns with bombs attached caused shells to ricochet off the bombs, which deflector plates were recommended

I'm guessing this is a typo for empty cartridges cases.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And add on some 3" rockets.

 

[PAT303]

From what I have read the biggest problem with spits was the dive speed, apparently they gained speed very quickly in a dive which caught pilots out trying to get set up to drop, the other problem was with the bombs, the British bombs didn't have the same amount of explosives as the other forces and the 250lbs were quite ordinary in that regard.

 

[Admiral Beez]

How about the Seafire? Did they ever carry bombs? I would think if drop tanks are feasible, so would bombs.... though given the fragile legs returning to the carrier with the bombs still affixed would be a challenge. Clearly in Korea the Seafire's role was ground attack, with 3" rockets under the wings.

 

[wuzak]

the other problem was with the bombs, the British bombs didn't have the same amount of explosives as the other forces and the 250lbs were quite ordinary in that regard.

There were two different generations of bombs.

The earlier bombs were the General Purpose (GP) bombs that had roughly 25-30% charge-to-weight ratio.

The later ones were the Medium Capacity (MC) bombs with ~50-60% charge-to-weight ratio, similar to the ratios in bombs by other countries.

MC bombs were available in 250lb, 500lb, 1,000lb and 4,000lb weights.

GP bombs were available in 40lb, 40lb (parachute), 250lb, 500lb, 1,000lb, 1,900lb and 4,000lb.

Though the MC bombs superseded the GP bombs (in the main sizes any way) the GP bombs continued to be used through the war because they were available while the MC bombs became available at different times during the war.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The first bomb carrying Spitfire were produced in Malta. Here is a short summary.

Spitfire V. bombs and drop tanks

Spitfire V. bombs and drop tanks

www.sas1946.com

 

[33k in the air]

And add on some 3" rockets.

View attachment 640306

How many rockets were typically carried?

 

[Graeme]

 

[Admiral Beez]

Did Britain make too many Spitfires to the detriment of something else more strike capable powered by a single Merlin?

 

[Snautzer01]

View attachment 640379

This is what they bombed.

Marlot (buurt in Den Haag) - Wikipedia

nl.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Greyman]

Did Britain make too many Spitfires to the detriment of something else more strike capable powered by a single Merlin?

If the Mustang counts I'd vote for that. The Spitfire was shown to be a more accurate bomber, but in every other category I'd go with a Mustang.

All-told a Kittyhawk would probably be better too.

In the absence of real flak opposition (ie Burma) the Hurricane was an extremely efficient dive bomber. Better than the Thunderbolt (though bested by the Vengeance, not surprisingly). The Thunderbolt's range was just too useful however, and that forced the switch.

 

[MikeMeech]

If the Mustang counts I'd vote for that. The Spitfire was shown to be a more accurate bomber, but in every other category I'd go with a Mustang.

All-told a Kittyhawk would probably be better too.

In the absence of real flak opposition (ie Burma) the Hurricane was an extremely efficient dive bomber. Better than the Thunderbolt (though bested by the Vengeance, not surprisingly). The Thunderbolt's range was just too useful however, and that forced the switch.

Hi
There is an interesting footnote on page 79 of 'Air Power at the Battlefront - Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45' by Ian Gooderson, it mentions that at least some ground troops considered that Hurricane fighter-bombers were more accurate than Vengeance dive bombers in their attacks:

Mike

 

[nuuumannn]

I'm guessing this is a typo for empty cartridges cases.

Course it wasn't! Nah, just checking to see you were awake...