British Dive Bombers or lack thereof

[Ovod]

If you force your opponent to scuttle, I count that as a sinking.

And that includes the Bismarck as well.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

And that includes the Bismarck as well.

Right. It includes any ship where the captain says, "Well, ladies, we're screwed" and pulls the plug.

Unrelated to your reply, more to Wild Bill Kelso 's, DBs were great anti-carrier weapons, but the bombs had a hard time developing speed enough in the drop from DBs to do much penetration against BB deck armor.

 

[Ovod]

Right. It includes any ship where the captain says, "Well, ladies, we're screwed" and pulls the plug.

Unrelated to your reply, more to Wild Bill Kelso 's, DBs were great anti-carrier weapons, but the bombs had a hard time developing speed enough in the drop from DBs to do much penetration against BB deck armor.

Yes, there was always a minimum altitude allowed for the bomb release, I think it was about 3,000 feet. Dive bomber pilots must have been the most intensely trained combat pilots of them all if they were ever to achieve any kind of accuracy.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yes, there was always a minimum altitude allowed for the bomb release, I think it was about 3,000 feet. Dive bomber pilots must have been the most intensely trained combat pilots of them all if they were ever to achieve any kind of accuracy.

Not really - dive bombing was actual a technique of delivering a bomb in a dive (obviously). There were aircraft tailored to accomplish this technique but other aircraft, that were not designed as a dedicated dive bomber managed to do this, off the top of my head I believe P-47 units did some dive bombing. Did it involve "extra" training? Absolutely. Were dive bomber pilots "the most intensely trained combat pilots?" Probably not.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I knew I saved this link

 

[Ovod]

Well, the dive bombing training would be on top of the prior attack pilot training so there's that as well - it does raise the good question: what pilot role required the most intensive training to achieve the necessary proficiency ( WW2 era)?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well, the dive bombing training would be on top of the prior attack pilot training so there's that as well

Do have evidence of that? I know there are other parts of a naval aviator's training syllabus that IMO were way more difficult (carrier landings, instrument flying, gunnery training). I would say that dive bombing would be the most physically taxing. R Leonard could probably give some input on this

- it does raise the good question: what pilot role required the most intensive training to achieve the necessary proficiency ( WW2 era)?

Flying any high performance twin engine fighter or bomber, hands down!

 

[Admiral Beez]

And that includes the Bismarck as well.

Not dive bombers though.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not dive bombers though.

That sub-discussion is about scuttling, not DBs in particular.

 

[Admiral Beez]

WWII Gunnery and torpedo attacks have always fascinated me.

Agreed. I look at an illustration like this with bewildering stupefaction and I think, where's the Any key?

 

[EwenS]

And that includes the Bismarck as well.

You will find a very detailed analysis of the sinking of Bismarck here

International Naval Research Organization Articles - Bismarck's Final Battle - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Was she sunk by the British or by scuttling? Conclusion? Both (see Part IX)

"Bismarck was a sinking ship, and her scuttling merely hastened an inevitable demise....."

 

[SaparotRob]

Bismarck was sunk. Hiryu wasn't scuttled because she was in no danger from the bomb hits. U.S.S. Missouri wasn't scuttled in Tokyo Bay in a victory celebration.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Bismarck was sunk. Hiryu wasn't scuttled because she was in no danger from the bomb hits. U.S.S. Missouri wasn't scuttled in Tokyo Bay in a victory celebration.

Could you imagine trying to tow Hiryu back to Yokohama?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Not really - dive bombing was actual a technique of delivering a bomb in a dive (obviously). There were aircraft tailored to accomplish this technique but other aircraft, that were not designed as a dedicated dive bomber managed to do this, off the top of my head I believe P-47 units did some dive bombing. Did it involve "extra" training? Absolutely. Were dive bomber pilots "the most intensely trained combat pilots?" Probably not.

I know there was a P-40 pilot who sunk a destroyer on his first bombing mission (with almost no training) I posted that story around here somewhere a couple of weeks ago

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I know there was a P-40 pilot who sunk a destroyer on his first bombing mission (with almost no training) I posted that story around here somewhere a couple of weeks ago

And I assume he did this by dive bombing? I'm not surprised.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Could you imagine trying to tow Hiryu back to Yokohama?

More likely her leaks would be patched and her machinery made to operate so that she could sail herself to safety. With charges in place in case the enemy approaches to take ownership.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

And I assume he did this by dive bombing? I'm not surprised.

yes, depending on what you mean by that term - I think 45 degree angle bombing. To clarify my previous comment - the pilot was trained but only for fighter ops and maybe a little strafing, he was just told what to do for the dive bombing attempt and did it.

 

[Zipper730]

Consequences of a doctrine that had no provision for dive bombing?

Basically, you nailed it right there. While there were a few people in the RAF who did see some use in dive-bombing from the WWI era and interwar era, their numbers had rapidly faded as the war neared though the Fairey Battle and Bristol Beaufighter were capable of it.

Slow dive bomber without a meaningful protection would've taken serious losses. Fast dive bomber with good protection would've fared much better.

What would qualify as a fast dive-bomber? The only aircraft I can think of that fit that description operationally was the A-36.

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.

I was under the impression that having seen the Luftwaffe's work in Europe inspired this decision. In the USAAC, they were generally seen as slow and clumsy, lacking the range, payload, and defensive capability of the heavy bomber.

Peter Smith's book 'Dive Bomber' gives a good account of British / RAF attitude. They considered it glide bombing with angles of up to 70% sufficient

Interesting how different nations (and potentially different services) have different criteria for the cut-off for glide/dive-bombing. The USN generally seemed to have the cutoff at 60º.

As exposed in the later war period the RAF had to be dragged kicking and screaming into providing adequate ground support operations with army needs. From memory it was only the threat of giving the Army their own ground support squadrons at the expense of the RAF that made the RAF relent and take it seriously.

I do remember a similar situation occurring in the US from the late 1950's to early 1960's: The US Army had started arming their helicopters and, around 1961, actually issued a contest for fixed-wing combat-aircraft (out of this came the G91, the A4D-2N, and the N-156F) for the CAS mission (of which the A4D-2N won) as well as a battlefield-reconnaissance aircraft (N-156F might have been considered at least) which seems suspiciously similar to the fighter-role (after all, many fighter aircraft were, in WWI times, designated as scouts).

Of course the USAF raised holy-hell because that would could undermine the legitimacy of their surface: They'd only be left with strategic bombing/ICBM's, and nuclear-strike/MRBM's for offense; Continental air-defense would handle their defensive mission. This could easily get worse because, when one considers that the USN had a full aviation arm, ballistic missiles were operated by all services (USAF had ICBM's and some MRBM's the US Army developed but took control over; the USN had SLBMs which were effectively MRBM/IRBM's in range; the US Army wielded SRBM's), and the US Army would be given a full-on tactical air-force (and nuclear strike being just tactical bombing with nukes, and the A4D-2N being designed for this), an argument could easily be made for the dismemberment of the USAF.

Think about it: SAC is a specified command, which is similar to a theater command, or maybe Alaska Command in WWII; the only difference is that, whereas Alaska Command had US Army, USAAF, and USN units placed under the command of a USAAF General: SAC is solely controlled by and run by USAF personnel; even if the USAF was to be dissolved, it wouldn't matter: The function of the command would be the same, merely commanded and run by personnel who would be US Army, USN, and USMC; After that, there's NORAD: It's actually a dual-national command with the head of ADC in command with a RCAF general officer as deputy. While the USAF is nominally the American side of NORAD, there was FAWTUPAC (Fleet All-Weather Training Unit, PACific) which operated F4D-1s in the USN's largest fighter squadron, as well as numerous Army controlled missile-batteries (such as the Nike Ajax & Hercules, as well as ABM developments) and AAA units. With the head of ADC in charge of NORAD, these fighter and missile commands could all basically be amalgamated under some kind of joint-command (at least on our side -- Canada would be the same).

Ultimately the US Army lost it's bid at fixed-wing combat planes, but were allowed to arm its helicopters without restriction. Ironically, the USAF's coordination over CAS might have been better in Vietnam than it was in Korea, though I could be wrong on that.

With predictions like H.G. Wells in Shape of Things to Come of bombers using high explosive, incendiary, chemical and possibly biological weapons to devastate civilisations and the bomber (ICBM) will always get through it is understandable there were 1930's worries about "bomber gaps", credibility of deterrence and only one way to fight/win the next war. Then radar appeared and rather remarkably chemical weapons remained unused.

Actually chemical agents and biological agents were used to some extent by the Japanese, with chemical warfare used in a very limited extent by the Nazi's in the Soviet Union (possibly Poland) from what I read.

That said, it seemed that there was a greater ability to agree on using chemical and bio-weapons (and I think it was more explicitly forbidden) than just bombing and burning loads of people to death (where there was less agreement and more loopholes).

The pre war it was the USN and IJN, not the USAAF or IJA, that invested in dive bombing, you only need to look at the number of US dive bomber designs ordered and built versus torpedo bombers and the Luftwaffe picked up on that, deciding the greater accuracy was worthwhile.

That sounds about right and, there's some benefits to naval aviation when it comes to their use: Naval dive-bombers usually carry one huge bomb for busting open ships, since they're tough and sturdy; land-based dive-bombers usually carry a more numerous number of smaller bombs. While a small bomb generally produces less drag than a large one, a whole bunch of small ones can add up to exceed the one small one.

In the USAAC there was also the fact that there was a strong interest in strafing, which led to twice the number of machine guns as well as an interest in carrying large numbers of blast-fragmentation bombs (15-30 lb. a pop) since they'd be better at killing large numbers of people. The drag levels would be very high, so internal weapons bays were preferred (and that starts to become a volume issue, particularly when planes have to carry fuel and other stuff, and that surplus volume is available on moderate to large designs, but not always present on small ones). During the war, experience learned from the RAF's Desert Air Force also favored a two-plane strategy (A fighter-bomber/reconnaissance aircraft and a fast-attack bomber), which tended to exclude dive-bombers (though the RAF's Desert Air Force included some Bristol Beaufighters and Martin Marylands which were capable of dive-bombing attacks, something our A-20's and A-26's weren't well suited for).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

yes, depending on what you mean by that term - I think 45 degree angle bombing. To clarify my previous comment - the pilot was trained but only for fighter ops and maybe a little strafing, he was just told what to do for the dive bombing attempt and did it.

If you look at online sources, dive bombing is considered anything from 45 to 60 degrees, some sources state as high as 80 degrees. I look at 45 degrees at the "glass half empty or half full." I've flown aircraft in a 45 degree dive, it's pretty steep IMO

 

[SaparotRob]

A lone F4F bombed and sank an enemy destroyer by bombing it during the battle for Wake Island. Dive bombing?