pinehilljoe
Senior Airman
- 670
- May 1, 2016
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Consequences of a doctrine that had no provision for dive bombing?Curious, anyone know background to why Britain did not develop a dedicated dive bomber between the Wars, or early in the War as the US, Japan, and Germany did?
A lot of threads that mention it but basically the RAF didn't want to play 2nd/3rd fiddle to the Navy and Army and saw their mission as bombing the enemies home land into submission. Doing tactical bombing would make them subordinate to the army. At some point some people decided that home defense to stop enemy bombers was good idea, some people thought that if they bombed the enemy enough they could out bomb the enemy and still win.Curious, anyone know background to why Britain did not develop a dedicated dive bomber between the Wars, or early in the War as the US, Japan, and Germany did? A true dive bomber, either carrier or land based, seems absent for Britain's aircraft development. The Skua seems the closest, but the specs don't compare to a Stuka or SBD
Was it really that bad or was it politics?
Not true.Hi,
Additionally it appears that the RAF also took over an order for 700 Vultee Vengeance Dive Bomber from France when it fell and operated this type in and around Burma (as well as others operated by the RAAF and IAF) with deliveries starting in late 1942.
Best summed up by comments from Wing Commander Slessor in 1934Politics.
The RAF saw dive bombing as a mission for 'army co-operation', a task it hated and devoted as little effort as it could to.
They were wedded to the Tenchard School of Strategic 'The Bomber will always get through' Bombing.
Of course, were there enough anti tank guns, Slessor was right. In the reality of the day though, he was wrong. Tanks are tiny targets for an air attack.Best summed up by comments from Wing Commander Slessor in 1934
"The aeroplane is NOT a battlefield weapon"
Even in Spring 1941, now promoted to Air Marshall, and with the experience of WW2 to date, protested:-
"....we dont want aircraft skidding around over Kent looking for enemy tanks. that is the job of the anti-tank gun."
It was Beaverbrook, as head of MAP from May 1940, that ordered dive-bombers like the Bermuda & Vengeance, from the USA very much against the wishes of the RAF.
Inskip's recommendation that the FAA be transferred to RN control was approved by the Cabinet in July 1937 but it took until the end of the year to thrash out the new division of responsibilities between the RAF and the RN on matters like responsibility for pilot training. A whole new organisation then required built up within the Admiralty. Squables over various matters continued through 1938, and on at least one occasion had to be referred back to Inskip for a ruling (related to the transfer of shore stations). Full administrative control finally passed back to the RN on 24th May 1939.RN didn't get control of the aircraft until 1938 (?) although they had a lot of input. And the process was slow. The Skua was actually a contemporary of the Vought Vindicator.
What would Britain have used a dive bomber on, where and when?
HiNorth Africa in 1941-42, perhaps? Not that the Baltimores/A-20s/etc didn't do a great job, but I could see dive-bombers being useful in that theater at that time.
What would Britain have used a dive bomber on, where and when?
As for the desert, fighter bombers and even light/medium bombers were better for the majority of targets as vehicles would disperse and spread out into the desert which would mean the dive bomber would have to aim for an individual vehicle to cause any damage.
Extract from the German December 1944 document reference problems with Stuka use below:
View attachment 695766
Mike
How would a dive bomber fare any better than a Fairey Battle or indeed a Stuka?There was a lot of German ground military assets to bomb, from September of 1939 on.
How would a dive bomber fare any better than a Fairey Battle or indeed a Stuka?
Well hurricanes were driven out of Belgium and France and a couple of years later even a Spitfire Mk V struggled over France. The LW struggled to protect Stukas in a dive, you need the same dive capability to follow them.Depends on a dive bomber and other circumstances. Slow dive bomber without a meaningful protection would've taken serious losses. Fast dive bomber with good protection would've fared much better. Odds increase if fighter escort is provided, let alone if the air superiority is achieved.
Well hurricanes were driven out of Belgium and France and a couple of years later even a Spitfire Mk V struggled over France.
The LW struggled to protect Stukas in a dive, you need the same dive capability to follow them.