Bomb sights for light bombers.

[parsifal]

Maybe you will argue it but I suppose that it isn't worth mentioning modern smart weapon coupled with modern sensors taking into account any comparison with the era of piston - engined aircrafts of wwii.
It gives nothing to any useful conclusion. Just statistic without a way to turn it to anything useful.

The reason I mention postwar development of smart bomb weaponary is to give some context. There is no real comparability between the accuracy of modern aircraft and those that existing in 1939-45. But glancing at modern aircraft gives an idea of what was eventually achieved.

The point to make is that visual aids in wwii made not a great deal of differnce to bombing accuracy, relatively speaking. A far more important factor was the standard of crew training.

you have considered that that the situations were comparable

.

No, I have considered situations that are not comparable. What is observed, however is that in each situation the bombing accuracy is relatively similar, and independant of things like moving targets, stationary targets, bombing method and the like. The other thing is that the best results in terms of accuracy occurred without Hi tech (for WWII) bombing aids. Conclusion: they are not relevant to the outcome, or not as relevant as other factors. it seems to me that the most important factor is crew proficiency. thats a theory at this point, but so far their is no evidence tyo refute the theory. There appears to be heaps of evidence to refute the theory that the gizmos being sung about in this thread made a big difference. we have yet to see any instances of that phenomenon.

I suppose that the situation of attack on a maneuring and moving target (its speed was about 45 km/h) differed to situation of an attack of a stationary target but as I see you prefer to treat them as same ones.

Absolutely not. The point i raise is that for a moving target, so far, for an aircraft supposedly at a disadvantage in terms of accuracy ( a ju88 using shallow dive techniques
achieved by far the most accurate result. Conversly, and perhaps as an anomaly the worst result occurred very soon in time thereafter on the same target, with heavier AA (but not that much so, based on losses), but this time stationary

Second - you have taken into account the attack on Illustrioues, on the briges in Italy and Brest.
And have taken them as typical - and why?

No i didnt. Can you read english my friend. i was at pains to point out that for the german attacks at least, these represented the best instances for accuracy. thats hardly parading them as typical. What comes out, however, is that as a percentage of bombing accuracy there was only minor differences to the P-47 raids.

Why haven't you consider the attack japanese Val's on two british cruisers (Dorsetshire and Cornwall) as typical example of dive-bombers accuracy? According to your arguments all the rest of british ships from british task gave to Illustious no help so it is more than comparable example.

Didnt think of them, perhaps i should. But what is the point you are trying to make here. Youve just finished telling me that you want "typical" or average, and the Val attacks on the two RN cruisers are anything but that. They are generaly considered to be the mnost accurate D/B attacks achieved by any large force during the war.......some accounts say 80% of bombs hit their target. Not sure of that , but it was high. The result was exceptionally anomalous, and achieved with aircraft that AFAIK did not have any hi-tech visual bombing aids. Just exceptional crews. The same book that told me about the 80% hit ration in this raid also stated that just two years later the same class of aircraft had sunk to less than 10% accuracy rate. The only change is the accuracy (perhaps not, but surely the obvious known variable is crew quality).

I suppose that Japanese dive-bombers crew and US Dauntless crew were the most trained crew in the world for attacking naval ships. Not German pilots. But I suppose we can find the examples of more accurate bombing of naval vessels by LW crew than the above mentioned

.


None that im aware of. These were not untrained crews. they were the premier anti-shipping unit of the LW. In 1940, they sank over 700000 tons of allied shipping. I think the only better result for the LW may be against PQ17, possibly also the Schwarzes Meer in the black sea, though i doubt it. But go ahead, knock yourself out. If you can find bomb hit rates higer than 29% for a significant formation against moving ship (25kts plus, go ahead would be very happy to look at the issue. If you could find higher hit percentages using advanced bombsights I'd be even happier.

I mean that you're making too profound conclusions if take into account how narrow is the base -just three isolated cases chosed arbitrary

.

this is not a statistical analysis, I picked the best LW result that i know of against a moving target at sea, then the same target whilst it was in port a few days later (at the insistence of somebody else) then compared that to a level bombing raid by the allies against a moored target. The results I got suggest that crew training is far more important than bombing method, or bombsights.

Its a bit rich to say that i have jumped to conclusions when you guys were all singing the praises of how important visual bomsights were (you included) without even a shred of supporting data. that is still occurring, and i see that we have now moved into the familiar Luftwaffe Ra Ra club where the claims will soon get ridiculous and bear no resemblance to reality. And you have the b*lz to say i have no statistical sample.....

 

[Siegfried]

You are singing the praises of the "toss bombing sights" yet the allies, in both the ETO and the PTO by the end of '42 and early '43 were usiing similar methods with their skip bombing terchniques. At Bismarck sea, approximately 200 attack aircraftover a two day perios, flying around 400 sorties sunk 22 Japanese merchant ships and from memory about 6 destroyers. They didnt have the benefit of specialist bombsights, what they did have was six months of training behind them

Moreover, level bombing at the deck level carries with it a massive risk. in order to do it, the aircradt has to get in close, which in 1943 was a deadly proposition for any LW aircraft getting close to a defended TF. Real;istically the LW might ghet 20-30 of these aircraft concentrated at any one tome. They would face swarms of SAefires or Hellcats by that stage, easily able to run them down, and backing them up a wall of AA fire,

No, what I can see are difference between the ranges given by Campbell and Navweapons. Both are good sources, both give different ranges. The ranges I wuoted are the ranges for the Mk VIII fitted to Ark Royal and the figures for the 2cm Flak 38 are for the types used afloat. You may find the Pom Pom subtype is not correct, or you may find that the subtype for the flak38 given in the Navweapons are not for types taken to sea. The term Flakvierling can refer to basically any 20mm gun, and does not necessarily refer to types taken to sea.

As did the 40mm 2pdr. Which ships did either of these weapons go to sea in???????

Are you claiming the germans could lanch iron bombs at 3000 m (9000 ft) and hit a target with a +/- 45m error???. If so that is better than a modern day Bullpup missile. You will forgive me if I say, bar!!! humbug!!! to the claiml

I think Japanese FLAK had a poor reputation, there wasn't enough of it for one. At one point a lot of targets being sunk were effetively undefended barges. Again at this point non of the gyro predictors for their 25mm guns or radar ranging for light flak had made it onto Japanese ships. Had your Bismark sea force attacked a US quality Anti Aircraft Suite the results for the attackers would have been far worse.

FLAK vierling invariably refers to the same RB 20mm C38 gun. In fact the FLAK vierling (quad) mount was a naval weapon adopted for land use. AFAIKT the earlier lower cadence C30 guns were never fitted to the quad mount. Anyways the point is simply to say that the German C38 FLAK vierling could put out a sustained rate of fire of about 960 rpm (two guns loading while two gound fired) which is twice the rate of fire of the quad Pom Pom, it could do so with similar ballistic performance. It didn't need a remote director because it didn't have a smoke/flash isssue. Of course the shell was much smaller but then the mounts took up less space.

Using the TSA-2D, in tests, a FW 190 could achieve a 92m CEP from 3000m at 30 degree approach.
The chart i posted shows about a 45-50m CEP from 2000m from an Me 262, unknown approach (probably less).

This sort of accuracy will be deadly against shipping as even if the waterline isn't hit directly the super structure will and if the bomb is short it will simply tunnel beneath the ship and detonate.

Hellcats are no threat to a FW 190D-13 which were to be used in this role, Do 335, Me 262 or Ar 234. Seafires a little bit better.

The point is that Hellcats, Seafires, Sea Hornets, Tigercats and Corsairs would be dealing not with Ju 87, 88, 188, He 111 or FW 200 or some sluggish dive or torpedo bomber but with aircraft as fast or faster than they were and thus difficult to intercept and still able to aim accuratly and from considerable standoff distances of 2km to 3km perhaps more with certain kinds of weapon; certainly out of accurate light and medium FLAK range and a difficult target for heavy FLAK.

 

[parsifal]

This stuff is hilarious for me. Please provide historical examples of this ever happening, anywhere. Please explain why, in the 60s, the USN would adopt a missile system not as capable as the one you are describing and far more expensive.

I bet I dont get an intelligible reply. It will be more woulda, coulda shoulda, but didnt, wont it

 

[Siegfried]

This stuff is hilarious for me. Please provide historical examples of this ever happening, anywhere. Please explain why, in the 60s, the USN would adopt a missile system not as capable as the one you are describing and far more expensive.

I bet I dont get an intelligible reply. It will be more woulda, coulda shoulda, but didnt, wont it

Modern fighter bombers ALL still have variations of exactly the same kind of toss bombsight as the Luftwaffe's TSA-2D or USN AN/ASG-10. They now use digital computers to store ballistic data rather than cams, have accurate radio altimeters, can integrate doppler radar into the computer to get wind drift and more likely than not the inertial guidance system has that kind of information anyway. They can often radar range to the target and likely incorporate air temperature to get mach effects on the bomb but the principal is the same. When F-16's deliver close support to troops in Afghanistan they use this kind of bombsight to deliver a bomb since a standoff missile is not required.

Of course attacking from distances of around 2-3 km or even 4 is no longer acceptable or safe in the presence of modern SAM missiles that are found on even small destroyers or on the shoulders of individual soldiers.

And of course what USN adopted Walleye and the USAF adopted bullpup; the former was a TV guided system with a optical centroid lock on facillitiy while the latter was a standoff missile using MCLOS; the standoff range was considerably greater than a tossed bomb up to 12 miles. Bullpup was not considered a great success; this type of guidance needs a second opperator.

 

[gorizont]

The point to make is that visual aids in wwii made not a great deal of differnce to bombing accuracy, relatively speaking. A far more important factor was the standard of crew training.

To some (and possible great) extent, yes. But - I should mention that implemantation of more modern bomb sights for level bombing allowed to increase accuracy for crew of the same rate of training IMHO. Maybe It is obvious only in test conditions and at battlefield it decresed by many factors but all the nations prefered the way of complicating equipment to way of training much more crew for long -terms training.

No, I have considered situations that are not comparable. What is observed, however is that in each situation the bombing accuracy is relatively similar, and independant of things like moving targets, stationary targets, bombing method and the like.

I prefered to consider that the same rate of accuracy in different conditions was achieved by different methods of bombing. In other case - for instance using fighter - bombers like P-47 against a navy force like the mentioned results could be different and the same rate of accuracy hadn't been achieved.

The other thing is that the best results in terms of accuracy occurred without Hi tech (for WWII) bombing aids. Conclusion: they are not relevant to the outcome, or not as relevant as other factors. it seems to me that the most important factor is crew proficiency. thats a theory at this point, but so far their is no evidence tyo refute the theory. There appears to be heaps of evidence to refute the theory that the gizmos being sung about in this thread made a big difference. we have yet to see any instances of that phenomenon.

I suppose that such an outcome was a result of impact by several factors not only the fact of more skilled crew at the start of war.
Among them (influence on accuracy of dive -bombers especially at sea and especially of Axis bombers) are 1) strengthening of fighter cover of targets, 2) growth of AA density, quantity and quality, 3) improved battle orders of ships formations, 4) improved skills of ships crew - usage of new tactics, methods of maneuring for avoiding dive-bombers attack.
The first factor coupled with implemantation of radar with its range of detection, tracking and capability of guidence for CAP gave a great credit to decreising air danger for Allied. Brits started to explore the last capability at 1941 and in this experiments took part US naval aviation officers (as observers but started to use the method since the Coral sea battle). Since 1943 and especially later it was a problem from time to time for Axis recon aircrafts to find out allied naval forces without been intercepted.
It is very difficult to estimate mathematically a value of each of those factors in the whole picture but I suppose that from the beginnig of 1944 axis had almost no chance to achieve an effectiveness comparable to the early-war one using tradional methods of attacking if we take into account an advantage in quintaty achieved by Allied air forces. So it is a complex impact of many factors.
And the situation was so that a mere fact of attack by Axis could be counted as a success irrepective to its effectivness (in other words if any hit was scored or it was just near miss).

No i didnt. Can you read english my friend. i was at pains to point out that for the german attacks at least, these represented the best instances for accuracy. thats hardly parading them as typical. What comes out, however, is that as a percentage of bombing accuracy there was only minor differences to the P-47 raids.

And what is the best percentage of bombing accuracy of P-47 against such moving targets as naval vessels. I suppose the data is needed for correct comparison.

Didnt think of them, perhaps i should. But what is the point you are trying to make here. Youve just finished telling me that you want "typical" or average, and the Val attacks on the two RN cruisers are anything but that. They are generaly considered to be the mnost accurate D/B attacks achieved by any large force during the war.......some accounts say 80% of bombs hit their target. Not sure of that , but it was high. The result was exceptionally anomalous, and achieved with aircraft that AFAIK did not have any hi-tech visual bombing aids. Just exceptional crews. The same book that told me about the 80% hit ration in this raid also stated that just two years later the same class of aircraft had sunk to less than 10% accuracy rate. The only change is the accuracy (perhaps not, but surely the obvious known variable is crew quality).

As I pointed above not the only factor in degradation of rate of accuracy but one of the most importent. But anyway - if Vals at the start of war achieved approximately about 50% of hits and the accuracy decreased to 10% in 1943 - Doesn't it seems to you that approximate rate of accuracy calculated on the base of that figures is higher than 4% pointed by you earlier?

None that im aware of. These were not untrained crews. they were the premier anti-shipping unit of the LW. In 1940, they sank over 700000 tons of allied shipping. I think the only better result for the LW may be against PQ17, possibly also the Schwarzes Meer in the black sea, though i doubt it. But go ahead, knock yourself out. If you can find bomb hit rates higer than 29% for a significant formation against moving ship (25kts plus, go ahead would be very happy to look at the issue. If you could find higher hit percentages using advanced bombsights I'd be even happier.

I just said that Vals crews were trained just for hitting ships and were very skillful on that part - more skillful than Germans crews. I didn't say that the germans were not trained.
And - I can add the example. 11-th january 1941. Attack on HMS Gloucester and Southampton by twelve Ju-87R. Result - at least three hits out of 12 dropped bombs so it means that the accuracy was of 25%. But everythere I found was mentioned that Gloucester had a hit by one bomb whith fuze hadn't worked and Southampton got at least two hits - so if there were for instance three hits the percentage raised to 33%.
By the way - we can see that the attack was undertaken a less numerious force to ships of less sizes than of Illustriuos, and if take into account your judgement that AA fire we shouldn't consider because of its ineffectivenes in first case in the same way we should consider that the conditions of attack for german pilots in the case of Gloucester and Southampton were worse but they made it with a higher degree of accuracy achieved.
let me make things clear - I'm not trying to treat you as a person who thinks in the wrong way. But I suppose that you underestimates of value some factors in the case including just a pure luck.
I should add that during the second attack on Illustrious Stukas tried to hit it with heavy bombs (1000 kg). It significantly restrained Ju-87R's ability to maneuvre (not only avoiding but and for obtaining a right position for the launching the attack and to steer an aircraft in the proccess of final stage of dive before drop of a bomb.

.

this is not a statistical analysis, I picked the best LW result that i know of against a moving target at sea, then the same target whilst it was in port a few days later (at the insistence of somebody else) then compared that to a level bombing raid by the allies against a moored target. The results I got suggest that crew training is far more important than bombing method, or bombsights.

I should concur with you statement but just partially. At the end of war such devices could provide Axis with great assistance because of new difficulties concerned with new Allies methods and new equipment. And the greatest degree of skills of German pilots could help with nothing at the end of war to achieve a single hit using a tactic of steep dive. They just would fail to approach because of allies countermeasures.
a speedy pass from low altitudes would give a chance but against moving well defended targets it demands to input all the corrections in rather short period of time while appraising the tactical situation.

As far as I know US Navy and Marine Corps which had many fighter-bombers since 1944 didn't significantly succeed in attacking japanese ships by Hellcats and Corsairs.

 

[Siegfried]

This is a patent infringment brought by
SVENSKA AEROPLAN AKTIEBOLAGET (SAAB), Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MERGENTHALER LINOTYPE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
SVENSKA AEROPLAN AKTIEBOLAGET (SAAB), Plaintiff-Cross Appellee,

It is interesting as it explains the rudiments of toss bombing. Im suprised the prior German and USN art wasn't brought up!

410 F.2d 979

 

[parsifal]

Too many preconceptions to deal with, too many beliefs in false gods, so you will have to work it out for yourself. Just a few things that are of interst to me for you to consider

As I pointed above not the only factor in degradation of rate of accuracy but one of the most importent. But anyway - if Vals at the start of war achieved approximately about 50% of hits and the accuracy decreased to 10% in 1943 - Doesn't it seems to you that approximate rate of accuracy calculated on the base of that figures is higher than 4% pointed by you earlier?

Trouble is tey didnt get anywhere near that level of accuracy, on average at least. just to look at some of the more famous actions they participated in

1. Sinking the Cornwall and Dosetshire: No CAP, little flak (1 a/c lost from 54 engaged), ships manouvre at high speed. Each ship was attacked by exactly 27 D/B. against the Cornwall, 8 hits (29.6%), Dosetshire was hit by 10 bombs (37%)

2. Sinking the Hermes: No CAP, no flak (essentially....there were no losses for the japanese) attacked by 85 Vals (67 were used to attack the carrier and DD Vampire , 18 to attack a convoy to the North consisting of sinking the RFA Athelstone ( 5,571 grt), her escort, the corvette Hollyhock, the oil tanker SS British Sergeant and the Norwegian ship SS Norviken of 2,924 GRT. There were no losses to AA but 4 Vals were shot down by 6+6 Fulmars which arrived late from Trincomallee. For practical purposesd this was an undefended force. The Japanese force of 67 a/c scored a total of 40 hits on the Hermes and Vampire (59.7%). Hits against the convoy are unknown, but had to be at least 25% (and almost certainly far higher)

3) Coral Sea; Attacks against the USN

a) against the Neosho Sims 36 Vals attacked, score 10 hits in total (27.% hit ratio) , no losses
b) against the Yorktown and Lexington. against the Lexington, with light AA and badly placed CAP (heavy losses were sustained only after the attacks) scored 2 hits from 33 atackers. Yorktown was hit once from 12 attackers. The respective hit ratios of the Vals in these two attacks were 6% and 8%.

4) Midway, Hiryus attacks on the Yorktown. There were only 6 fighters available at the time of this attack to intercept the 18 Vals escorted by 6 zeroes. I would describe the Yorktowns CAP protection as sligtly better than for illustrious, and her AA as moderate. 3 D/B were shot down by AA and about 4 by the fighters, however at least half these losses occurred after the D3As had released their bombs. The estimated aircraft over the target is therefore 14. These a/c achieved 3 hits with 250kg. these hits occurred before any other damage. The Hit to sortie ratio is therefore 16.6% of the bomber force


I just said that Vals crews were trained just for hitting ships and were very skillful on that part - more skillful than Germans crews. I didn't say that the germans were not trained.

I chose these early war episodes, because they were largely unchallenged and we get about as close to unadulterated accuracy figures as is possible. In the raids presented there were a total of 68 hits from 235 attacks. thats a hit to mission ratio just under 27%....about the same as the best day of the LW.

And - I can add the example. 11-th january 1941. Attack on HMS Gloucester and Southampton by twelve Ju-87R. Result - at least three hits out of 12 dropped bombs so it means that the accuracy was of 25%. But everythere I found was mentioned that Gloucester had a hit by one bomb whith fuze hadn't worked and Southampton got at least two hits - so if there were for instance three hits the percentage raised to 33%.

Gloucester was lost at the same time as Fiji, when both ships were dangeroulsy low on AA ammunition. This reduced the effect of their limited AA fire. Southampton fell victim to a surprise attack from out of the sunb....there was basically no AA for this attack

By the way - we can see that the attack was undertaken a less numerious force to ships of less sizes than of Illustriuos, and if take into account your judgement that AA fire we shouldn't consider because of its ineffectivenes in first case in the same way we should consider that the conditions of attack for german pilots in the case of Gloucester and Southampton were worse but they made it with a higher degree of accuracy achieved.

I never said that we shouldnt consider AA fire....you are very good at misquoting people I see. What i said was that the AA defences for Illustrious in that first attack were very weak relative to the force ranged against her. In the second attack they were stronger, but stil quite inadequate. Defences in the harbour were strong, but inneffective, judging by the losses. AA fire over brest was described as Heavy. Nowhere does that say we should disregard AA, completely the opposite in fact.

let me make things clear - I'm not trying to treat you as a person who thinks in the wrong way. But I suppose that you underestimates of value some factors in the case including just a pure luck.

Yes, you are trying to discredit me, which is fine, its called the smiling assassin. There is no such thing as luck, its just a superstitious argument when we cannot understand the probability involved. Given enough understanding of the variables, we dont need to describe anything as lucky. Of course we have to accept some situations as unexplainable, because we dont have all the information....so we call it luck

I should add that during the second attack on Illustrious Stukas tried to hit it with heavy bombs (1000 kg). It significantly restrained Ju-87R's ability to maneuvre (not only avoiding but and for obtaining a right position for the launching the attack and to correct an aircraft in the proccess of final stage of dive before drop of a bomb

.


ive never heard of the Ju87s that attacked the Illustrious as ever carrying SC500 bombs. They could do it, but not at the range the illustrious was from them. I think you will find this is mistaken, but if you have hard evidence , please produce it.

As far as I know US Navy and Marine Corps which had many fighter-bombers since 1944 didn't significantly succeed in attacking japanese ships by Hellcats and Corsairs.

Actually they were very successful, especially the corsairs against japanese shipping. They were judged even more successful in the ground support role, so thats how they were mostly used when carrying offensive ordinance. RN Corsairs were even more extensively used in this role, since in 1945 Seafires were just as effective in CAP role and less effective in FB role

 

[parsifal]

This is a patent infringment brought by
SVENSKA AEROPLAN AKTIEBOLAGET (SAAB), Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MERGENTHALER LINOTYPE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
SVENSKA AEROPLAN AKTIEBOLAGET (SAAB), Plaintiff-Cross Appellee,

It is interesting as it explains the rudiments of toss bombing. Im suprised the prior German and USN art wasn't brought up!

410 F.2d 979

ill say it again, though you are not listening. What evidence of battle use do you have for any of these gizmos in WWII. What were the operational results. Not really interested in what they might have done, more intersted in what they actually did

 

[gorizont]

Too many preconceptions to deal with, too many beliefs in false gods, so you will have to work it out for yourself. Just a few things that are of interst to me for you to consider
...
I chose these early war episodes, because they were largely unchallenged and we get about as close to unadulterated accuracy figures as is possible. In the raids presented there were a total of 68 hits from 235 attacks. thats a hit to mission ratio just under 27%....about the same as the best day of the LW.

So how this percentage is comparable to percentage of hits achieved by Jugs attacking by bombs even non-movable targets?

Gloucester was lost at the same time as Fiji, when both ships were dangeroulsy low on AA ammunition. This reduced the effect of their limited AA fire. Southampton fell victim to a surprise attack from out of the sunb....there was basically no AA for this attack

11 January 1941 Gloucester operated with Southampton and one DD, and was hit with a single dud bomb so survived.

I never said that we shouldnt consider AA fire....you are very good at misquoting people I see. What i said was that the AA defences for Illustrious in that first attack were very weak relative to the force ranged against her. In the second attack they were stronger, but stil quite inadequate. Defences in the harbour were strong, but inneffective, judging by the losses. AA fire over brest was described as Heavy. Nowhere does that say we should disregard AA, completely the opposite in fact.

OK. I suppose that at Malta AA fire was as heavy as at Breast. At least they both could be described in such way by observers.
Heavy flaks more often could disorder attackers and damaged aircraft than destroyed them.

Yes, you are trying to discredit me, which is fine, its called the smiling assassin. There is no such thing as luck, its just a superstitious argument when we cannot understand the probability involved. Given enough understanding of the variables, we dont need to describe anything as lucky. Of course we have to accept some situations as unexplainable, because we dont have all the information....so we call it luck

As you wish. I prefer in the case than an occurance of low probability had happened instead of expected occurance of high probability sometimes call it as "luck" - especially in the case of occurance with very, very mearged probability. Almost impossible outcome according to its probablity.
I'm afraid you have never got a chance to find out and mathemetically consider all the factors influenced the result of all the impactsfor each thing. If yes - description of the fact that there must be a causal-effect relation gives you too little help to explain the occurance from the point of its causes and the ways how their effected.
I wonder if you can count all the factors with their definite ranks in the cases we are discussing. About me - I can't. But I can take them at some degree into account (that doesn't mean that I can count them mathematically).

ive never heard of the Ju87s that attacked the Illustrious as ever carrying SC500 bombs. They could do it, but not at the range the illustrious was from them. I think you will find this is mistaken, but if you have hard evidence , please produce it.

I should agree that here I've mistaked. Just taking 1000-lb for 1000-kg.

Actually they were very successful, especially the corsairs against japanese shipping. They were judged even more successful in the ground support role, so thats how they were mostly used when carrying offensive ordinance. RN Corsairs were even more extensively used in this role, since in 1945 Seafires were just as effective in CAP role and less effective in FB role

I said nothing contrary to the fact that F4U Corsairs were effective against stationary ground targets. I mentioned that I haven't heard about such their great success in attacking japanese ships that excelled effectivenes of other Navy and marine attack aircrafts of that time. I heard about several facts as VMF-115's Corsairs made mastheads attacks or Corsairs attacked with bombs Jamato and DD from its escort but I cannot see their superiority in effectiveness any other type of US Navy or Marine attack aircraft which attacked in the same manner.

 

[parsifal]

So how this percentage is comparable to percentage of hits achieved by Jugs attacking by bombs even non-movable targets?

Its much better, but neither are the two sets of data all that comparable. We are basically comparing the very best datasets for the Val, with the very worst (I'm betting) for the p-47. We have little or no information on the conditions or circumstances of the P-47 attack. We do know that the Vals, after the pilot quality was lost or degraded, suffered a downgrading in accuracy. I am willing to bet, that under normal circumstances, the Vals possessed a hit to mission ratio of around 2-3%. The problem though is that history doesnt record failures, or average, it only records exceptional....either exceptionally good (eg the attacks on the Hermes), or the exceptionally bad (like the attack by the P-47s).

Which is related to the other strand of this debate. Even though we can oggle at the theoretical capabilities of German bombsights, because there is no hard data or performance assessments, we cannot assertain their actual effectiveness. Thats why I keep asking for evidence of their peformance, and why their disciples keep trying to ignore me. They dont have any data, and if they are as cunning as i suspect they are, they know that combat data would show the actual performcance of these aids to be a lot less than the theory....a lot less.

 

[parsifal]

I have been documenting all the air attacks on shipping along the Atlantic coast in 1941, in the "three Fighters" thread. I am basically translating the German "SeeKrieg" diary website and came across this little gem

1.10.1941 English Channel the 3rd R flottille with R 38, R 33, R 35, R 36, R 165 and R 166 is near Dieppe by 8 Hurricanes. R 38, R 33 and R 165 are heavily damaged, the other boats slightly damaged (13 dead, 11 seriously injured). On R 38, the flottille commander Kptlt fall. Rossow, and the commander of the 2nd security division, K. z. S. are killed.

if you count the number of hits, that nine hits for 8 a/c. If you assume the heavily damaged ships were hit by bombs and the lightly damaged ships by cannon fire, thats still a hit/mission ratio of 37.5%.

Fighter bombers could, at times be deadly accurate.

Its all about crew proficiency.......

 

[gorizont]

I have been documenting all the air attacks on shipping along the Atlantic coast in 1941, in the "three Fighters" thread. I am basically translating the German "SeeKrieg" diary website and came across this little gem

1.10.1941 English Channel the 3rd R flottille with R 38, R 33, R 35, R 36, R 165 and R 166 is near Dieppe by 8 Hurricanes. R 38, R 33 and R 165 are heavily damaged, the other boats slightly damaged (13 dead, 11 seriously injured). On R 38, the flottille commander Kptlt fall. Rossow, and the commander of the 2nd security division, K. z. S. are killed.

if you count the number of hits, that nine hits for 8 a/c. If you assume the heavily damaged ships were hit by bombs and the lightly damaged ships by cannon fire, thats still a hit/mission ratio of 37.5%.

Fighter bombers could, at times be deadly accurate.

Its all about crew proficiency.......

I should say that this exmaple concerns with the topic just slightly if doesn't concern at all.
1) I don't see any notice about what weapons those boats were hit by. Serious damage could be inflicted to such small crafts by even gunnery for example. I suppose the Hurricanes were armed with cannons.
So to make a 37,5% accuracy achieved by a mix of weaponry is not the same for example as estimations of accuracy achieved by Stukas on Illustrious taking into account in this examples they used only bombs.

2) We discussed bombing with figther - bombers comparing with dive bombers and factor of novel equipment in achieving higher level of accuracy.
I have no doubt that fighter -bombers could produce hits on targets with gunnery and rockets not worse than any other type of attacking aircraft and moreover better than many others types of aircrafts.
P-47's excelently hit such targets as trucks and locomotives - but usually did it with gunnery and rockets as far as I know. At that point there is nothing to compare with bombing accuracy.

 

[gorizont]

Its much better, but neither are the two sets of data all that comparable. We are basically comparing the very best datasets for the Val, with the very worst (I'm betting) for the p-47. We have little or no information on the conditions or circumstances of the P-47 attack. We do know that the Vals, after the pilot quality was lost or degraded, suffered a downgrading in accuracy. I am willing to bet, that under normal circumstances, the Vals possessed a hit to mission ratio of around 2-3%. The problem though is that history doesnt record failures, or average, it only records exceptional....either exceptionally good (eg the attacks on the Hermes), or the exceptionally bad (like the attack by the P-47s).

I argree with many statments in your post, but should mention the procedure of aiming from dive - bombers to target.
Some estimations pilots made at the stage of approach a to target - in shallow dive, and then, chosed the point of entry into the steep dive
1) In steep dive pilot let the airplane to drift watching the shift of reticle from target and thus taking into account a direction and speed of wind
2) next he observed the central mark of reictle on the center of target moving along the target to estimate course and speed of target (it is important for hitting ships)
3) estimating those factors a pilot steered the aircraft as so the central mark of the reticle was offset according to all the mentioned corrections plus corrections of selected height of dropping bomb angle of dive and aircrarts speed (those values every pilot was to learn by heart from the ballistic tables)
4) at the movent of achieving of selected altitude a pilot pushed the release button and then started to pull out the aicraft
5) than he made an evasive manuever to avoid flak fire of interception by fighters.
6) he flyed to arranged point for gathering aircrafts and than took direction to return to base of carrier.
It is with use a simple reflector or optic tube sight.
It took several years to train a pilot to be capable to achieve regulalry an accuracy even of 20% in test conditions not to mention of 50% and higher.
I wonder how pilots of Jugs many of which learnt to bomb only in 1944 could compare with such trained pilots of the start of war if we take into acount that their crafts had no airbrakes and had less time to aim (account all the corrections). swallow dive technic let to attack at faster speed and in one continous pass and thus to increase chances to survive but I doubt that with usage of only simple reflector sight the lower altitude of dropping could compansate other factors dicreased accuracy.
And to increse accuracy the devices which may help pilots made all the estimations needed to put corrections in more easy way were designed.

Which is related to the other strand of this debate. Even though we can oggle at the theoretical capabilities of German bombsights, because there is no hard data or performance assessments, we cannot assertain their actual effectiveness. Thats why I keep asking for evidence of their peformance, and why their disciples keep trying to ignore me. They dont have any data, and if they are as cunning as i suspect they are, they know that combat data would show the actual performcance of these aids to be a lot less than the theory....a lot less.

It's another side of the problem. We haven't got enough statistic data to evalute a capability of more modern sighting devices in WWII. It is true.
For example how we make a comparable evaluation of more modern japanese Type 3 with inclinometer and old Type 1 optical tube if the war conditions changed so greatly that Japanese aircrafts hardly had a slight chance to achieve a good position for dive-bombing and we have no statistic data of average time of trainig in 1944 for dive-bombers crew. Just notes that they were trained so poorly that it was more correct to say "under any reasonable standart'. And usage of even whose improved sights demanded to some dergree trained staff.
Anyway it is obviuos that in that way after the war sights design has been developed and improved.

 

[parsifal]

I should say that this exmaple concerns with the topic just slightly if doesn't concern at all.
1) I don't see any notice about what weapons those boats were hit by. Serious damage could be inflicted to such small crafts by even gunnery for example. I suppose the Hurricanes were armed with cannons.
So to make a 37,5% accuracy achieved by a mix of weaponry is not the same for example as estimations of accuracy achieved by Stukas on Illustrious taking into account in this examples they used only bombs.

2) We discussed bombing with figther - bombers comparing with dive bombers and factor of novel equipment in achieving higher level of accuracy.
I have no doubt that fighter -bombers could produce hits on targets with gunnery and rockets not worse than any other type of attacking aircraft and moreover better than many others types of aircrafts.
P-47's excelently hit such targets as trucks and locomotives - but usually did it with gunnery and rockets as far as I know. At that point there is nothing to compare with bombing accuracy

.


err no, you need to do some research before jumping to conclusions. I checked the following sources to try and get a little clearer picture

Conways: Did not give any details of sinkings, except that three were lost off the french Coast in October 1941. Its a start

Janes 44-45 edition. Lists three R-16 class (of which these ships were aclass members) as being sunk by FC aircraft in October '42, outside of Dieppe. Right aircraft, right place, right ships, wrong year.

Lagervorttrage des oberbefehlshabers der kriegsmarine vor hitler 1939-45: My German is not good, but I believe this source says that 3 R Boats were bombed and sunk by RAF aircraft of Fighter command on the 2 October 1941. One day out, but three R boats fitting the description of these ships is not a bad match

JC Taylor, German Warships Of WWII, says that three minesweeper were sunk and four damaged on 1 October 1941 off the french coast. This source gives their details as displacing 115 tons, top speed 21 knots, as built with 2 x C38 20mm cannon, more added after the war broke out. I then found an image (attached, which shows them with four 20mm guns each. If so, for their size they packed a considerable punch. With seven of them operating they would have been able to call up an AA barrage of 28 20mm guns.

Next I tried to get some idea of the aircraft that allegedly attacked them. I could not get a specific subtype of Hurricane, but it was most likely a Hurricane II (given that bombs are likley to have been carried. The Hurricane II could have been armed with 8 or 12 303s, or 4 20mm. AFAIK there were no Hurri IIDs at his time.

Given the characteristics of the target warships, I find it highly unlikely that the hurricanes were attacking them with guns alone. It is likley that the ships were strafed, but I just cannot see hurricanes being able to sink a 115ton steel warship with 20mm cannon alone. Possible but unlikley.

Do you still want to say this is not a bombing attack by fighters, and do you still believe it is not relevant.

 

[parsifal]

It took several years to train a pilot to be capable to achieve regulalry an accuracy even of 20% in test conditions not to mention of 50% and higher.

The elite pilots of the IJN when she went to war according to Dunnigan had an average training time of about 300 hours, and combat time of about 500 hours. That gives a total of about 800 hours for these pilots.

In 1943 the average pilot training hours in the USAAC was 350 hours, plus they had, on average about 150 hours combat time on average. It took the pilots about 18 months, roughly to chalk up both the training hours and the flight time....so, if the P-47s were 2/5 as good as the Val pilots it would have taken them about 18 months to get there

Trouble is, the model is flawed. Nobody achieved 50% accuracy rates against defended targets over an extended period. Elite crews, operating against no or lightly defended targets, might get 25-30% hit to mission ratios. Against reasonably defended targets, the average might be 1-8%.

Against land targets the ability to pin down accuracy rates is notoriously hard. bergstrom gives some idea of accuracy against tanks in his book about Kursk. claims by both Soviets and German air forces against tanks are wildly overoptimistic. I have one account where a force of over 50 HS129s attacked a full Soviet tank Brigade, and claimed to destroy over 70 tanks. However in relaity, it has been shown that in post war research, just 8 tanks were knockewd out. Thats are 3 days of continous attacks by about 45-60 aircraft. LW were said to be flying about 3 or 4 sorties per day during Kursk, lets be conservative and say 3. Over threee days they had to have flown 450-500 sorties against this Soviet Brigade....to destroy 8 tanks. They did a lot of good those LW pilots, but kill a lot of tanks they did not....

I wonder how pilots of Jugs many of which learnt to bomb only in 1944 could compare with such trained pilots of the start of war if we take into acount that their crafts had no airbrakes and had less time to aim (account all the corrections). swallow dive technic let to attack at faster speed and in one continous pass and thus to increase chances to survive but I doubt that with usage of only simple reflector sight the lower altitude of dropping could compansate other factors dicreased accuracy.

As a generalization, there were relatively few American pilots trained in 1944 that saw combat in 1944. More than 50% of the personnel trained by the USAAC never left the strategic reserves, which were mostly deployed in the US. Most pilots deplyed to front line combat in 1944 had over 500 hours training time by then, and often around 300 hours combat flight time. most of the Jug pilots were dedicated fighter bomber jockeys, so they would have spent a lot of time practicising those skills. They wouold have been close in termsof proficiency at this job. You wil always get your freaky types like Rudel, but as a force, the accuracy of the Jug force would be similar to the LW jocks of 39-40 IMO

And to increse accuracy the devices which may help pilots made all the estimations needed to put corrections in more easy way were designed.

No not really, ther is no evidence to support that claim. Produce some evidence of that, from either side, and we will look at it. Dont try to slip in an odd unsubstatiated claim here or there, it will just get shot down

It's another side of the problem. We haven't got enough statistic data to evalute a capability of more modern sighting devices in WWII. It is true.

I a general way we do...according to aother the LW intriduced hi -tech sights after 1941, yet even whilst they still retained hi quality crews, there is no evidence to support any measurable increase in accuracy. perhaps ther is, but my repeated requests to produce it has met with stonwallled silence. all we get are the propaganda pieces about hi-tech German weaponary, but no details of actual performance, even for the stuff that was deployed.

For example how we make a comparable evaluation of more modern japanese Type 3 with inclinometer and old Type 1 optical tube if the war conditions changed so greatly that Japanese aircrafts hardly had a slight chance to achieve a good position for dive-bombing and we have no statistic data of average time of trainig in 1944 for dive-bombers crew. Just notes that they were trained so poorly that it was more correct to say "under any reasonable standart'. And usage of even whose improved sights demanded to some dergree trained staff.

I goota hand it to you, at least you are having a go....specifically when were these sights you metion introduced, and where were they first used. Which units were using them. We can analyse them against aircraft with the older sighting equipment, even in conditions that were tough and get a comparison, perhaps. I'll amake a bet with you, ther wont be any appreciable difference

Anyway it is obviuos that in that way after the war sights design has been developed and improved.

Yes, but in the context of a thirty year time frame. in the context of the war, for visual sights, low to moderate improvements at best, and hardly worth the effort. ]

 

[gjs238]

They allowed use of aircraft such as fighters not usually capable of carrying as bomb sight which is important since specilised dive bombers were not survivable.

Would the US A-36 not be considered survivable?

 

[riacrato]

Wasn't the A-36 conceived to keep production rate of Mustang airframes up? Anyways it was a fighter airframe adapted to dive-bomber use with good success. My impression is that it's basically a fighter bomber with airbrakes. It has relatively poor top speed for its period which doesn't surprise me given the added weight and drag. So yeah, definetly vulnerable against e.g. a FW 190 A-5.

 

[gorizont]

.


err no, you need to do some research before jumping to conclusions. I checked the following sources to try and get a little clearer picture

Conways: Did not give any details of sinkings, except that three were lost off the french Coast in October 1941. Its a start

Janes 44-45 edition. Lists three R-16 class (of which these ships were aclass members) as being sunk by FC aircraft in October '42, outside of Dieppe. Right aircraft, right place, right ships, wrong year.

Lagervorttrage des oberbefehlshabers der kriegsmarine vor hitler 1939-45: My German is not good, but I believe this source says that 3 R Boats were bombed and sunk by RAF aircraft of Fighter command on the 2 October 1941. One day out, but three R boats fitting the description of these ships is not a bad match

JC Taylor, German Warships Of WWII, says that three minesweeper were sunk and four damaged on 1 October 1941 off the french coast. This source gives their details as displacing 115 tons, top speed 21 knots, as built with 2 x C38 20mm cannon, more added after the war broke out. I then found an image (attached, which shows them with four 20mm guns each. If so, for their size they packed a considerable punch. With seven of them operating they would have been able to call up an AA barrage of 28 20mm guns.

Next I tried to get some idea of the aircraft that allegedly attacked them. I could not get a specific subtype of Hurricane, but it was most likely a Hurricane II (given that bombs are likley to have been carried. The Hurricane II could have been armed with 8 or 12 303s, or 4 20mm. AFAIK there were no Hurri IIDs at his time.

Given the characteristics of the target warships, I find it highly unlikely that the hurricanes were attacking them with guns alone. It is likley that the ships were strafed, but I just cannot see hurricanes being able to sink a 115ton steel warship with 20mm cannon alone. Possible but unlikley.

Do you still want to say this is not a bombing attack by fighters, and do you still believe it is not relevant.

In this attack no R-boat was damaged up to sinking. all of them were only damaged and there is no evidance how seriously.
So there is no clue for considering a single direct bomb hit.
In the report was mentioned for exmple R-33/
Look at it: "1939 The R-boat R33 is commissioned, 1939 The R-boat R33 becomes operational with the 3. Räumbootsflottille., 19 July 1943 The R-boat R33 is sunk after being attacked by Russian aircraft, off Jalta. Position 44° 30N 34° 10E."
Another mentioned above R-35: "2 October 1943 The R-boat R35 is sunk after being attacked by Allied aircraft, off Feodosia. Position 45° 02N 35° 24E."
27 August 1944 The R-boat R38 is sunk after being hit by a mine, it in the Aegean, West of Paros. Position 37° 05N 25° 08E.
You can find it at R-boat 1937-43 Type

So the only source of considering the rate of damage is pure impression of the pilots which might be just exagerated.
All the mentioned R-boats according to the link were sunk in 1943 and 1944.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Hurricanes were incapable of carrying bombs until, at the earliest, November 1941, probably even later, since trials went on into May, 1942.

 

[davebender]

Since it had no bomb sight I think the A-36 was a dive bomber in name only, to trick Congress into funding an additional fighter aircraft type. Rather like calling the F-18E a modified F-18D rather then admitting it to be an entirely new aircraft model.