Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
However I find it interesting that speed, weapons load, bombing accuracy and range are similiar for these dive bombers. Perhaps Germany would have considered replacing the Ju-88A dive bomber with something similiar to the AD-1 if the 2,500 hp Jumo222 engine had entered mass production.
I agree. That was the historical plan.In a role of dive bomber Ju-88 (as Ju-87 too) was to be substituted by Me-210.
I agree. That was the historical plan.
However having a 2,500 hp engine gives you another option. You can achieve similiar combat performance using a single engine aircraft. Less expensive to produce and a smaller target for enemy ground fire.
I agree. That was the historical plan.
Yes of course, having some..., my auntie would be my uncle.However having a 2,500 hp engine gives you another option.
At night, in stormy weather, over London ? With what navigation features to reach such a target?You can achieve similiar combat performance using a single engine aircraft.
I don't think Udet's hobby had anything to do with the German decision to emphasize dive bombing.If you consider the historical plan, in 1935 it was never concieved from the mainstream as a diver but as a schnellbomber, later modified by Udet cause to is own hobby for dive bombers.
Unlike the USA and Britain, the Luftwaffe conducted serious testing during the 1930s to determine bomber accuracy. Dive bombers were over 10 times as accurate as level bombers. That's why the Ju-88 was developed into a dive bomber and why RLM initially wanted the larger Do-217 and He-177 to dive bomb also. This was cutting edge technology during the 1930s. Nobody knew what the maximum size was for a dive bomber so they had to experiment. Dive bomber requirements for the Do-217 and He-177 were dropped after engineers determined it could not be made to work.Bombing Accuracy. Dive-bombing offered several advantages over level bombing. The limited bomb loads and the relative inaccuracy of the level bombers currently available required large numbers of aircraft to achieve the same level of results as dive-bombing could provide. As an example, the Ju87B-1 (the model in service in 1939-1940), "was to prove effective in the hands of expert pilots, who, in dives of eighty degrees to within 2,300 feet from the ground, could deliver a bomb with an accuracy of less than thirty yards. Even average pilots could achieve a twenty-five percent success rate in hitting their targets, a far higher proportion than that attained in conventional, horizontal attack bombers."26 By comparison, US Army air forces typically designated a radius of 1,000 feet as the "target area" aim point for the "pickle-barrel" bombing conducted in Europe. "While accuracy improved during the war, [US Strategic Bombing] Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area."27
Generaloberst Hans Jeschonnek, chief of the General Staff of the Air Force from 1939-1943, and at the time head of the operations staff of the General Staff, saw dive-bombing as "the ideal solution to the bomber problem of 1937." That bomber problem was primarily the lack of an effective bomb sight for use with the level bombers. The standard sight was inaccurate and would require considerable practice to achieve acceptable results even for area bombardment. In 1938, "even well-qualified bomber crews could achieve only a two percent bombing accuracy in high-level, horizontal attacks (up to 13,500 feet), and twelve to twenty-five percent accuracy in low level attacks against targets of between 165 to 330 feet in radius, and to make matters worse, the bomb load of the German bombers was very low; only four 550 lb. bombs were carried by the Do17 and six by the He111. Thus, if the target were to be completely destroyed, the only way to compensate for inaccuracy would be to employ large numbers of aircraft."28 The Luftwaffe General Staff announced that, "the emphasis in offensive bombardment has
--5--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
clearly shifted from area to pin-point bombardment."29 The best solution to inaccurate bomb sights, limited bomber payload, and economics was to adopt a dive-bomber doctrine.
Eventually the twin-engine Ju88 "wonder bomber" (as the propaganda of the day called it), and even the He177 "heavy bomber" were to fall victim to the momentum of the dive-bomber craze. The original specifications and indeed the early prototypes of the Ju88 were quite good when compared to the fighters actually available during the Battle of Britain. "In March 1939, one of the first prototypes established a new 621 miles closed-circuit record by carrying a 4,409 lb. payload at an average speed of 321.25 m.p.h.."30 (The maximum speed for the Spitfire Mk 1: 355 mph, and that of the Hurricane Mk 1: 328 mph.) But, following extensive (about 25,000) modifications to meet the "dive-bomber" specifications and to provide for additional armament as well as a fourth crew member, the performance of the final production models of the Ju88 were disappointing. As an example, when the production version, Ju88A-1, arrived in September 1939 it had a maximum speed of only 258 mph, and a range of 550 miles with a 2,000-pound bomb load. With a maximum bomb load of 3,800 pounds performance was further reduced to 190 mph with a radius of just 250 miles! However, and this is significant in light of the reasons for the modifications to the original design: a production model, when properly flown under test conditions, could deliver 50 percent of its bomb load within a 50-meter circle.31
The German Air Staff would remain divided on the subject of dive-bombing and the concepts for employing the Ju87. The general consensus was that the Ju87 could be used both for strategic operations and for support operations with the Army. From a functional standpoint the Luftwaffe leadership believed, "the employment of the dive bomber was in German Air Staff opinion not to be very different from that of the long-range bomber."32
My interpretation is that USSBS gave actual results and the German result is a test result, and if so you really cannot compare the two results, you need test results from both types of bombing or and this is very much better option, the actual wartime results for both. And one must remember that around mid-war Germans stopped to use Ju 88s as dive bombers, removed the dive-brakes and used it as glide- or level-bomber only.
Juha
Unlike the USA and Britain, the Luftwaffe conducted serious testing during the 1930s to determine bomber accuracy. Dive bombers were over 10 times as accurate as level bombers. That's why the Ju-88 was developed into a dive bomber and why RLM initially wanted the larger Do-217 and He-177 to dive bomb also. This was cutting edge technology during the 1930s. Nobody knew what the maximum size was for a dive bomber so they had to experiment. Dive bomber requirements for the Do-217 and He-177 were dropped after engineers determined it could not be made to work.
Hello Gorizont
and IIRC Lofte 7 and US Norden sight were about equally accurate, IIRC in fact Lofte 7 was much based on Norden, Germans got Norden secrets by one agent. And yes, Stuvi 5 was an excellent sight, Finns also used Ju 88A-4s during the war.
Juha
Hello Gorizont
yes, Stuvi was a dive-bombing sight, even its designation gives that away.
BTW, what was the normal dive angle of Skyraider during dive-bombing attack during the Korean War?
Juha
??Not planes that could be used as dive bombers ala Ju-88, or were converted, but true blue dive bombers.
The crux of dive-bombing is having highly skilled crews - both the Stuka and Val became less effective as crews became less skilled.
On the other hand, a formation of B-17s needs one guy who can use a Norden sight, and a large group of guys who can pull a toggle... It's cheaper, if less accurate.
But unless you're going after ships or bridges, accuracy is less vital than the ability to put a lot of bombs into a relatively small area.
The more complicated the device, the harder it is to teach someone to use it. The other way is, as I have said, to replace dive-bombers with with ground-attack aircraft using rockets, and medium bombers operating at very low level. There simply wasn't a need for dive-bombers (except on carriers) after 1943-42. That's why no more entered service...