Dive bomber accuracy in perspective.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


I'm aware of the whole 'USN torpedo scandal'. Not that it allowed many of Japanese ships a free ride, but endangered many of US servicemen for almost no reward. Even made some skipperes defending for accusations of covardice.
But, be as it was, the US aircraft in general, and SBDs in particular were the ones doing sunking of IJN carriers in 1942.
 

Accuracy on a target range bears little relationship to combat accuracy. It is like the relationship between a rifleman's accuracy on a target range and his accuracy while under fire in combat.
 
Brooke said:
Yes, exactly. Dive bombers were effective. But not horizontal bombing.
Mk 20 Mod 4 Gun-Bomb Sight
Click to expand...

Accuracy is largely dependent on TOF whether bombs, bullets, or shells. Dive bombers should have had improved accuracy because they were releasing bombs at very low levels thereby minimizing target movement between bomb release and bomb impact.
 
BAGTIC said:
Accuracy on a target range bears little relationship to combat accuracy. It is like the relationship between a rifleman's accuracy on a target range and his accuracy while under fire in combat.
Click to expand...

Hence the "non-combat dropping understood " comment.

Also realize that in today's environment accuracy is tremendous with guided weapons, and sometimes even more so with the GPS add on (coordinates accuracy dependent of course).

Cheers,
Biff
 
An issue with dive bombing against heavily armored ships is release height. Lower the release the better chance of a hit, but against Battleships per se even AP bombs may or may not penetrate deck armor. Tirpitz was stationary yet the initial strikes against her were delivered too low for good armor penetration. A subsequent strike had one 750 kg bomb penetrate to the vitals, but didn't explode. However all of the ships defensive and offensive weaponry are located high in the ship and considerable damage can result even if machinery and main magazines remain safe. The steering was protected by an 80-110 mm armored deck, a potential vulnerability. Turret roofs and the conning tower were thick enough to be proof against carrier aircraft bombs but secondary batteries, ready ammunition, fire control positions etc. not.
 
Level bombing accuracy was affected by a number of factors including



1) speed of the aircraft

2) altitude that the bombs are dropped

3) strength of defending AA

4) whether the target was moving

5) Pilot experience



Over Korea, RAN Fireflies were equipped with all the weapon systems that in modern times have been seen as largely ineffective…..20mm cannon, freefall bombs and unguided rockets. Yet the aircraft of 817 sqn achieved some of the highest accuracy rates of any squadron sized unit at any time in history. They flew something like eight hundred and something sorties I three months and destroyed over 1500 targets in that time. These successful strikes are based on post war verifications, not claims made at the time. It included the destruction of 6xt-34 tanks. Talking to some of the aircrew in that unit, it seems they employed a number of "tricks" to achieve that great accuracy. The one that comes to mind is that they reduced the speed of the firefly greatly by deploying their flaps whilst airborne. This enable their aircraft to virtually 'float" over their target areas whilst lobbing ordinance at the ground.

Swordfish used similar low speed attack tactics, which explains to me why stringbags, even when used as level bombers, were able to achieve such outstanding accuracy against enemy shipping

Flak makes low speed attacks very dangerous, but the solution here is to supress the flak before the main attacks actually take place. This is what happened at Bismarck Sea…..essentially the earlier US attacks got nowhere with the Japanese, because they were forced to fly high and fast and their accuracy was affected by the defending ship borne flak. The ten gun terrors of 30 sqn in the later attacks came in low and fast, carrying out their runs on the defenders length wise down the ship, which killed or disabled the defending AA guns in a severe way. The Beaforts and A-20s, mixed in b-25 gunships then came in to more or less decimate the whole convoy.

So, given the right circumstances, level bombing can be deadly enough…….the secret is co-ordination. In Korea, that co-ordination was in the form of the Sea fury FB-11s flying suppression missions, whilst at Bismarck Sea it was the 30 sqn beaufighters.
 

Which is why the LW developed their Rocket-assisted bombs 500Kg and up, but they never had the chance to use them on a proper target IIRC.

They got hits on a couple CLs, but no BBs or CVs.
 
Before guided bombs, only the dive bombers had a good chance of responding to the maneuvers of an evading ship. Even so it was hard enough to correct a dive laterally that the hit rate wasn't that great compared to a no maneuvering target.
 
JAG88 said:
Which is why the LW developed their Rocket-assisted bombs 500Kg and up, but they never had the chance to use them on a proper target IIRC.

They got hits on a couple CLs, but no BBs or CVs.
Click to expand...

If we are thinking of the same weapon then the German guided bombs when used were very effective, sinking one modern BB the Roma and damaging at least two more, the Italia and the Warspite. A number of cruisers were also seriously damaged.
 
Glider said:
If we are thinking of the same weapon then the German guided bombs when used were very effective, sinking one modern BB the Roma and damaging at least two more, the Italia and the Warspite. A number of cruisers were also seriously damaged.
Click to expand...

No, I am talking about the unguided, solid fuel, rocket-accelerated, armor piercing ones, PC500/1000/1800 RS, these were dive bomber weapons allowing the pilot to dive low and still have the bomb hit with enough speed to penetrate:











Luftwaffe Resource Center - Drop Ordnance - A Warbirds Resource Group Site

You are thinking about the guided munitions, HS 293 and Fritz X.
 
Thanks for the information
 
fliger747 said:
Before guided bombs, only the dive bombers had a good chance of responding to the maneuvers of an evading ship. Even so it was hard enough to correct a dive laterally that the hit rate wasn't that great compared to a no maneuvering target.
Click to expand...


Im sorry but I don't agree. Torpedo bombers, operating with other torpedo bombers could employ anvil tactics and be very effective against shipping,, with comparable loss rates to divebomber attacks. Level bombers, operating at very low level, in concert with aircraft used in flak suppression, such as occurred at bismarck Sea were also very effective. There were many other combinations of these basic mixes in force structure.

Its also worth pointing out that some of the greatest maritime tallies were achieved by sircraft like the Swordfish. In 1941 for example, Malta based Swordfish are estimates to have sunk at least 250000 tons of enemy mercantile tonnage. that sounds like a fairly modest total, until it is realised that the average availability for these attacks were often less than 5 a/c at any one time .

In the Korean war era, some of the most efficient shipping killers were aircraft like the Firefly, which were not a divebomber. they were essentially fighterbombers, optimised for air to surface attacks. The RAN squadrons used in this capacity did not use guided weaponary, they used unguided bombs mostly.

The germans used divbombers, and they were effective, but this effectiveness often masquerades as the only means of sinking ships or carrying out effect air to ground support. Look a little closer and this rapidly is exposed for the myth that it is.


Your second point about "hit rates not being that great" is also able to be unproven. During the attacks by the IJN on HMS Cornwall and Dorsaetshire, the IJN divebomber group involved is known to have achiecved a hit ratio in excess of 80% Thats exceptional, no one has ever come close to beating it before or since, but still there weree many instances of achieving hit rates in excess of 50% If you have well trained crews, relatively unprotected targets, that arent moving too quickly, a lot of hits are likley no matter what the delivery system.
 
The point being that many warship targets were well defended, moving rapidly and maneuvering. So the never to be bested comment sort of proves the point. One reads the account of the dive bombers at Midway , one of the most consequential of the war, there were a lot of misses on a relatively large target. They were successful with a small number of hits because of the flammable state of the carriers at the moment of the attack. At Sana Cruise SODAK was hit on #1 turret by a 500 lb AP Bomb, the turret crew wasn't even aware of the hit, though it gouged a barrel on turret two and wounded Captain Gatch.

But yes, the Dive Bombers in their heyday were quite effective. But the Yamato sisters were largely done in by the torpeckers.
 
Glider said:
The RAF found that the rockets were very effective anti shipping weapons at anything up to light cruiser level. For merchant shipping anything was vulnerable. Dive bombing was basically passé by the end of the war.
Click to expand...

Only against weakly defended targets, rockets deliver less and dispersed HE, and launched at a shorter range than a dive bomb attack to boot, try that against tougher opposition and they are toast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

XB-24J prototype bomber
Replies
18
Views
993
GrauGeist
T
B24 use in ETO
Replies
3
Views
171
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
R
SBD dive bombing procedures
2 3
Replies
52
Views
6K
Retattack
R
Swedish Ju86K
Replies
7
Views
1K
The Stannum Liberator
S
Request help identifying type of Bomber aircraft
Replies
3
Views
671
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register