Attack aircraft

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Trying looking at post #3 again, You can't put a 2000lb on a P-47. you can't put a 1600lb on a P-47. You can stick a pair of 1000lb bombs on, one under each wing and a 500lb bomb under the fuselage.

Blaming supply officers for not supply bombs that you can't mount on the aircraft doesn't explain the situation.
 
What about the Lancaster, for example the eagles nest and dam busters raids both low level precision raids.
 
pattle said:
What about the Lancaster, for example the eagles nest and dam busters raids both low level precision raids.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Tallboys could have done interesting things to a fortress. The questions are a) were they available and b) did Patton ask for them? Knowing only his reputation, I'm not sure if he'd ask for that sort of help.
 
Dive bombing works great if the defenders have a second or 3rd rate air defense system. It doesn't work very well if the defenders have a first rate air defense system. The dive bomber spends too much time exposed on an easily predicted flight profile/plan. This is one reason dive bombing went out of 'fashion'.
 
I think dive bombing as a tactic was replaced by evolving fighter bomber technology such as rockets, napalm and the use of jets and helicopters. As far as WW2, it was the most accurate method of bombing a relatively small target from the air. I dont think casualty rates for DBs were higher than high altitude heavies, nor were they more vulnerable, the horrendous losses of pre-escort HA missions being the main factor in my reasoning.
 
swampyankee said:
I'm sure that Tallboys could have done interesting things to a fortress. The questions are a) were they available and b) did Patton ask for them? Knowing only his reputation, I'm not sure if he'd ask for that sort of help.
Click to expand...

Harris never liked his Lancasters being used in this way and he would have done his best to make them unavailable, national pride may have prevented Patton from asking for this kind of help but I think there were other American Generals that would have just done what was needed and not even have considered pride. The Lancaster could carry out tricky low level raids but it was not the right plane for this sort of thing, I think they just used it when there was no other way.
 
Tallboys don't work if dropped at low altitudes. Piercing bombs (armor, concrete, rock or just dirt) need a certain minimum altitude to drop from in order to reach the velocity needed to reach their "proof" figures. Dropping a bomb from 1/2 it's "rated" height is like taking 1/2 the powder out of an anti-tank round.
 
Fw 190A-5 with the under-wing WGr 21 rocket-propelled mortar. The weapon was developed from the 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42 infantry weapon.
 
davebender said:
What does that matter?

The best attack aircraft tend to be slow which improves weapon delivery accuracy. Dive bombing helps a lot too.
Click to expand...

Only if you dont care about survivability, or arent serious about getting airborne. Like the germans.

The Germans didnt care about speed, and for a time they had high accuracy levels. then the allies arrived and the germans couldnt fly anymore. Which is a whole lot less effective than flying and missing
 
Flying and missing, means waste resources is more effective, really a great statement…
 
davebender said:
Would you rather have single or twin engines?
IMO that's not terribly important. What matters is having enough power to provide decent performance while carrying a full payload.
Click to expand...
davebender said:
Mosquito was so fast it was almost immune to interception.

That only holds true at 30,000 feet where Mosquitos normally operated. Flying at CAS altitude with a bomb load is a different matter.
Click to expand...
davebender said:
Fast?
What does that matter?

The best attack aircraft tend to be slow which improves weapon delivery accuracy. Dive bombing helps a lot too.
Click to expand...

So what is required is an attack aircraft with decent performance at low altitude which can fly slow so as to ensure good weapon delivery accuracy, preferably with bombs capable of penetrating 2.5 metres of reinforced concrete; it can't be a Mosquito because that was too slow to escape interception at lower altitudes, and not the P-47 because it was apparently incapable of hitting a fort, and neither of them were dive bombers?

That just leaves -errr-
 
davebender said:
That only holds true at 30,000 feet where Mosquitos normally operated. Flying at CAS altitude with a bomb load is a different matter.
Click to expand...

Ummm not quite. Depends on the Mossie and the engines (60 series, 100 series or 20 series). FB VIs were Merlin 20s, later model ones with Merlin 25s with 25lb boost were pretty fast at low level. Fast enough (plus the night fighter ones) for anti-V1 work.

I have seen the film of the Jerico operation, including the in cockpit ones. At one point the nav tells the pilot 'snappers' as a couple of German fighters were on their tail ... kept going and lost them.

The (often discussed here) Banff strike wing, again using FB VIs (except for the Tse Tse ones) were fast enough not just to get away from German fighters ... but to actually fight them.
So the low level Mossies were pretty hot at low level. The 2nd TAF used them right through 44 and 45, alone or as pairs doing deep strike work with acceptable losses (say compared to the heavy bombers or Tiffies).

So no need to worry about their ability down low. Carrying bombs (2000lb internal, 1000 external in the MK VI) and/or rockets they packed a heck of a punch. Plus 4x20mm and 4x0.303 with a lot of ammo.
 
Aozora, the finest dive bomber was the Spit. Contentious statement I know, but Spits actually took out more MET than Tiffies did in the 2nd TAF.

There were several reasons, that wonderful elevator authority and light weight meant it could (and did) attack with extreme dive angles (70+) right down low and still pull out.
Much lower than the 'heavies' like the P-47 or Tiffie which would 'mush' on pull out, therefore had to pull out higher, while the Spit boys could dive lower and pull higher G (tighter pull out).
Took some practice but being able to do that fast meant better survivability and good accuracy. This was done a lot against the V1 targets, but also right through 44 and 45 against tactical targets in the 2nd TAF.
There is a study that was done on G levels and the Spit boys were regularly pulling far more G than the P-47 or Tiffie boys.
The best for that sort of stuff was the clipped wing IXs or XVIs. Fast low down, good dive bombing ability, great roll rate, climb and turn. Anything from a low level straff to dropping a bomb.

But for the concrete bunkers there actually wasn't much available. None of the planes mentioned here could carry a bomb big enough (no matter how accurate they were). Only the 4 engined 'heavies' could do that and they didn't have the accuracy. Napalm helped a little bit, but not a lot. Basically the TAC air was useless against them.

In D Day and the Normandy campaign the ones that did that stuff a lot were the battleships, dropping huge shells (their contribution now long forgotten).
By the time the Allies got to the West wall (naturally out of ship cannon range), these became a real problem.

The British didn't have it quite so bad, since they had their 'funnies' tanks, but the Americans really struggled, basically (because Bradley rejected the 'funnies' as he also rejected the 17 pounder Firefly Shermans) down to the combat engineers. Lost a lot of people because of those rather silly decisions (but then again he was rather a silly General).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Small Aircraft Carriers
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
2K
GreenKnight121
Hybrid aircraft carriers
7 8 9
Replies
161
Views
4K
Thumpalumpacus
I
Question on Luftwaffe protocols for missing aircraft??
Replies
17
Views
716
Snautzer01
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
244
fubar57
A
Aircraft Facing Themselves (and Their Relatives)
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register