Dive bomber for 1940: how would you do it (1 Viewer)

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

It's my understanding the Me-410A dive bomber was supposed to replace both the Ju-87 and Ju-88 in that role.

At least that was the theory until immediate wartime requirements forced the Me-410 into killing day bombers and the Ju-88 into killing night bombers. Hence the inexpensive Ju-87D had to soldier on into 1944 and there was no replacement for the Ju-88A heavy dive bomber.
 
While I do agree that twin-engined (dive) bomber would've been better choice:
Mix and match, only single-engined types qualify.

Bummer. You're right (how else, it's your thread ;) ). Must have overlooked

As a Dutch, you don't need to go abroad - Fokker G.I fits the bill. It incorporated dive brakes historically, and was sturdy enough to perform dive bombing (or so I've read).

It would have been a viable option although a 400 kg bombload doesn't seem much. I don't think that divebombing was in fashion with de Luchtvaartafdeling and I don't know if Fokker performed any divebombingtests.



Henley was indeed a choice many times mentioned in this forum :)

The Henly is one of the betterknown what if's ;)
 
The dive bomber was on the way out of inventory considerations by the airforces of the world after the dismal showing against shipping in the English Channel against people who shot back and knew how. The dive bomber was pulled from air attack planning against Great Britian on account of the fiasco. I'm ok with the statement regarding Pohlmann's Ju-87 as state of the art for 1940, with consideration of the American Helldiver.

Armor protection
 
??
More dive bomber types were introduced to the air forces after BoB, than before.
Dive bombers were produced in many thousands after 1940.
For those dive bombers allegedly pulled from invasion battle planes: did they also discarded Ju-88, one of best dive-bombers of war, and definitively THE best dive bomber of 1940?
Were US, Japanese, UK, German and other forces cleaning their guns while bombed by Vals, Dauntleses, Ju-88s, Pe-2s?
Did the firing back of AAA fighter crews managed to cancel production of dive bombers?

Sorry to be harsh on a new guy.
 
I think that it is safe to say that the BOB showed the limitations of the divebomber. To put it bluntely: you shouldn't use them without escort fighters. But I guess that goes for any bomber. I also think that after the BOB the blitzkrieg concept was never quite the same and the ju87 was in some way the embodiment of the blitzkrieg.
 
BoB reinforced the issue of bombers flying in an airspace featuring enemy fighters. Any bomber formation would've suffered heavy losses - RAF become aware of the already in 1939 when their bombers (far better armed than German ones) were decimated by Luftwaffe. Ditto for most of Allied bombers prior 1942, Russians being a glaring example.

Blitzkrieg concept almost threw Soviets into Siberia by 1942, with Ju-87s playing the role in that.
 
Hi Tomo, I can't say I totally disagree with what you are stating but the BK concept had its flaws (logistics!!) of which German High Command was very well aware before the beginning of Barbarossa. No disrepect to France, but the distances in the Sovjet Union are something else and the Preussian generals knew of the mistakes Napoleon had made and weren't planning on making the same.
I understand they were more than supprised that everything went better than planned. In this they seemed to let go of all reservations. When the advance finally halted, (way before Siberia or even the Ural ;) ) there was no going back.
 
Logistics is the killer indeed, as experienced in WW2 pretty often, by all combatants. Case in favor of BK can be made that Germans were expecting Soviets would've turned vs. Stalin Communist party, so the war would've ended within 2-3 months. The Soviets needed plenty of LL stuff to make their version of BK viable*.
Compared with France, road network was also less dense of lower quality, and when we add horse-drawn transports, wrecked railroad infrastructure, emergence of partisan forces (augmented by soldiers bypassed by Germans)... Not god for the invader.

*With gen. Tuchachevsky as the main proponent of BK, or 'deep-ranging battle'/'battle in depth' concept, Russians have had the workable strategy as early as mid-30s. But Comrade Koba was not to be fooled, so he executed the General (Marshall?), along with thousands other :(
 
The German high command realised too late that the average Russian would object more to any alien invader that to the 'home' suppressor. They did not manage to learn much. If they had started the invasion as liberators they might have stood a fair chance that the whole system would collaps. Don't forget that Stalin had done his utmost to weaken the defense structure prior to 1941. Thank god for german mistakes or else we might have been having this discussion in German.
 
Last edited:
Ive always thought the vultee Vengeance was one of the most underrated Divebombers ever produced.

But in 1940, I would think a fighter, stressed for a proper divebombing capability would be the best way to go. imagine something like the CR42 able to fly like a fighter and stressed to be able to bomb vertically. CR 42s did act as FBs quite successfully so why not go that bit further and make them capable of true D/B role. One was fitted experiemetally with a DB601 engine, giving it a top speed of 323 mph from memory, this could mean they could be armoured and fitted with radios. Even with all that extra power, they could stll manouvre superbly.

Worth considering.......?????
 
Vengeance seems like fine plane. Too bad it was not adapted for carrier use, 'stead of SB2C? Or built 'stead of A-36s, so we can have more P-51As at beginning of 1943? The P-40 and/or P-47 with dive brakes seem like worthwhile effort for 1943-44.

I'm away from our 1940, though :)
 
Last edited:
If I could pick n' mix tech of the time
Dive brakes, butterfly flaps, semi-armoured; cowling, critical pit, fuel, plumbing panels and radiators/coolers, possible gull-cranked low mounted wing, 1-way tailhook (emmergency/naval usage), podded retractable undercart (partial or fully) and minimum of 2x fixed 15mm Machine Cannon a defencive duel 7-8mm MG or 12-13mm MG/MC.
 
Last edited:
Gentlemen (and ladies), what kind of a dive bomber would be the best, made from best parts available, to have in force for usage early in war. Say, 500 copies in service prior May 1940? Any engine, combined with suitable airframe gun armament, available in quantity. Mix and match, only single-engined types qualify. Carrier capability adds no points, sorry :)

I would take a Fairey Fulmar and equip it with centreline and wing hard points, delete 4 or 6 MGs. The result would be a high speed DB with 2 x 250lb, 1 x 500lb or potentially 2 x 500lb and centreline DT. The Fulmar was tested successfully in DB configuration in June 1942, with centreline 500lb bomb, however I suspect that this capability was there all along, but unused because patrol/fighter/recon duties had higher priority.
 
...

But in 1940, I would think a fighter, stressed for a proper divebombing capability would be the best way to go. imagine something like the CR42 able to fly like a fighter and stressed to be able to bomb vertically. CR 42s did act as FBs quite successfully so why not go that bit further and make them capable of true D/B role. One was fitted experiemetally with a DB601 engine, giving it a top speed of 323 mph from memory, this could mean they could be armoured and fitted with radios. Even with all that extra power, they could stll manouvre superbly.

Worth considering.......?????

Something like Hs-123/Curtis SBC (on steroids, if DB-601 is on board) :)
 
Last edited:
Kind of. SR is right, the limitation is engine power. That and the fact that the ability to truly divebomb appears to generate a conflict with other aerodynamic qualities....speed climb and manouverability. still thats enough HP, IMO. Sturmovik only had 1200hp but was heavily armoured.

I am proposing a bit of an allrounder...some armour, some speed, some manouverabilitym restricted bombload, single seat, forward firing armament, controllable dive characteristics coupled with better general flight characteristics. is that possible...not sure
 
A 109 can't actually dive bomb. Not in sense of a 60 degree (about?) or better dive.

True dive bombers actually had a rather low dive speed, controlled by dive brakes or other drag (biplane with struts/wires ;) )

This gave them more time to aim and adjust the dive and it gave them a lower release point for the bomb before starting the pull out for the same "G" loading. This was important to the higher accuracy of the dive bombing technique.

Dive bombers were also built to take that 4-6 "G" pullout on every mission. While fighters were built to take "G"s they might not pull that G loading in each and every mission. You don't want the wings falling off on mission # 62 :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back