And that includes the Bismarck as well.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And that includes the Bismarck as well.If you force your opponent to scuttle, I count that as a sinking.
And that includes the Bismarck as well.
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.Right. It includes any ship where the captain says, "Well, ladies, we're screwed" and pulls the plug.
Unrelated to your reply, more toWild 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.
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.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.
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.Well, the dive bombing training would be on top of the prior attack pilot training so there's that as well
Flying any high performance twin engine fighter or bomber, hands down!- it does raise the good question: what pilot role required the most intensive training to achieve the necessary proficiency ( WW2 era)?
Not dive bombers though.And that includes the Bismarck as well.
Not dive bombers though.
Agreed. I look at an illustration like this with bewildering stupefaction and I think, where's the Any key?WWII Gunnery and torpedo attacks have always fascinated me.
You will find a very detailed analysis of the sinking of Bismarck hereAnd that includes the Bismarck as well.
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.
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.
And I assume he did this by dive bombing? I'm not surprised.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
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.Could you imagine trying to tow Hiryu back to Yokohama?
And I assume he did this by dive bombing? I'm not surprised.
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.Consequences of a doctrine that had no provision for dive bombing?
What would qualify as a fast dive-bomber? The only aircraft I can think of that fit that description operationally was the A-36.Slow dive bomber without a meaningful protection would've taken serious losses. Fast dive bomber with good protection would've fared much better.
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.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.
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.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
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).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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 IMOyes, 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.