Dive bomber accuracy in perspective.

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

JAG88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

IIRC, rockets used for anti-shipping strikes were fired to strike the water , where they then proceeded UW to strike the ship's hulls below the water line. I know this is how they were used against submarines, and rockets could penetrate a sub's thick pressure hull in this manner.
 
JAG88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd like your source for that information. Take a look at the pair of videos available from the IWM:

SHIP-BUSTERS [Main Title]

In the first, you can see the gun positions on every ship that's been sunk. In the second you see Banff Wing Mosquitos and Beaufighters going in against ships congregated in fjords. And why were the ships there? Because they could mass flak from both the ships and shore batteries against attacking aircraft.

Undoubtedly, there's propaganda at play but I think the content speaks for itself in contradicting your contention about weakly defended targets.
 

Amusingly the AP head was developed for use against enemy tanks and the SAP head was developed for use against enemy shipping. As it turned out each head was much better suited to attack the other target and their use was completely reversed from what was initially intended.
 

The Germans were using magazine-fed 20mm and semi-auto 37mm flak... weak weapons compared to what they could have fielded, try those raids against a quad-mount, water-cooled MG151/20s or an earlier developed 3,7cm M42, or even the Bofors they did have access to.

The ships were in fjords because that is where you load/offload cargo, so of course you protect them and the ships therein.
 

At the attackers leisure, since subs have little to no flak and it was more sensible to try and dive anyways.

Yes, flak Uboats, remember how they fared?
 

I'd still like to see sources for your assertions. What's your source for the weapons in use? Even taking your data as correct, the German 37mm flak gun had a faster rate of fire than any comparable weapon on the planet so I'm not sure how that counts as "weak".

However, German flak ships were much better armed than what you describe as "weak" to include 88mm, multiple 20-40mm and several smaller-calibre weapons. Yet, despite those odds, the Banff Wing still attacked them successfully using rockets and cannon. The pic below shows flak ship V-1605 Mosel under attack by Beaufighters off Lillesand, Norway, 15 October 1944:


Source: Wikipedia


So, again, please provide some sources for your assertions that rocket weapons were ineffective in highly-defended maritime environments.
 
Ill try to be patient...


1. Outpost boats were not "flak ships", were just that, outpost boats (often requisitioned fishing boats), they did have some AA guns, but that did not make them flak ships...

2. You are thinking of the 3,7cm LAND flak, the KM used the Germany 3.7 cm/83 SK C/30 - NavWeaps, HAND-LOADED SEMI-AUTO, RoF about 30rpm, until 1944, when a modified version of the land flak 36 Germany 3.7 cm/69 (1.5") Flak M42 - NavWeaps was introduced.


3. Those Germany 2 cm/65 (0.79") C/30 and C/38 - NavWeaps were all magazine fed (20 roudns) and air cooled, which means reduced fire rates.



4. UK air attacks werent much of an issue until late war, which is why the KM kept their old weapons in use for so long, the threat wasnt there, when the threat increased they issued 40mm and 37mm M42s, but by then they had far more pressing issues than protecting shipping...

5. Word of advice, never use Wikipedia as a source... just dont.
 
Last edited:

One could suggest that you shouldn't be overly selective in your justifications. The replacement for the original Naval 37mm (30 rpm) had a firing rate of 250 rounds per minute. Why are you discounting that from your arguments because the air war against German maritime assets was still very active in 1944 when the newer weapon was introduced.

I'm also struggling with the point you're trying to make about better AAA defences. The Banff Wing flew against the targets that were available. Had better AAA been in place, then perhaps different tactics or weapons might have been employed. Then again, better AAA means a greater chance of shooting down a dive bomber. So are you suggesting that air-dropped torpedoes were the way to go? That would have been really challenging in the fjords of Norway. Just getting the aircraft into a suitable position to drop the weapon would be challenging...and expose the aircraft and crew to all those better AAA guns you're advocating.
 
I am not discounting anything, I am pointing out the weak AA weapons used by the KM and the fact that they introduced better weapons when it was already too late, lacked the resources to field them effectively and had FAR more pressing issues to worry about.

I am not suggesting anything about the wing, that is all you.
 
I'm simply asking you to justify your original statement. Rockets used were typically AP not HE and better AAA impacts dive bombers as much as it does rocket-firers or torpedo droppers. So, again, what's the source of your statement that rocket-firing aircraft would be "toast"? I'm not trying to be a pain in the proverbial but you're not answering that simple question.
 
LOL!!!!

Even WORSE!

What the hell is going an AP rocket do to a ship besides a clean hole somewhere? And that is those that hit, rockets are VERY inaccurate, if you want hits you need to launch CLOSER than a dive bomber, which makes the launcher EVEN MORE VULNERABLE to flak!

Let me put it his way, how do you think those attacks would have fared against USN flak? Apparently you dont think better flak may have made a difference, try that against the USN then...
 
They'd have fared probably about as well as the IJN did with every attack method they tried. A few successes but mostly failures. But that has nothing to do with the delivery system. Dive bombers against the USN would be just as vulnerable.

And as to the AP, the switch was made from HE to AP because it was demonstrated on operations that it had a better effect than HE. You can laugh all you like but, at the end of the day, it worked where and when it was needed.
 
So, by your own admission, better flak like the one used by the USN would have been an effective defense against a rocket attack so, why wouldnt a similar improvement in KM flak have the same result?

Because that is the point, KM flak was weak due to outdated equipment and even then did the job until late war, when it no longer could deal with the number of attackers thrown against them, but by then the introduction of new equipment was made moot by lack of resources and personnel, added to the urgent needs of more relevant fronts.

Rocket-armed planes need to get CLOSER to deliver a WEAKER weapon, if you lose 6 out of 12 aircraft in a strike, you would be happy if you got a few rocket hits or a single 250Kg bomb that would obliterate a small ship? Moreover, that dive bomber could use heavier ordnance lethally against a larger ship, rockets?

Better flak would have a field day with any twin-engined aircraft trying to deliver rockets... that only works against weak opposition overwhelmed by numbers.
 
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. This is going nowhere. "Weak" is relative...and if you get enough weak single ships together, the whole can become pretty strong. That's precisely why the ships were in the fjords in the first place. The terrain made them harder to attack, and they could mutually support each other, plus have the benefit of any shore-based weapons.

Of course you're not going to attack larger ships with rockets. That's called "weapon to target matching". No point firing a peashooter at a battleship. However, this whole thread has been about the accuracy of dive bombing. Despite their weak defences, how many dive bombers would it take to attack and destroy all the ships shown in the video? Both delivery mechanisms had their time and their place but flak was the enemy of both. Better flak means both delivery platforms are more vulnerable. Indeed, it could be argued that a twin-engine aircraft is more survivable than a single-engine dive bomber.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Of course, now is "weak is relative"...

A 37mm HE shell doesnt care if the aircraft is single or a twin, its going down, the larger and less maneuverable twin simply makes an easier target...

A single dive bomber can destroy a small target with a single hit, your twins need several hits by several aircraft fo make an impression.
 
 
JAG88 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am afraid that I disagree. A number of the large modern German destroyers were seriously damaged and at least one was sunk using rockets. The German forces had formidable AA defences and they paid a heavy price against the Coastal Command attacks.
 
A mosquito squadron would be perfectly happy to leave destroyers afloat and sink all the boats and barges they were trying to protect.
 
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
994
GrauGeist
T
B24 use in ETO
Replies
3
Views
184
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
674
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register