Light Attack Bombers - Avenger, Fairey Battle, Stuka, Blenheim etc ~<2000hp

[taly01]

Light attack bombers aren't as flashy as fighters but were essential to win battles. By the end of WW2 the light tactical bomber had almost disappeared and were replaced by medium bombers or powerful multi-role fighter-bombers like the P-47 or Corsair, which "break" the 2000hp limit i made up.

The Stuka Ju87 certainly was the first great attack bomber but it had almost disappeared by 1943-4, the il2 Shturmovik had continuous development but was always quite vulnerable. The Japanese B5N and D3A carrier bombers had great success until USN AAA and radar improved greatly in late 1942. Then we have the light twin engine bombers like Blenheim (2x920hp) or Ki-48-I (2x980hp) that were found to be of limited use given the cost of making and crewing them.

The Yokosuka D4Y Suisei (comet) carrier dive bomber was the greatest potential attack bomber, was in service by June 1942 but only as a recon plane. Its speed ranged from 340-360mph but only entered bomber service in early 1944. It was also the smallest plane possible like the Dauntless. However it never had much success, only carrying a 250kg (551lb) bomb was a drawback.

I would say the Dauntless SBD was the greatest light bomber, until late 1943 it only had 1000hp but able to carry 1000lb(454kg), ironically as its opponent was Japan, its almost a Japanese style design with very small size and minor power. This plane "won" the carrier battles of 1942 and Guadalcanal that blunted the IJN striking power.

 

[pbehn]

2,000HP was a common yardstick in the lead up to WW2 and through it. In 1939 to have 2,0000HP in an airframe you needed 2 engines. By the end of the war 2,000+HP engines were commonplace. The Mosquito started as a two engine, 2,000HP light bomber design in 1939, by 1945 the similar twin engine Hornet had 2x 2,000+HP from essentially the same engine with lower frontal area.

 

[taly01]

2,000HP was a common yardstick in the lead up to WW2 and through it. In 1939 to have 2,0000HP in an airframe you needed 2 engines. By the end of the war 2,000+HP engines were commonplace.

Yes it seems the reason for twin engine light tactical bombers early in ww2 was to get decent speed and load capacity, planes like Martin Maryland and Kawasaki Ki-48 were 300mph planes but only carried 1500-2000lb. The early single engine light bombers with 800-1200hp engines were in the 220-250mph class and turned out to be very vulnerable, the Fairey Battle been earliest to suffer and its reputation was trashed, but it probably was not any worse than any light attack plane really.

 

[pbehn]

Yes it seems the reason for twin engine light tactical bombers early in ww2 was to get decent speed and load capacity, planes like Martin Maryland and Kawasaki Ki-48 were 300mph planes but only carried 1500-2000lb. The early single engine light bombers with 800-1200hp engines were in the 220-250mph class and turned out to be very vulnerable, the Fairey Battle been earliest to suffer and its reputation was trashed, but it probably was not any worse than any light attack plane really.

A Typhoon at the end of the war had the same bomb load as a Do17 at the start, but once the bomb was dropped it was also a heavily armed and competent fighter/ ground attack A/C. A Battle with a 3,000HP engine still wouldn't have been up to much, the concept was wrong.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Non-naval, single-engine, two-crew, specialized divebombers capable of vertical attacks seem to be a rare thing. Germany had the Stuka, but until the Vultee Vengeance the Allies made due with shallow diving Shturmovíks and fighter-bombers.

AIUI, the RAF thought highly of the Vengeance in India and Burma. When these were uncrated in India, with no history of dive bombing, how did the RAF pilots get trained?

After the Skua was retired in 1941 did any FAA pilots transfer to the RAF? It seems a waste to lose the skillset. Though are naval dive bombing skills transferable to army CAS?

 

[taly01]

Non-naval, single-engine, two-crew, specialized divebombers capable of vertical attacks seem to be a rare thing. Germany had the Stuka, but until the Vultee Vengeance the Allies made due with shallow diving Shturmovíks and fighter-bombers.

I guess its the land based use of light attack bombers that really interests me (The reason for single engine carrier attack planes is simply size restrictions to fit on carriers - I think the B-25's used on Dolittle Raid were carried on flight deck?).

The Fairey Battle was probably an pre-war idea proved wrong in service, a level bomber (poorer accuracy than dive-bombing) that carried a very light load, and too slow and weakly armed to avoid enemy fighters. The carrier attack planes of US and Japan were also very vulnerable when used during land campaigns.

AIUI, the RAF thought highly of the Vengeance in India and Burma. When these were uncrated in India, with no history of dive bombing, how did the RAF pilots get trained?

CBI was a low intensity theatre and by 1944 the Japanese aerial resistance was almost broken in Burma, so the Vultee's had little opposition. Japan had a range of early war single engine attack planes like Ki-30, Ki-32 and Ki-51. These were something inbetween a Liason plane and light bomber and they must have thought they were worthwhile during the China war as they continued to develop them up to the Ki-51. By 1943-44 Burma they were sparingly used as British and US fighter opposition had massively increased, and the Ki-43 began to be used as fighter-bomber in their place.

 

[Kevin J]

No mention yet of the Swordfish, Albacore and Barracuda nor Avenger, Buccaneer and Helldiver. Aren't these all light attack bombers?

 

[Shortround6]

I think we are confusing several somewhat different classes of aircraft although the lines between attack bomber and light bomber tend to blur with time and actual usage. Mixing in torpedo bombers may not help.
The Fairey Battle, for instance, gets a bum rap because it was a light bomber forced into the attack bomber role due to circumstances. Although I am not sure what it's reputation would be if the British squadrons had to daylight bomb the Ruhr with it .

Most 1000hp attack aircraft had no reason for a 1000 mile range. The Ki-30 and Ki-32 fall in here as does the later Ki-48 and the older Blenheim. Light bomb loads, crap guns for strafing, long range.
There were two schools of thought on attack planes (or army attack planes) in the 1930s.
One was the dive bomber school and the other was the low level bomb and strafe school. This school believed in large numbers of small bombs, often around 30lbs to 110lbs, and multiple machine guns. Again often twice to four times as many forward firing guns as the light and medium bombers carried. This in the 30s before anybody had much experience in actual war conditions, the Spanish civil war giving both some good experience and some rather bad conclusions.

Low powered torpedo bombers had some problems of their own.

And the opposition plays a large part. Avengers did a lot of ground attack/support bombing in the Pacific. Does anybody fancy their chances against the German ground troops and their 20mm and 37mm AA guns?

 

[Ascent]

Non-naval, single-engine, two-crew, specialized divebombers capable of vertical attacks seem to be a rare thing. Germany had the Stuka, but until the Vultee Vengeance the Allies made due with shallow diving Shturmovíks and fighter-bombers.

AIUI, the RAF thought highly of the Vengeance in India and Burma. When these were uncrated in India, with no history of dive bombing, how did the RAF pilots get trained?

View attachment 565624

After the Skua was retired in 1941 did any FAA pilots transfer to the RAF? It seems a waste to lose the skillset. Though are naval dive bombing skills transferable to army CAS?

View attachment 565626

For more information about flying and operating the Vengeance here's a thread from a couple of years ago.

Flying the Vultee Vengance

 

[Admiral Beez]

No mention yet of the Swordfish, Albacore and Barracuda nor Avenger, Buccaneer and Helldiver. Aren't these all light attack bombers?

I don't understand. Are you asking the OP for a comprehensive list?

 

[Kevin J]

I don't understand. Are you asking the OP for a comprehensive list?

Of course. Lets face it, in RN service, neither the Barracuda nor Avenger ever dropped a torpedo in anger, and AFAIK, whilst the Albacore did, they missed. The Bermuda was never designed for them and although the Swordfish did successfully drop torpedoes, its main success was in ASW. The Helldiver, AFAIK was mainly used for strike, the Avenger as a light bomber and ASW.

 

[cherry blossom]

The Albacore certainly hit the Vittorio Veneto and the Pola

 

[Kevin J]

The Albacore certainly hit the Vittorio Veneto and the Pola

But missed the Tirpitz. I always thought it was more famous for night cross channel raids in 1940 and Operation Torch.

 

[taly01]

Of course. Lets face it, in RN service, neither the Barracuda nor Avenger ever dropped a torpedo in anger, and AFAIK, whilst the Albacore did, they missed.

The RN carrier bombers are ugly and slow but very interesting! The harsh North Atlantic conditions may be a reason they were so conservative in design, they did change to USN planes as soon as the had the chance.

The Fairey Barracuda must be a contender for the ugliest plane of the war, but was their only WW2 carrier bomber that got anywhere near world standards. How the heck was the main wing attached! Also no proper rear gunner station.

The Avenger is one of my favorite planes and was a great design for carrier light bomber, torpedo and long range recon. But infamously in their first fight at Midway 5/6 got shot down and the 6th was a right-off. Maybe the armour was not as heavy on the TBF-1 as TBM-3, but Japanese fighters guns had improved by 1945 also.

P.S. the lead plane is an Australian made Harvard/Texan trainer but with ~600hp engine and 2x0.3 cowl guns, famous as army front line observation/light bomber/supply drop plane in New Guinea campaign.

 

[Shortround6]

Though are naval dive bombing skills transferable to army CAS

Hmm, bombing a ship (rather larger target?) in the water with not much else around it (or not within a few hundred feet) and bombing bunker/fortification/gun emplacement (rather small target) in the forest/woods/jungle (can you even see it from 10,000ft?)

Yes in both cases you dive from a certain altitude at a certain (or close to it) angle to a certain release point and pull out a reasonable close high G maneuver.
Land targets are rarely moving, ships are often moving.

The basic technique is the same, the actual practice is often different. Many times in Burma/CBI theater they were bombing smoke markers because the dive bombers could not see the actual target/s.

AS for dive bombing tanks? that is like trying to hit a particular boat on the deck of a moving ship.

 

[Greyman]

The Fairey Barracuda must be a contender for the ugliest plane of the war, but was their only WW2 carrier bomber that got anywhere near world standards. How the heck was the main wing attached! Also no proper rear gunner station.

What would be classified as a proper rear gunner station?

 

[RCAFson]

Of course. Lets face it, in RN service, neither the Barracuda nor Avenger ever dropped a torpedo in anger, and AFAIK, whilst the Albacore did, they missed. The Bermuda was never designed for them and although the Swordfish did successfully drop torpedoes, its main success was in ASW. The Helldiver, AFAIK was mainly used for strike, the Avenger as a light bomber and ASW.

The Barracuda was used as a torpedo bomber off Norway, on at least one occasion. The Albacore was a highly successful torpedo bomber at Matapan and operating from Malta it sank many thousands of tons of Axis shipping. It also flew hundreds of dive bomber strike sorties operating from carriers and from desert bases, in support of the 8th Army.

 

[Shortround6]

What would be classified as a proper rear gunner station?

not this


I have no idea how many ships the Avenger sank with torpedoes but it did contribute to the Yamato and Musashi sinkings and one carrier. Number of small ships around Japan in the closing months of the war?

One reason the Vengeance may have had a good reputation in the CBI theater was they got 589 of the A-35B version lendlease and it had four/six .50 cal guns in the wings for strafing.

 

[wuzak]

But missed the Tirpitz. I always thought it was more famous for night cross channel raids in 1940 and Operation Torch.

I guess the anti-torpedo nets worked!

 

[wuzak]

But infamously in their first fight at Midway 5/6 got shot down and the 6th was a right-off.

That would be write-off.