# Dive Bombing improves accuracy how much?



## davebender (Jan 7, 2010)

The Ju-88 could dive bomb. The He-111 and Do-17 could not. Do we have historical data to compare bombing accuracy vs point targets like bunkers, bridges and artillery emplacements?


----------



## Demetrious (Jan 7, 2010)

davebender said:


> The Ju-88 could dive bomb. The He-111 and Do-17 could not. Do we have historical data to compare bombing accuracy vs point targets like bunkers, bridges and artillery emplacements?



Just because it COULD dive-bomb doesn't mean it DID. Ju-88 dive-bombing wasn't very common, as far as I can recall. I've never heard any stories or anecdotes about such attacks, at any rate. The retention of dive-bombing ability in every heavy bomber of the Luftwaffe was the result of starry-eyed generals crooning over the success of dive-bombing with the Stuka.

As for the accuracy of dive bombing vs. level bombing, that depends highly on the altitude. Level bombing with good bombsights (like the Norden,) could reasonably be expected to put a bomb within the "obliteration" range of a target from 10-12,000 feet, but against a target with any sort of significant AA coverage those altitudes were suicide for heavy, slow bombers. From higher altitudes, with multiple wind layers affecting the bombs free-fall, accuracy wasn't very good. 

Dive-bombing, on the other hand, usually involved a smaller aircraft (was limited to them, in fact,) and allowed you to actually "point" the bomb roughly where you wanted to go, and impart most of your planes velocity to the bomb, keeping it on course better then a free-fall would. (Remember, "velocity" is "speed in a given direction.") Their release altitudes were much lower. I think it's a no-brainier that dive-bombing was far more accurate. For exact numbers, though, I can't help you.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 7, 2010)

In October 1937 Generalluftzeugmeister Ernst Udet had ordered the development of the Ju 88 as a heavy dive bomber. This decision was influenced by the success of the Ju 87 Stuka in this role. The Junkers development center at Dessau gave priority to the study of pull-out systems, and dive brakes. The first prototype to be tested as a dive bomber was the Ju 88V4 followed by the V5 and V6. These models became the planned prototype for the A-1 series. The V5 made its maiden flight on 13 April 1938, and the V6 on 28 June 1938. Both the V5 and V6 were fitted with four-blade propellers, an extra bomb bay and a central "control system". As a dive bomber, the Ju 88 was capable of pinpoint deliveries of heavy loads; however, despite all the modifications, dive bombing still proved too stressful for the airframe, and in 1943, tactics were changed so that bombs were delivered from a shallower, 45° diving angle. Aircraft and bomb sights were accordingly modified and dive brakes were removed. With an advanced Stuvi dive-bombsight, accuracy remained very good for its time. (from Wiki)


----------



## davebender (Jan 7, 2010)

> As a dive bomber, the Ju 88 was capable of pinpoint deliveries of heavy loads


If true I think this would be a popular delivery method. So what if the airframe is only good for a few dozen missions? The target is destroyed and only a few bomber aircraft were required. Much less expensive in aircraft and aircrew then level bombing using hundreds of aircraft.


----------



## Butters (Jan 7, 2010)

The very steep angle dive-bombing technique used by purpose-built dive bombers was very accurate, but it left the bomber extremely vulnerable to both AA and fighter attack. 

Which not only led to the demise of many dive-bombers, but also to the demise of the dive-bomber concept itself.

JL


----------



## Waynos (Jan 7, 2010)

The Avro Manchester was also required to be capable of dive bombing. Imagine having to dive that thing! Just having to fly it was bad enough.


----------



## davebender (Jan 7, 2010)

> left the bomber extremely vulnerable to both AA and fighter attack.


But you are only risking a single dive bomber squadron to take out a factory size target. As opposed to risking 500 or so heavy bombers to accomplish the same mission.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 7, 2010)

Divebombing as a technique also proved very vulnerable to flak. Whereas the average ammunition expenditure to bring down a High Level Heavy Bomber in 1944 was around 16000 shells per kill, to bring down a Divebomber, the ammunition expenditure for the allies was somthing less than 1500 rounds per kill. Fighter Bombers were somewhat less prone to flak damage, at around 6000 rounds per kill.

Why was divebombing so vulnerable? The path of attack was predictable, and the dive rate had to be relatively slow in order to achieve the high accuracy it boasted. I also think that the airframe was under such a heavy amount of stress that it only would take a few rounds hitting the aircraft to cause it to suffer catastrophic structural failures whilst in the manouvre

As far as the Ju88 was concerned, in naval terms it was not considered as great a threat as Ju87s, and was about the same threat level as an Me 110 though it was successfull in the role, and its longer range made it a dangerous opponent to the Royal Navy. The situation changed after October 1941, when Ju88s began to be fitted with reliable torpedoes (of Italian origin I believe)


----------



## davebender (Jan 7, 2010)

> Divebombing as a technique also proved very vulnerable to flak.


I realize that. But look at the flip side of the coin - a single squadron of heavy dive bombers (i.e. Ju-88s) can destroy an enemy factory or bridge. From a military point of view losing all 12 Ju-88s to destroy such a high value target is much less expensive then sending hundreds of heavy bombers which are likely to miss the target completely.


----------



## Demetrious (Jan 8, 2010)

davebender said:


> I realize that. But look at the flip side of the coin - a single squadron of heavy dive bombers (i.e. Ju-88s) can destroy an enemy factory or bridge. From a military point of view losing all 12 Ju-88s to destroy such a high value target is much less expensive then sending hundreds of heavy bombers which are likely to miss the target completely.



You just explained why some bombers were used in the roles they were. 

As parsifal explained, heavy bombers required more flack to kill- because they were attacking from much higher altitudes. The inaccuracy of high-altitude bombing, however, becomes a moot point when you attack large, valuable targets like factory complexes. The Ford Motor Company transmission plant in Livonia, Michigan, where my father used to work is easily five hundred acres square, and I might be underestimating it badly. A single dive bomber squadron might be able to hit one or two buildings, but wouldn't be able to concentrate a devastating amount of ordinance on every part of the facility- the testing buildings, the office buildings, the factory buildings, the vehicle test track, etc. A heavy bomber formation from altitude could easily hit such a large target, and their heavy payload would be needed to properly saturate the target. 

However, if you're going after small, hard-to-hit, high value targets like bridges, the equation is reversed because the bombers will probably miss the target, exposing themselves for no gain. This is where the higher risk of dive bombers pays off- the accuracy allows you to strike small, high value targets.

This is why they call it _strategic_ bombing, as opposed to _tactical._


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 8, 2010)

Demetrious said:


> However, if you're going after small, hard-to-hit, high value targets like bridges, the equation is reversed because the bombers will probably miss the target, exposing themselves for no gain. This is where the higher risk of dive bombers pays off- the accuracy allows you to strike small, high value targets.
> 
> ]



Or you load up a few Lancasters with Grand Slam or Tallboy bombs and you wipe that bridge off the face of the earth


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Mm-zFW_nA_


----------



## davebender (Jan 8, 2010)

> load up a few Lancasters with Grand Slam or Tallboy bombs and you wipe that bridge off the face of the earth


Only if you hit it. Otherwise you just make a big splash in the water and kill a lot of fish.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 8, 2010)

davebender said:


> Only if you hit it. Otherwise you just make a big splash in the water and kill a lot of fish.



The idea behind the big earthquake bombs was that you didnt hit the target you aimed to miss. The bomb penetrated the ground or water then exploded. The explosion created a large cavity in the ground which collapsed bringing the structre down. The bomb didnt directly destroy the target the cavity formed by the expanding gas caused a crater this plus the blast effect was very impressive in destroying targets like U-Boat pens and the V3 launch sites.

A similar theory was behind the magnetic torpedo exploder you set the depth of the torpedo so it ran underneath the ship (exploding amidships if the aim was right) causing a large gas bubble under the ship. A ship cant float on a gas bubble so the ends of the ship were supported but amidships wasnt so breaking its back.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 8, 2010)

> These massive bombs designed by Dr. Barnes Wallis reached the speed of sound during descent being streamlined and equipped with angled fins that produced a rapid spin. Penetrating the ground before exploding they worked by setting off shock waves that would bring down nearby structures. The 5.443 kg (12.000 lb) "Tall Boy" dropped from 6.096m (20.000 feet) made a 24 meter (80 feet) deep crater 30 meter (100 feet) across and could go through 4,88 meter 16 feet of concrete. On 8-9 June, 1944 eight Lancaster bombers of No. 617 Squadron used the deep penetration "Tall Boy" bomb in an attack against the Saumur Rail Tunnel. The new weapon proved its worth, but at the cost of losing 5 of the 8 bombers on this mission. Eventually 854 Tallboy bombs were used, the most note-worthy mission resulting in the destruction of the battleship Tirpitz





> The "Grand Slam" (Earthquake) bomb was of the same design as the Tallboy but larger and heavier weighing 9.979 kg (22.000 lb). The Grand Slam was first used on 14 March, 1945 when a force of Lancaster bombers led by Royal Air Force Squadron Leader C.C. Calder attacked the Bielefeld railway viaduct destroying two spans. In another attack against submarine pens, (Bunker Valentin) near Bremen, two Grand Slams pentrated 4,5 meters of reinforced concrete. 41 Grand Slam Bombs were dropped by the end of the war mainly against bridges and viaducts.





> In mid-1944 the British had to realize that with traditional weapons (torpedoes, mines and bombs) there was no way to put the Tirpitz out of commission permanently. At this time a new bomb was put into service, the "Tall Boy", a weapon developed under the direction of Professor Dr. Barnes Wallis, under whose leadership the 3.900 kg (8.600 lb) rotary water bombs, used with great success in the spring of 1943 on reservoir dams in Germany, also originated. The RAF Bomb Command thus received orders to attack the Tirpitz with the new "Tall Boy" bombs. With their weight of 5.443 kg (12.000 lb) they were the heaviest bombs ever built up to that time. In fact, the "Tall Boy" was a "Superbomb". It belonged to the category of thick-walled, teardrop-shaped GP bombs (GP "General Purpose", thus a multipleuse bomb) and were 6,35 meters (21 feet) long with a diameter of 0,95 meter (38 inches). Their warhead consisted of 2.358 kg (5.200 lb) of "Torpex", a highly explosive substance with a detonation speed of 7.600 meters (8.350 yards) per second (in comparison: the detonation speed of traditional TNT is "only" 6.900 meters (7.580 yards) per second). The ignition delay could be set to a maximum of eleven seconds. Such bombs could be carried only by the four engined bombers of the "Lancaster Mark I S" type, and then only one per plane, which also had to be rebuilt for this purpose. At the end of the war a total of 854 "Tall Boy" bombs had been dropped, of which 77 were dropped in the three attacks on the Tirpitz in September, October and November of 1944 alone. In the first attack, two direct hits on the bow was achieved, in the second only a near miss. In the decisive third attack there were three direct hits and one near miss. At the third attack, 12. November 1944, Tirpitz capsized and had to be written off as a total loss.





Tirpitz - The "Tall Boy" and "Grand Slam" Bombs


Its amazing what the Allie's went through to sink the Tirpitz. This ship tied up numerous resources just from its mear presance. It cost many lives from both sides in the end.


----------



## davebender (Jan 8, 2010)

uboat.net - Boats - Flotillas - Bases - St. Nazaire, France
It appears to me the St. Nazaire U-Boat pen was still intact during 1991 when this picture was taken..


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 8, 2010)

Some of the U-Boat Pens today are still around. A few are accessable, but some are not.


----------



## davebender (Jan 9, 2010)

Let's attack this dive bomber accuracy discussion from another angle. Erprobungsgruppe 210 was formed during the summer of 1940, operating the Me-110C4/B. 

*Me-110C4/B.* Fighter-Bomber variant of Me-110C.
WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstrer - Frans Bonn
.....Additional armor protection for the crew.
.....2 x ETC-250 racks. Each rack can carry a 250kg bomb.
.....1,270hp DB601N engines. A bit more power to counter the additional weight.

How accurate were these Me-110s vs point targets compared to the dive bombing Ju-88s?


----------



## davebender (Jan 9, 2010)

HyperWar: The Battle of Britain--A German Perspective

Summary.
An average Ju-87 dive bomber pilot had a 25% chance to hit within 30 yards of the aim point.

Summary.
A Ju-88 dive bomber had a 50% chance to hit within 50 meters of the aim point.

Summary.
German level bombers attacking from low altitude could place 20 to 25% of their bombs within 330 feet of the aim point.

Summary.
An average B-17 aircrew had a 20% chance to hit within 1,000 feet of the aim point.

If this data is correct then the Ju-88A was an exceptionally accurate bomber. When used as a dive bomber accuracy approached that of the Ju-87. Which leads me to think the late 1930s German emphasis on dive bombing was a good thing.




> the Ju87B-1 (the model in service in 1939-1940), "was to prove effective in the hands of expert pilots, who, in dives of eighty degrees to within 2,300 feet from the ground, could deliver a bomb with an accuracy of less than thirty yards. Even average pilots could achieve a twenty-five percent success rate in hitting their targets





> By comparison, US Army air forces typically designated a radius of 1,000 feet as the "target area" aim point for the "pickle-barrel" bombing conducted in Europe. "While accuracy improved during the war, [US Strategic Bombing] Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area.





> In 1938, "even well-qualified bomber crews could achieve only a two percent bombing accuracy in high-level, horizontal attacks (up to 13,500 feet), and twelve to twenty-five percent accuracy in low level attacks against targets of between 165 to 330 feet in radius





> Eventually the twin-engine Ju88 "wonder bomber" (as the propaganda of the day called it), and even the He177 "heavy bomber" were to fall victim to the momentum of the dive-bomber craze. The original specifications and indeed the early prototypes of the Ju88 were quite good when compared to the fighters actually available during the Battle of Britain. "In March 1939, one of the first prototypes established a new 621 miles closed-circuit record by carrying a 4,409 lb. payload at an average speed of 321.25 m.p.h.."30 (The maximum speed for the Spitfire Mk 1: 355 mph, and that of the Hurricane Mk 1: 328 mph.) But, following extensive (about 25,000) modifications to meet the "dive-bomber" specifications and to provide for additional armament as well as a fourth crew member, the performance of the final production models of the Ju88 were disappointing. As an example, when the production version, Ju88A-1, arrived in September 1939 it had a maximum speed of only 258 mph, and a range of 550 miles with a 2,000-pound bomb load. With a maximum bomb load of 3,800 pounds performance was further reduced to 190 mph with a radius of just 250 miles! However, and this is significant in light of the reasons for the modifications to the original design: a production model, when properly flown under test conditions, could deliver 50 percent of its bomb load within a 50-meter circle


----------



## stona (Jan 12, 2010)

Surely one of the best illustrations of just how accurate dive bombing could be was provided by the Americans at Midway. It took only minutes to destroy three carriers (Kaga,Akagi and Soryu) followed later by Hiryu.
Anyone who was on Yorktown will tell you the Japanese could do it too,though of course she was finished by torpedoes.
Steve


----------



## riacrato (Jan 12, 2010)

Nice info dave.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 12, 2010)

stona said:


> Surely one of the best illustrations of just how accurate dive bombing could be was provided by the Americans at Midway. It took only minutes to destroy three carriers (Kaga,Akagi and Soryu) followed later by Hiryu.
> Anyone who was on Yorktown will tell you the Japanese could do it too,though of course she was finished by torpedoes.
> Steve


Yep, and those aboard KM Königsberg would tell that Blackburn Skua was also a precision weapon.


----------



## stona (Jan 12, 2010)

I'm not sure attacking a damaged cruiser at a mooring,effectively unopposed is quite the same as taking on an IJN taskforce. I believe she only got two 2cm light flak guns into action. Those FAA pilots did manage to hit her two or three times and I don't doubt their skill and determination.
Steve


----------



## davebender (Jan 12, 2010)

I think this is what more or less ended dive bombing as a method of attack. It was practically suicide vs an alert enemy with plenty of light flak. And radar can see dive bombers coming for 100+ miles even during WWII.

Contrast that with skip bombing from an altitude of 45 meters (i.e. Swedish Turnip method). With WWII era radar, warning time amounts to less then a minute. Not enough time to get the light flack manned and pointed in the right direction. As the attack on Bari shows, low level skip bombing can be just as accurate as dive bombing.

Of course it takes a lot of guts and good training to fly at an altitude of 45 meters in a fixed wing aircraft.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 12, 2010)

davebender said:


> HyperWar: The Battle of Britain--A German Perspective
> 
> Summary.
> An average Ju-87 dive bomber pilot had a 25% chance to hit within 30 yards of the aim point.
> ...



I'd be reluctant to compare strategic bombing statistics with tactical bombing statistics even as a reference... its apples and oranges. Besides, doctrine could compensate for weaknesses for example, incendiary devices, low altitude strategic bombing, sheer numbers. Anyway,IMO, 70% of the value of 4 engine bomber raids was forcing the enemy to use their resources to react and defend. Strategic bombers cannot be mentioned in the same breath as dive bombers... It's like comparing an A-10 to a B-52 with iron bombs.

.


----------



## davebender (Jan 13, 2010)

> reluctant to compare strategic bombing statistics with tactical bombing statistics


You are attempting to make a distinction that did not exist in the real world.

When Ju-88As bombed English aircraft factories and port facilities they were conducting strategic bombing.

When British and American level bombers attempted to provide CAS for combat troops (something that happened supprisingly often in Italy) they were conducting tactical bombing.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 13, 2010)

There are a number of factors that are likely to affect bombing accuracy.The altitude that the bombs are being dropped is an obvious constraint. The Germans generally bombed at altitudes of 14-18K whilst the US Heavy bombers were generally operating 24-28K. If you do a little scale drawing, and assume a certain angle for the error, you will see that the higher an aircraft is flying, the greater the error or distance from the aiming point for an assumed error factor.

The second big variableis the amount of flak. Flak more than anything affects bombing accuracy. If the flak is bursting around your ears, you are going to do a couple of things....the first is that you will tend to fly higher, the second is that you will tend to be thrown off your aim as a bombadier, and will tend to drop the bombload sooner rather than checking the aiming point is right. In the Battle Of Britain the British AA efforts were pretty poor, because of poor training, a scarcity of guns, a gun park that was old and innefficient, a shortage of range and height finding equipment. The Germans were basically untroubled by British flak. The same cant be said about German flak firing at Allied bombers, although later in the war it is generally acknowlewdged that German flak did fall away in quality.

Thirdly, is the crew proficiency. A better trainied crew will generally hit targets more accurately than an untrained crew. During the war, Japanese Val D/Bs went from an unbelievable accuracy of 85% when attacking the Cornwall, Dorsetshire and Hermes, by 1943 the US Navy estimated the Val jockeys were achieving hit rates of below 10%, without any external impact affecting them. They just couldnt hold the crate on the target...same thing happened to the germans as their pilot training programs fell to pices, so too did the quality of their bombers to hit things.

Fourthly, the airframe and the system carrying it will affect the outcome. Probably the least important of all the factors, the airframe and its aiming and delivery systems can affect the accuracy of the bombing effort. Skuas were not as good as Ju87s in terms of accuracy, because of a number of factors, including the fact that the airframe simply was not as stable the Ju-87 when enterring the bombing run....the same criticism is applicable to the French Divebomber, the LN 40.

I dont think any conclusions can be drawn about the relative merits of any aircraft unless and untill these and many other variable are considered for their effect on the outcome


----------



## drgondog (Jan 13, 2010)

Dive bombing was inherently more accurate than high altitude level flight precision bombing. It reduced the variables of drift and circular error by virtue of pointing at the target and closing the distance of the free fall to thousands of feet rather than 10's of thousands. 

High altitude release accuracy not only depended on a very effective gyro linking of the sight to the flight controls but also the lack of wind shear at various altitudes.

Having said this it required significant pilot skill and aircraft designed for the tactical purpose (dive brakes, etc) to reduce the speed sufficiently to reduce the altitude of release before dropping the load.

Aircraft like P-47's were less accurate than Ju 87 or SBD.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 13, 2010)

davebender said:


> You are attempting to make a distinction that did not exist in the real world.
> 
> When Ju-88As bombed English aircraft factories and port facilities they were conducting strategic bombing.
> 
> When British and American level bombers attempted to provide CAS for combat troops (something that happened supprisingly often in Italy) they were conducting tactical bombing.



Just because there was occasional overlap, doesn't mean there is no distinction.. 
The distinction exists without my "attempt"

Comparing the accuracy of a stuka with a b-17 is ridiculous..


----------



## davebender (Jan 13, 2010)

> Dive bombing was inherently more accurate than high altitude level flight precision bombing.


But not necessarily more accurate then low level precision bombing like that employed at Bari.

What I am trying to determine is whether large dive bombers like the Ju-88 and Me-210/Me-410 were worthwhile. The structural strengthening required by dive bombing results in some loss of performance. Did the Luftwaffe get their moneys worth turning the Ju-88 into a dive bomber? Or would they be further ahead making the Ju-88 as fast as possible at low level and practising precision bombing at a height of 45 meters?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 13, 2010)

davebender said:


> But not necessarily more accurate then low level precision bombing like that employed at Bari.
> 
> What I am trying to determine is whether large dive bombers like the Ju-88 and Me-210/Me-410 were worthwhile. The structural strengthening required by dive bombing results in some loss of performance. Did the Luftwaffe get their moneys worth turning the Ju-88 into a dive bomber? Or would they be further ahead making the Ju-88 as fast as possible at low level and practising precision bombing at a height of 45 meters?



Well, if you want to do a long range strike on a Murmansk convoy, or penetrate Malta defenses or attack Great Britain you better not bring your Stuka if you want them back.

The tactical doctrine of close air support dominated german high command thinking but you could not turn a Stuka (or SBD) into an A-20 or a Mossie.

And yes, it (dive momber) is still more accurate across a wide range of pin point targets than a low level high speed light bomber. 

If the target is one with high vertical contrast like a fortress/prison wall or a dam or a building a hit at the base is pretty much as good as a high hit - but contrast that same vertical dispersion attempting to hit a tank or a pill box. The base hit is still good, the mast or high hit is a very bad miss on a low profile target.


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2010)

davebender said:


> But not necessarily more accurate then low level precision bombing like that employed at Bari.
> 
> What I am trying to determine is whether large dive bombers like the Ju-88 and Me-210/Me-410 were worthwhile. The structural strengthening required by dive bombing results in some loss of performance. Did the Luftwaffe get their moneys worth turning the Ju-88 into a dive bomber? Or would they be further ahead making the Ju-88 as fast as possible at low level and practising precision bombing at a height of 45 meters?



Personally I don't think that Germany did get their monies worth out of turning Ju88 and similar aircraft into dive bombers. That said, I can understand why they tried. We know that the dive bomber was basically replaced by fighter bombers such as FW190, P47, Typhoon which fulfilled the same role effectively. However the dive bombers were designed in the late 30's when the idea of a fighter carrying a bomb load of 1,000 lb + was laughable.

Germany and to be fair Russia tried to extend the range of the dive bomber by extending it to the Ju88 and Pe2 must have seemed like a good idea but it didn't really work.


----------



## davebender (Jan 14, 2010)

> Personally I don't think that Germany did get their monies worth out of turning Ju88 and similar aircraft into dive bombers. That said, I can understand why they tried.


That is also the conclusion I am coming around to. 

Dive bombers like the Ju-87 were very accurate. This was proven in operational exercises as well as during combat with the Kondor Legion. 

Norden bombsight claims notwithstanding, it was obvious that high altitude bombing was not going to work with WWII era technology. Only wishful thinking (which the RAF and U.S.Army Air Corps had in abundance) could make one think otherwise.

So late 1930s Germany institutes a multitrack approach to improve bombardment accuracy.
- Guided weapons, untimately resulting in the Fritz X and Hs-293.
- Take dive bombing to the next level by turning the Ju-88 medium bomber into a large dive bomber.
- Skip bombing from extremely low level, resulting in the Swedish Turnip technique.
- Go slow with heavy bomber development until the Luftwaffe has a better idea what will work.

Without WWII the Luftwaffe would probably have sorted all this out during the early 1940s. But time ran out and you go to war with the aircraft you already have. All said and done, the historical Ju-88A was a pretty good compromise. And the next generation Do-217 was a wonderful level bomber that failed to reach it's potential only due to a wartime shortage of BMW801 engines.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 14, 2010)

_Norden bombsight claims notwithstanding, it was obvious that high altitude bombing was not going to work with WWII era technology. Only wishful thinking (which the RAF and U.S.Army Air Corps had in abundance) could make one think otherwise._

How did you come to the conclusion that High altitude bombing doesnt work? I think for the roles it was used in it was far superior to anything attempted by the Germans. Imagine if it was the Germans attempting to bring a country to its knees with low level (ie below 10000 feet) level bombing strikes, or worse, using divebombing techniques. The result would have been a slaughter of the bombing force, as the losses from flak went through the roof, five, ten and then twenty times the loss rates by High altitude bombers. Instead of an attrition rate of 2.5%, you would have been looking at loss rates of 25%+ per raid. There would have been catastrophic and irreversible effects on the experience pool of the Luftwaffe.

High leverl bombing has its place, and as several other members have repeatedly pointed out, comparing the two is just an invalid approach. 

Divebombing and low level strikes can work in a tactical or ground support situation where the flak is not concentrated, and/or, the fighter opposition is thinned or dispersed, or where you have an exceptional aircraft like the Mosquito, that can use its speed to minimise the effects of LAA. If Divebombing was attempted against strategic targets where the flak and the fighter defences are concentrated, the Divebombers would be massacred, as the Ju87s were in the BoB. The Ju88 was never used in a vertical divebombing role, but it was used in gentle divebombing roles, both in 1940, and again in 1944. The glide bomb effort in 1944, was used to give the German bombers some additional speed....they basically did a Hi-Lo flight plan as they nervously attacked targets in England in 1944. The loss of altitude gave the by then thick and effective flak defences in England easy targets to attack, and gave the defending fighters plenty of time to gain altitude and pouince on the unfortunate bomber crews using this ill thought out strategy. The German Bomber losses in the 1944 offensive, using only slightly modified tactics to the ones you are suggesting were hacked out of the sky with ease, and because the bomb runs were so fast (with poor crews I will concede), the bombiong accuracy significantly worse that those Allied High Level Bombers that you are so disdainful of 

Looking further at the only real strategic bombing effort by the germans using these updated methods you are longing after, we see German bombing efforts in Operation Steinbock were a near total failure. The first air raid occurred on the night of 21 st January 1944 when 227 bombers were involved. They used "Dueppel", which was the German equivalent of "Window". These were strips of metal foil designed to confuse radar defences. Then a repeat raid was made during the latter part of the same night. Some of the returning Luftwaffe bombers had been refuelled and these were joined by other bombers. In this second raid a total of 220 bombers took part. London had been the target of both raids but only 44 incidents in the London area were logged. The bombs fell mostly in Sussex, Kent and Essex. At least 43 Luftwaffe aircraft were lost in these two raids including at least 18 to the lethal De Havilland Mosquito night fighters. Flak brought down at 15 bombers. . A further 18 bombers were destroyed in noncombat accidents, including mishandling, navigation errors or crashes at dimly lit bases. More raids occurred in February and caused little damage, apart from a raid on 18/19 th of that month. About 200 German bombers dropped 140 tons of bombs in the London area on that night. Further attacks continued in March and Hull and Bristol were also targeted. In May Weymouth, Torquay and Falmouth received attention from Operation Steinbock before the offensive was abandoned. Air raid casualties in Britain totalled 1556 killed and 2916 seriously injured. During that five month period the Luftwaffe lost 330 bombers. For every 5 citizens killed, the Germans lost 1 bomber and four trained aircrew either killed or captured. It had been a costly failure. How it can be argued that German bombing was superior to Allied technologies and techniques either as level bombers, glide bombers, or even divebombers, when operating in a strategic role is just wishful thinking.... 


_So late 1930s Germany institutes a multitrack approach to improve bombardment accuracy.
- Guided weapons, untimately resulting in the Fritz X and Hs-293.
- Take dive bombing to the next level by turning the Ju-88 medium bomber into a large dive bomber.
- Skip bombing from extremely low level, resulting in the Swedish Turnip technique.
- Go slow with heavy bomber development until the Luftwaffe has a better idea what will work_.

And all the while the allies, including France and the USSR are working on their own programs that would largely cancel these benefits out completely and more

_Without WWII the Luftwaffe would probably have sorted all this out during the early 1940s. But time ran out and you go to war with the aircraft you already have. All said and done, the historical Ju-88A was a pretty good compromise. And the next generation Do-217 was a wonderful level bomber that failed to reach it's potential only due to a wartime shortage of BMW801 engines_.

In the case of the Germans, it was an economic and political necessity that they go to war when they did. The German economy was in such a terrible state by 1939, that it really had no option other than to use the wepons it had invested the meagre national wealth in up to that time....whereas more peaceful nations were addressing the economic after shock of the depression by re-investing in their industrial and social infrastructures, the Germans (whoi had suffered more than most from the depression) under the Nazis, were investing their meagre resources in preparing for war. If they had wited as you suggested for their armaments programs to mature, they would have lost the war before it even started


----------



## drgondog (Jan 14, 2010)

davebender said:


> Norden bombsight claims notwithstanding, it was obvious that high altitude bombing was not going to work with WWII era technology. Only wishful thinking (which the RAF and U.S.Army Air Corps had in abundance) could make one think otherwise.
> 
> So late 1930s Germany institutes a multitrack approach to improve bombardment accuracy.
> - Guided weapons, untimately resulting in the Fritz X and Hs-293.
> ...



Hard to say that high altitude bombing didn't work - but share your metric for 'success' and maybe I will understand.

Secondly, explain how any 'low altitude bombing' approach works in the Strategic campaign context in ETO? 

Illusttrate a Definition - bomb Berlin/Posnan/Brux/Merseberg from UK with 'low altitude bombers'..versus 'high altitude bombers'

or, conversely Luftwaffe bomb UK (or Moscow) from east/central Germany with any aircraft in their inventory


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 14, 2010)

Demetrious said:


> Just because it COULD dive-bomb doesn't mean it DID. Ju-88 dive-bombing wasn't very common, as far as I can recall. I've never heard any stories or anecdotes about such attacks, at any rate. .



Ju-88s regularly dive bombed over Malta, with impressive accuracy.


----------



## davebender (Jan 14, 2010)

> explain how any 'low altitude bombing' approach works in the Strategic campaign context in ETO?


The attack by 105 Ju-88 bombers that closed the Port of Bari for about two months. That put a major crimp in U.S.Army Air Corps efforts to get a heavy bomber campaign going from the Foggia airfield complex.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 15, 2010)

davebender said:


> And the next generation Do-217 was a wonderful level bomber that failed to reach it's potential only due to a wartime shortage of BMW801 engines.



It might be more accurate to say that the Do-217 was a wonderful level bomber that failed to reach it's potential only due to a lack of an engine of significantly higher power than either the BMW 801 or DB 603.

With less power than a B-25 or Wellington in the BMW801 versions the Do 217 was not going to be able to mount any short of strategic bombing campaign no matter how many were built.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 15, 2010)

davebender said:


> The attack by 105 Ju-88 bombers that closed the Port of Bari for about two months. That put a major crimp in U.S.Army Air Corps efforts to get a heavy bomber campaign going from the Foggia airfield complex.



dave- is this your perception of an ETO strategic bombing campaign?


----------



## davebender (Jan 15, 2010)

Closing a vital enemy seaport for a significant period of time is about as strategic as it gets. Just as when the USN mined the Port of Haiphong shut during 1972.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2010)

The closure of Bari as a port for over two months owed virtually nothing to the accuracy of the Axis bombers. It was almost exclusively the result of sheer bad luck and utter stupidity on the part of the Port Commander.

The urgent need for supplies for the forces fighting on the Italian peninsula led the port commander to oirder that ships be unloaded with the harbour fully illuminated. This was th4e first blunder. The second was the utter complacency in setting up adequate flak, radwar and night fighter defences over such a vital tartget. The attacking bombers therefore were providede with a fully illuminated target, and no night fighter defences. Their effective deployment of Duppel meant that the radar guided AA guns were totally inneffective agaiunst the attacking bombers.

But bad as this all is, the real killer came in the targets that were bombed. These included an entire ammunition convoy docked and in the process of unloading at the port. Two of these ships were detonated by the attacking bombers, which started a massive chain reaction that destroyed over half the port facilities, inflicted over 1000 deaths of allied service personnell and many thoiusands of civilian casualties. 

However, this was not the end of it. The two ammunition ships when they exploded, caused another ship, the John Harvey, carrying a load of Mustard Gas and other nerve agaents. The ship sank, but the gas containeres onboard ruptured allowing a slow and rapid release of the deadly toxins. The presence of these toxins was kept secret for obvious reasons, but it also delayed the reconstruction of the port for at least 30 days.

No denying that this was the most catastrophic damage suffered by the allies since Pearl Harbour, but to try and say the results were the product of the Ju88s destructive capabilities is pure fantasy. It was the result of allied incompetence more than anything


----------



## riacrato (Jan 16, 2010)

Jabberwocky said:


> Ju-88s regularly dive bombed over Malta, with impressive accuracy.



I read so too. Also, the production design as is was altogether so different from the original prototypes that removing the dive bomb equipment and reducing structural strength alone would not turn it back into a low-level fast-bomber that could realistically evade interception like a Mosquito.


----------



## davebender (Jan 16, 2010)

> The urgent need for supplies for the forces fighting on the Italian peninsula led the port commander to oirder that ships be unloaded with the harbour fully illuminated. This was th4e first blunder. The second was the utter complacency in setting up adequate flak, radwar and night fighter defences over such a vital tartget. The attacking bombers therefore were providede with a fully illuminated target, and no night fighter defences. Their effective deployment of Duppel meant that the radar guided AA guns were totally inneffective agaiunst the attacking bombers.
> 
> But bad as this all is, the real killer came in the targets that were bombed. These included an entire ammunition convoy docked and in the process of unloading at the port. Two of these ships were detonated by the attacking bombers, which started a massive chain reaction that destroyed over half the port facilities, inflicted over 1000 deaths of allied service personnell and many thoiusands of civilian casualties.


None of this would have mattered if the 105 German Ju-88s had missed the target. Their bombing accuracy was superb. Something which cannot be said for most RAF and U.S.Army Air Corps strategic bombing missions.


----------



## davebender (Jan 16, 2010)

Henschel Hs 127 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What do we know of the Hs-127? Supposedly it was very fast. 

Wikipedia says the Ju-88 won the competition because of a larger bomb load. However that doesn't sound right as the Ju-88A had the worst bomb bay arrangement of almost any medium bomber.



A side issue...
Why didn't Heinkel offer an improved version of the He-111? During the late 1930s the He-111 was probably the best medium bomber in the world with a large range/payload and a decent size bomb bay. Make it 30 mph faster by cleaning up aerodynamics and it is better then the Ju-88 in every way except it cannot dive bomb. It also cost a bit less to produce then the Ju-88.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2010)

davebender said:


> None of this would have mattered if the 105 German Ju-88s had missed the target. Their bombing accuracy was superb. Something which cannot be said for most RAF and U.S.Army Air Corps strategic bombing missions.



Err, the aiming point was the warehouses, not the ships....the bombs fell wide by more than a kilometre, on a fully illuminated target, with no fighter defences and and no effective flak. They hit the ships by accident, and missed by a far greater amount than anything thought acceptable in the Allied air forces. Compare this to the precision raids undertaken by the allies, like the dambusters, or the raids on Amiens ofr the Dutch Gestapo headquarters, and you will get a better comparison of the two skill levels that existed in the three airforces.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 16, 2010)

Yes it's a sign of their utter incompetence they destroyed those 17 ships.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Yes it's a sign of their utter incompetence they destroyed those 17 ships.



It would be great if the ships were the targets, but they werent. Moreover it was not the Luftwaffe bombs that destroyed the ships, its was the ammunition in the ships that caused the damage. And the accuracy of the bombing was greatly assisted by the full illumination of the target, the total lack of fighter defences and the incapacitation of the flak.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 16, 2010)

I am far from an expert about that particular raid. But how do you know the ships were hit by accident exactly?

And besides, you take this as an example of the inferior skill of LW bomber crews how? By comparing it to two very accurate ones out of hundreds of allied bomber missions in Europe, which were by average not even nearly as effective. It's like saying clovers have four leaves by standard.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2010)

riacrato said:


> I am far from an expert about that particular raid. But how do you know the ships were hit by accident exactly?
> 
> And besides, you take this as an example of the inferior skill of LW bomber crews how? By comparing it to two very accurate ones out of hundreds of allied bomber missions in Europe, which were by average not even nearly as effective. It's like saying clovers have four leaves by standard.



I know because I have an article that deals with this particular incident in detail "Baris dark Secret", by Edward Blandford, 1999.

Err, the Bari raid has been put forward as an example of German precision bombing, so why is it invalid to compare apples to apples and compare a stated example of a luftwaffe precision bombing raid to allied precision bombing raids. Sure, I chose some of the more well known examples, but these are just the better known examples out of hundreds that could have been chosen. If we want to compare apples to apples, and want to restrict the allies to non-precision raids, then we would need to compare that to non-precision German raids. That way we get four leaf clovers compared to four leaf clovers


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 17, 2010)

"_It would be great if the ships were the targets, but they werent. Moreover it was not the Luftwaffe bombs that destroyed the ships, its was the ammunition in the ships that caused the damage._"

Bari's Dark Secret is a chapter in a book entitled "Fatal Decisions, Errors and Blunders in WWII" by Edmund Blandford. An interesting book but one that lacks citations to sources for the specific facts employed. I see no indication in the chapter that the intended target(s) excluded ships moored at port such that any bombs striking ships would have necessarily missed their intended target(s).

Also, according to the chapter you cited, bombs did destroy ships:

"*Two ships loaded with ammunition were struck by bombs and blew up with the most tremendous blast that shattered every window within an eight mile radius.*" (p. 131)

Do you have any evidence that ships at dock were not among the intended targets? I ask because sinking moored ships, in addition to destroying port facilities, would appear be an excellent way for 96 Ju-88's in a bombing mission to inflict maximum damage on the port and keep it from operating.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 17, 2010)

I will have to check my sources again. The ships that were initially hit were all moored alongside, and the first bombs dropped by the germans were directed to the dock storage areas, rather than the ships. However the second wave of thirty aircraft may have targetted the docked ships, which included the two ammunition ships that caused the majority of the damage. I will concede that I might be incorrect that the Germans were not targetting ships, since they were known to be using swedish turnip techniwues, suggesting that at least some of the attacking aircraft wee designated the ships as their primary targets.

The raid as a whole was a well executed attack, but to present it as somehow the textbook precision attack without taking into account the circumstances that led to that destruction, namely that it was the ships themselves that caused most of the damage, is distorting the reason for raising the raid in the overall debate in the first place.


----------



## davebender (Jan 17, 2010)

I think of Bari as a textbook example of what well planned strategic bombing can achieve. Rather then sending 1,000 bombers to attack an entire city the Luftwaffe used 1/10th as many to attack a target with serious military value. 

Bari was known to be the main supply port for Allied air forces in Italy. A high proportion of the cargo was expected to be aviation gasoline and aircraft bombs. A few hits have the potential to cause massive secondary explosions. Exactly what happened. 

Anyway.....
I find it interesting the Ju-88s attacked at low level even though they were perfectly capable of dive bombing. He-111s could probably have achieved similiar results using the Swedish Turnip attack method.


----------



## John Vasco (Sep 11, 2010)

davebender said:


> Let's attack this dive bomber accuracy discussion from another angle. Erprobungsgruppe 210 was formed during the summer of 1940, operating the Me-110C4/B.
> 
> *Me-110C4/B.* Fighter-Bomber variant of Me-110C.
> WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstrer - Frans Bonn
> ...




Erprobungsgruppe 210 never operated the Bf 110 C-4/B variant. They flew Bf 110 C-6s, D-0/Bs, D-3s, C-7s and E-1s and E-2s. There is a lot of incorrect information around about the C-4/B.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 11, 2010)

Butters said:


> The very steep angle dive-bombing technique used by purpose-built dive bombers was very accurate, but it left the bomber extremely vulnerable to both AA and fighter attack.
> 
> Which not only led to the demise of many dive-bombers, but also to the demise of the dive-bomber concept itself.
> JL



It seems the Germans became obsessed with dive bombing before they tried it out fully even the He177 was required to have the capability. The quote below is from Wiki but I also read it in the instructions to the Airfix model so it must be true. 

During the final inspection of the Projekt 1041 mock-up on November 5, 1937, Ernst Udet stated OKL's new divebombing requirement to Ernst Heinkel, who replied that the aircraft would never be capable of it.[4] The He 177 had to be strengthened to support the stresses imposed by the pull-out from a dive. Unfortunately, the dive bombing requirement was later increased to 60° attacks rather than the medium angle dives originally called for, resulting in further structural strengthening and an alarming increase in weight. Nevertheless, the requirement to dive bomb up to 60° was never satisfactorily solved, due to the constant increases in loaded weight. Despite the specially strengthened airframe, it was still possible to overstress the airframe during a dive attack maneuver. While the German bombsights of the 1930’s were in fact quite lacking, the follow-on versions of the Lotfernrohr 7 proved to be arguably as accurate as the American Norden bombsight. With the introduction of the Lotfe 7, which offered an average error of 20 m to 30 m (65 ft to 98 ft) from a release altitude of 3,000 m to 4,000 m (9,842 ft to 13,123 ft), and Hermann Göring's rescindment of the dive attack requirement in September of 1942, the barred-gate type dive brakes were omitted from all He 177 built after the initial pre production batch.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 11, 2010)

davebender said:


> HyperWar: The Battle of Britain--A German Perspective
> 
> Summary.
> An average Ju-87 dive bomber pilot had a 25% chance to hit within 30 yards of the aim point.
> ...



I dont know if these averages are from training or operations, its stating the obvious to say the effectiveness depends on the opposition and how well you can see the target and what the target is. It surprised me how many aircraft carriers were not designed to withstand any attack themselves, sinking a carrier with an armoured deck was a completely different proposition to one that wasnt. Whereas a dive bomber could damage the outside of the Tirpitz, looking at the shells it took to sink the Bismark then dive bombers couldnt sink her easily.


----------



## davebender (Sep 11, 2010)

> Whereas a dive bomber could damage the outside of the Tirpitz, looking at the shells it took to sink the Bismark then dive bombers couldnt sink her easily.


Perhaps true if we are talking about the IJN Val and USN SBD. The German Ju-87D could carry a 1,600kg AP bomb. That's like getting hit with an 18" battleship shell fired by IJN Yamato!


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 11, 2010)

davebender said:


> Perhaps true if we are talking about the IJN Val and USN SBD. The German Ju-87D could carry a 1,600kg AP bomb. That's like getting hit with an 18" battleship shell fired by IJN Yamato!




But the Ju87D didnt appear until a long time later and that bomb load was in the short range overload condition , Ju87s were in general vulnerable with a load like that they would be sitting ducks.


----------



## davebender (Sep 12, 2010)

The SBD was the primary U.S. dive bomber during 1942.
The Val was the primary Japanese dive bomber during 1942.
The Ju-87D was the primary German small dive bomber from mid 1942 onward.
The Ju-88A was the primary German large dive bomber from 1940 onward.

That's contemporary enough for me.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 12, 2010)

davebender said:


> The SBD was the primary U.S. dive bomber during 1942.
> The Val was the primary Japanese dive bomber during 1942.
> The Ju-87D was the primary German small dive bomber from mid 1942 onward.
> The Ju-88A was the primary German large dive bomber from 1940 onward.
> ...




Dave I dont know what point you are making, the Tirpitz and Bismark were German ships and the Ju87D was a German land based bomber. When the Yamato was sunk it was hit by 8 bombs which damaged her and 11 torpedos which sunk her. The Bismark was hit by 300 to 400 shells of which approximately 80 were 12 to 14inch none of this sunk her she was sunk either by torpedos. I have no idea how far a JU87 could haul a 1.6ton bomb but I dont think it would be far and I dont know how a air dropped bomb compares to a shell. The Tirpitz was moored up in a Fjord and needed to be attacked by carrier based ac A bit like Germany attacking Scapa flow impossible with a stuka carrying a 1.6ton bomb 

I was making the point about the target is important, few of the shells hitting the bismark penetrated her armour and none sunk her, the yamato was sunk by torpedos not bombs whearas aircraft carriers with unarmoured decks could be devastated by 1 hit.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2010)

davebender said:


> I think of Bari as a textbook example of what well planned strategic bombing can achieve. Rather then sending 1,000 bombers to attack an entire city the Luftwaffe used 1/10th as many to attack a target with serious military value.
> 
> Bari was a textbook example of Germany doing the best it could with what they had to work with ie: medium bombers forced to do the job of a heavy bomber that didnt exist.
> 
> ...


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 12, 2010)

pinsog said:


> davebender said:
> 
> 
> > I think of Bari as a textbook example of what well planned strategic bombing can achieve. Rather then sending 1,000 bombers to attack an entire city the Luftwaffe used 1/10th as many to attack a target with serious military value.
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Sep 12, 2010)

According to Historynet.com, Bari was planned by Von Richthofen, with the primary target designated as the docks, rather than the ships. The first waves of the attack stuck to that plan, however, as subsequent aircraft arrived, and the vulnerability and ease with which the ships could be attacked. According to the article “The Germans arrived at Bari on schedule. First Lieutenant Gustav Teuber, leading the first wave, could hardly believe his eyes. The docks were brilliantly lit; cranes stood out in sharp relief as they unloaded cargo from the ships' gaping holds, and the east jetty was packed with ships.”
It appears at this stage that the Germans switched at least some of their aircraft to the “secondary “ targets, the ships themselves. The Germans were unaware that some of the ships in the harbour were ammunition ships, and that one contained deadly mustard gas bombs. The hits on the ammunition ships set off a series of secondary explosions that had a devastating impact. A reasonable estimate on the number of aircraft switching their attentions to the moored shipping, might be 70 out of the 96 participating aircraft
I think it has to be conceded that that Bari was a devastating raid, well planned, researched, and executed. It would also be wrong to discount the Ju88 as anything other than a very capable weapon system, or that Dive bombing was not effective as a technique. However it’s a real stretch to argue that the raid on Bari was somehow better or more efficient than many other precision raids. And I do not think the Ju88 or divebombing was even the main factor in the achievement of that success. To me the factors leading to the devastation in rough orfder of importance are
1)	Poor planning and defence preparedness by the allies
2)	Excessive congestion and backlogs in the port. Excess ship should have been sent out to sea rather than allow the port to back up so badly
3)	Excellent recon by the Germans
4)	The development of an excellent tactical plan by Richthofen
5)	And finally, the efficiency of the Ju-88 and divebombing as a weapons platform. 
However, before allowing ourselves to get too carried away about how remarkable this raidwe need to consider some things . The overwhelming majority of the damage wasn’t even the direct result of Axis activity, most of the losses were due to explosions from the exploding allied ships. Moreover as a tonnage return per aircraft, the German raid was not that efficient at all...it was under 2000 tons per aircraft actually. If 70 aircraft were needed to sink 17 ships, and each aircraft was carrying 4 or 5 bombs each, that’s an average hit ratio of about 1 bomb hit per 19 dropped, or that about 5.3% accuracy, assuming each ship was hit was hit at least once. But in fact it was less than that, since many of the ships were in fact sunk by the secondary explosions coming from the ammunition ships.
I cannot help comparing that effort to the achievements of the swordfish attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940. In that attack, 21 British aircraft carried attacked the Italian fleet (their primary target) and also the oil storage farms of the port. Some of the attackers carried flares and bombs, and one of the torpedo carrying aircraft was forced to turn back.  Of the twenty one aircraft involved , I think 11 carried torpedoes, the remainder carried bombs or flares. Of these 11 torpedoes launched, there were at least 6 hits, for strike accuracy of 54.5%. The tonnage sunk or seriously damaged per aircraft was roughly 7500 tons per aircraft. 

Whilst these comparisons are rough, and not of great value in terms of working out the real accuracy of each type, it also brings into sharp focus just where Bari lies in terms of its accuracy levels…….a long way down the scale to put it bluntly.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 13, 2010)

The Germans did have a heavy bomber, of sorts, the He 111. Of sorts because it carried the same weight of bombs as did the B-17 and B-24 over Germany.


----------



## Juha (Sep 13, 2010)

Hello Milosh
the bomb load of He 111 also depended on distance and it didn't have the defensive firepower of US heavy bombers.

Juha


----------



## Dave998 (Sep 22, 2010)

Wow, great topic; cool thread. When I think of bombing accuracy, I think CEP (circular error probability) is always the bottom line, and would like to find more CEP data like that which was quoted for the Stuka and JU-88. Certainly, the efficacy of dive-bombing versus traditional level bombing is well demonstrated by the various A/C performances at Midway. Exactly how many bomb hits did the B-17's score on maneuvering targets? To get results against ships, skip-bombing was just about the only way a horizontal bomber had much chance of doing harm. As other contributors mentioned, the nature of the target is VERY important when considering the effectiveness of various bombing techniques. To sink a well-armored battleship, you need torpedoes to let water in; dive-bombers and even skip bombers will mostly ding the armor or let in air....which won't do much harm. Against an unarmored ship, it is a vastly different story. Tactics have to be appropriate to the target engaged, or the results will almost always be disappointing.


----------



## davebender (Sep 23, 2010)

I believe the Luftwaffe developed bombs specifically for skip bombing.


----------



## Glider (Sep 24, 2010)

Just as a comparison there was a raid from Malta that did a significant amount of damage to moored ships when ammunition exploded.

On the night 2/3 March 1942 16 Wellingtons in two waves one of 10 aircraft and the second of 6 attacked Palmero Harbour.

3 ships totalling just under 18,000 tons were sunk
4 cargo ships, 1 destroyer and 1 torpedo boat were heavily damaged
29 merchant ships, 3 destroyers and 1 torpedo boat were lightly damaged. 

As an aside during the war my Mother was engaged to an officer of a Norwegian Merchant ship, whose claim to fame was closing a large part of Liverpool Docks for a day during the war. His vessel was being loaded with Ammunition when someone managed to set off one of the smoke floats that had been installed for its protection. The dockers thought the vessel had caught fire and everyone started putting as much distance as they could between themselves and the ship. Word spread and the port was closed to arrivals and some hours passed before everything was sorted out and its safe to say the authorities were not pleased with him.

He was killed later in the war when his ship was sunk by a U Boat.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 25, 2010)

Glider said:


> As an aside during the war my Mother was engaged to an officer of a Norwegian Merchant ship, whose claim to fame was closing a large part of Liverpool Docks for a day during the war. His vessel was being loaded with Ammunition when someone managed to set off one of the smoke floats that had been installed for its protection. The dockers thought the vessel had caught fire and everyone started putting as much distance as they could between themselves and the ship. Word spread and the port was closed to arrivals and some hours passed before everything was sorted out and its safe to say the authorities were not pleased with him.



Not surprised the SS Malakand explosion flattened houses a mile away. My grandmother was in the womens ward of Bootle Hospital on Derby Rd Bootle waiting to give birth to my uncle when the Malakand went up. She reckoned it was the fastest birth on record, she gave birth in a ward with no glass in the windows.


----------

