- Thread starter
- #21
Most accurate divebomber
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Maybe not. I don't really know enough about the ther two to make a properly informed assessment. I agree that it isn't really a matter of one aircraft being intrinsically more accurate than another,but you have to look at the whole package,including the crew.
The point I'm trying to make is that a better designed dive bomber will perform better in the hurly burly of service life. A good design must make it easier and more sympathetic to fly and that must have an effect on average accuracy. There is no doubt that a highly skilled pilot will achieve good results in any of the types mentioned,I certainly don't disagree with that contention,but not all pilots are equal. The easier the aircraft is to fly in its intended role the better results your units will achieve.
Cheers
Steve
Never knew about that floor window, but what a nice adaptation. But, yeah, I'll go there, the Stuka was somewhat unique. Just from the film I've seen, those were coming in like Kamikazes. They were very good at what they were designed for, there's no question about it.
On the question of why the 90s, in one word, "Blitzkrieg." These Stukas just pounced on their targets. In a 60, you can see the aircraft coming. In a 90, it's literally like they just drop right out of the sky. But Steve can tell you a lot more about that than I can, I'm sure. I just know what I know from the film I've seen.
On the question of why the 90s, in one word, "Blitzkrieg." These Stukas just pounced on their targets. In a 60, you can see the aircraft coming. In a 90, it's literally like they just drop right out of the sky. But Steve can tell you a lot more about that than I can, I'm sure. I just know what I know from the film I've seen.
What was keeping the SBD from doing a vertical drop?
Shortround6
Major General
It might be news to some SBD pilots that they couldn't do a vertical dive (or close to it).
Some (all?) SBDs had window in the cockpit floor, usually covered with oil.
Some (all?) SBDs had window in the cockpit floor, usually covered with oil.
I don't know that they could come out of one going in that "hot." I know the Navy had a means of monitoring their angles in their training. I know it went into their scores and that when they came in too steep they aborted and didn't drop. I just always assumed there was a structural reason for that (i.e., the aircraft couldn't recover well enough?), but that might not be the case, it might just be due to the stresses on the pilot, as that's a much more demanding dive to make and pull out of (think of glide-bombing, which is understandably the easiest). That's just guessing, though, based on assumptions I've formed, and I really don't "know." If I had to bet, an SBD couldn't come out of a vertical dive-bombing pass, there is a structural reason for it, otherwise they'd have practiced it. Think of dive-bombing, now, which is a rather abrupt swing-out, as opposed to a gradual, once that altimeter says they're at that moment of truth. They didn't practice it, because the aircraft wasn't built for it, that's what I think. But, again, I don't "know."
I can't see speed making a difference. Speed was limited by dive flaps.
The Ju 87 has a bomb cradle that flips down so that the bomb is released below the propeller arc. So, did the SBD have any mechanism for keeping the bomb out of the prop? If no, then that wouldn't keep a SBD from diving vertically so long as it wasn't vertical when the bomb was released.
I remember that the Mustang handbook includes a warning about bombing vertically due to a chance of hitting the prop.
The Ju 87 has a bomb cradle that flips down so that the bomb is released below the propeller arc. So, did the SBD have any mechanism for keeping the bomb out of the prop? If no, then that wouldn't keep a SBD from diving vertically so long as it wasn't vertical when the bomb was released.
I remember that the Mustang handbook includes a warning about bombing vertically due to a chance of hitting the prop.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
The SBD has enormous dive brakes and absolutely CAN dive vertically. A 90° diving attack is no more accurate than a 60° diving attack.
Once you get the aiming device set correctly, the CEP is the same. Ask the guys who used to fly them in wartime. They know. It's a matter of correct procedure.
Once you get the aiming device set correctly, the CEP is the same. Ask the guys who used to fly them in wartime. They know. It's a matter of correct procedure.
If that's true, then a 60 deg diving attack is no more accurate than a 30 deg diving attack, and a 30 deg diving attack is no more accurate than a level bomb drop.
And we all know how accurate level bombing is, all they have to do is set the bombsight right.
GregP
Major
Sounds like you have it all figured with inductive reasoning. Please continue.
Barney, they could dive vertically, they just never dropped like that. Maybe you have one of the reasons, right there. Again, I know they never trained in vertical drops.
The bombs are dropped at different heights, Tom, that's all. They hit what they're aiming at.
Take a look at the U.S training film which explains the principles: guaranteed the Ju-87 did not normally dive at 90 deg, although it might have done so in propaganda films, because it wasn't necessary to dive 90 deg to achieve good accuracy, and it was far too stressful for the aircrew and airframe. If anything trying to dive at 90 deg is counter-productive because it allows absolutely no scope for corrections. BTW the Ju 87 was not unique in having sighting windows, bomb cradle and pull out equipment.
Interesting, please tell more. Would like to know what models.
cimmex
Forgot auto pilot on American aircraft did not incorporate auto pull out, otherwise SBD Dauntless, all models - bomb cradles, sighting windows. SB2C Helldiver all models - closed bomb bay, bomb cradles, sighting windows. TBF/TBM etc etc...
Shortround6
Major General
The Ju 87 had an automated pull out device, that was about it for differences.
as for the bomb cradle;
Dauntless bombed at 70-80 degrees in the early part of the war. One pilot describes that as the angle of the flight path.
By 1940 the Americans had been dive bombing for over 20 years, first purpose built American dive bomber was a Curtiss delievered in 1929.
The idea that 10 years later the US would make a dive bomber that couldn't do a vertical dive with coming apart is ludicrous.
as for the bomb cradle;
Dauntless bombed at 70-80 degrees in the early part of the war. One pilot describes that as the angle of the flight path.
By 1940 the Americans had been dive bombing for over 20 years, first purpose built American dive bomber was a Curtiss delievered in 1929.
The idea that 10 years later the US would make a dive bomber that couldn't do a vertical dive with coming apart is ludicrous.
I did look at the training film, and saw the importance of keeping a exact dive angle of 60 deg., because that's what what they trained with and the sights were set up for.
Every correction for wind drift and target movement wouldn't be the same at different angles, and there's a difficulty in attaining that right 60 deg angle if you start out from a different angle.
When you drop anything from anything less than vertical you're tossing it, like the difference in trying to get something in a trash can. Drop it from straight above, not too hard, now get off to the side, it gets more difficult. Now add that you're moving toward the trash can, and there's a wind, and maybe the trash can is moving too. And add someone at the trash can shooting at you.
The further away you get from that straight drop from staight above the more difficult it becomes.
Every correction for wind drift and target movement wouldn't be the same at different angles, and there's a difficulty in attaining that right 60 deg angle if you start out from a different angle.
When you drop anything from anything less than vertical you're tossing it, like the difference in trying to get something in a trash can. Drop it from straight above, not too hard, now get off to the side, it gets more difficult. Now add that you're moving toward the trash can, and there's a wind, and maybe the trash can is moving too. And add someone at the trash can shooting at you.
The further away you get from that straight drop from staight above the more difficult it becomes.
Last edited:
That's all right. Credit me as being one of those suckered-in by the propaganda films, principally the familiar ones over Poland showing the Stukas peeling off nose-down. My Dad qualified on a Speedy-D and I'm embarrassed to say I never knew it had one of those sighting-windows in the floor. I did know about everything else, though, so at least that's something, lol.
Back to the vertical dives, yeah, there's probably a reason the Navy never trained on those. There's somewhat more of an element of surprise, as it's just a lightning-quick drop out of the sky, and they're probably harder to pick-off, too, coming in like that, but the countervailing factors being the stresses to the craft and crew and the fact they're gaining nothing in terms of accuracy probably dictated why those nose-dives were never bothered to be trained on. As I see it, now, anyway.
Last edited:
According to several websites on Stukas, they were taught the ideal dive angle was 85 deg, and to not exceed that. It would be hard to tell the difference in a film between 90-85-80 degrees. But the Stuka, and probably other dive bombers too, had slant marks on the sidewindow to judge you dive angle from, they went to 90 degrees.
And I fail to understand why anyone would think that in a vertical dive,or near vertical dive, a aircraft would have no ability to correct it's aiming point.
And I fail to understand why anyone would think that in a vertical dive,or near vertical dive, a aircraft would have no ability to correct it's aiming point.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
