Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ju-87 with average pilot had a 25% chance to place 1,000kg bomb within 30 meters of target.
Ju-88 under test conditions (presumably expert pilot) could place 50% of bombs within 50 meter circle.
What accuracy could be expected from a Vietnam era Skyraider with 2,000 lb iron bomb?
What accuracy could be expected from a modern day A-10 with 2,000 lb iron bomb?
AFDU testing Hurricane II - 250 lb bombs:
low level attacks - 50 feet altitude
- average error varied between 16.5 yards and 22.4 yards
- most accurate form of attack - but unsatisfactory against point targets in action due to 11-sec fuses and bomb ricochet
dive attacks - 3,000 feet down to 1,000 feet (1,500 feet release) & 4,000 feet down to 2,000 feet (2,500 feet release)
- average error was 27 yards and 24 yards respectively
- form of attack judged vulnerable to AA fire, 45 degrees found to be the best angle for attack
AFDU testing of Mustang III - 500 lb bombs:
60 degree adive attacks - 8,000 feet down to 2,600 feet (release at 4,700 feet)
- average MPI error of 27 yards
- distance between bomb impact points 5 to 112 yards, average 46 yards
The figures for 'real' dive bombing in 1944/5, by Typhoons and Spitfires, were nowhere near as good as this.
Cheers
Steve
ORS 2nd TAF examined the accuracy of Typhoon bombers on operations between October 1944 and April 1945. Nine 'pin-point' bombing targets were analysed by plotting both bomb distribution from aerial photographs and examination of the targets on the ground. The average radial error for these attacks was 158 yards with only 50% of bombs falling within 130 yards of the target. The chances of actually destroying such a target are consequently rather slim.
Similar results were found in other surveys. For example a survey of seventeen railway line targets, 320 bombs dropped, found the average line error to be 69 yards with only 50% of bombs falling within 50 yards, either side of the target.
The Typhoons and Spitfires involved in these surveys were obviously not purpose built dive bombers but fighter bombers which employed various dive bombing techniques and this may be reflected in their relative inaccuracy. Their pilots may well have been less well trained in the arts of dive bombing than those from a unit established with this specific role and .at least some of the targets may have been defended. On the other hand these poor results are for targets which were easily visible from the air, such as bridges, railway lines and road or rail crossings. Results for other targets, which might be small and camouflaged, such as gun positions, would inevitably be far worse.
Cheers
Steve
true divebombing was deadly to the RN until they began to beef up with AA able to reach to the top of the typical dive envelope. Bombs had to be dropped from a certain height so that they achieved sufficient vertical velocity for armour penetration. Varied of course with target, but for Illustrious the typical heights at which the ordinance was dropped was around 3000', not high enough to ensure penetration of the main armoured hangar deck
The record of hit on the Illlustrious were, according to Norman Friedman's British Carrier Aviation, which I think should be a fairly definitive source.
On 10th January there were eight hits:
1. 500lb bomb on S2 pom-pom
2. 1000lb bomb through port forward end of flight deck, bursting above the water outside the ship
3. 1000lb bomb through the aft lift exploding above the lift platform
4. 1000lb bomb through the flight deck on the centreline, exploding above the hangar deck
5. 500lb bomb on the edge of the aft lift, exploding high in the well
6. 1000lb bomb through P1 pompom, hit edge of armour deck but did not explode, did cause fire
7. 1000lb bomb near miss starboard side aft
8. 500lb bomb down aft liftwell.
delivered by 43 Ju 87s, some of which were diverted to attack other ships (15 from memory, no results recorded in the first attack)
As Aa suites increase, Divebomber loss rates began to climb alarmingly. A divebomber is a vulnerable target both during its form up and also during the dive, most vulnerable to CAP during form up and approach, and most vulnerable to attack from Flak during actual dive. beef up either of these defences and the divebomber as a concept is toast.
Many of them such as Ju-87D and A-10 also have significant armor for protection against ground fire.
What a dive bomber can achieve depends on the target, a trawler/destroyer is much more difficult to hit than a carrier and not just because of its size it can also change direction much more quickly.