Napalm delivery

[davebender]

18 July 1944.
British and American level bombers drop 7,700 tons of ordnance at the beginning of Operation Goodwood. The bombing is largely ineffective and Britain's largest armored attack of WWII is defeated with heavy losses.


If Britain and USA had Ju-87D dive bombers the above mission would have been less expensive and a lot more effective. Operation Goodwood isn't an isolated incident. There are probably more then 100,000 Allied level bomber sorties that would have been more effective and less expensive if delivered by purpose built dive bombers.

 

[Shortround6]

AH, no. You keep focusing on a single mission or two. Two or three days before Goodwood, what were the bombers doing? and two or three days after? Those bombers cost very little since they already existed and continued to exist for other missions.

Even 1/10 the tonnage of bombs delivered by dive bombers would have required hundreds of new planes and thousands of ground support personnel, hardly cheaper.

Hundreds of dive bombers diving into the muzzles of hundreds of German 20mm and 37mm guns would have accomplish what? and at what cost?

 

[swampyankee]

A major problem was that both the RAF and USAAF had basic philosophies that tended to deprecate tactical bombing in favor of strategic bombardment. Certainly, the latter contributed to the defeat of Germany, although it may have been less than the most cost-effective way of doing so, and its most important contribution to the Allied victory may have been pulling Luftwaffe resources away from the Eastern front, which ultimately cost Germany air superiority on that front.

And, Dave, neither the RAF nor the USAAF needed to use Ju-87s. The SBD could manage about 240 mph with either a 1,000 lb or 1,600 lb bomb, and demonstrated sufficient accuracy; the SB2C was, in most ways except flying qualities, better. The Skua was definitely inferior to either: slower, and with a smaller warload, but it did suffice to sink some ship or another.

Whether divebombers would have been, overall, better than what was actually used is a second question.

 

[stona]

A major problem was that both the RAF and USAAF had basic philosophies that tended to deprecate tactical bombing in favor of strategic bombardment.

Yes. More a culture than a philosophy. It's been discussed elsewhere here.
Napalm was really a weapon, as it existed in 1940s form, which had to be dropped from low level. The British seem to have experimented dropping it from level flight. The Americans used it much more, particularly the 9th AF as far as NW Europe goes, but I'm not sure of their tactics. P-47s certainly dive bombed with high explosive bombs.
Cheers
Steve

 

[davebender]

SBD could manage about 240 mph with either a 1,000 lb or 1,600 lb bomb, and demonstrated sufficient accuracy

SBD accuracy was good.
SBD speed was similar to Ju-87D. Which is fine for a light dive bomber.
SBD payload was a bit light (Ju-87D routinely carried 1,000kg bomb) but you can do a lot with 1,000 lbs.

Was SBD protected against ground fire as Ju-87D, IL2 etc. were? Otherwise you will lose a lot of dive bombers to ground fire. Might need to add an armor kit as Germany did when Ju-87B was upgraded to Ju-87D.
.....Of course this is all a moot point. U.S. Army Air Corps acquired a few A-24s (i.e. SBD) during 1941. For all practical purposes that was the end of U.S. Army dive bomber program. 1942 A-36 was a thinly disguised low level fighter aircraft rather then the dive bomber it was pretending to be to acquire funding approval.

Flying qualities are everything for accurate delivery of CAS ordnance. Give SB2Cs to USN or someone else foolish enough to accept them. Lend Lease to Soviet Union might be a good idea too.

 

[tomo pauk]

More vulnerable then a level bomber flying @ 100 meters? I have my doubts.

Where's that Croatian light AA gunner when we need an expert opinion?

For 20mm, anything flying between 50 and 1000 m of altitude is well within the scope, especially if the plane is between 100 and 500 m. For 37mm, it was up to 3000 m, depending on how good the crew was and whether the plane was flying straight and level.
If the plane is flying really fast and low, it will obviously represent a more demanding target. It's chances to really hit something were also lower, though. The dive bomber should require less sorties to achieve a kill?

 

[Shortround6]

The dive bomber should require less sorties to achieve a kill?

Is that less sorties to achieve a kill for the dive bomber against the ground target?

OR less sorties for the AA to achieve a kill against the divebomber? which while not flying level is certainly flying straight and within view/range of the guns from 3000 meters down the below the release point and the pull out is pretty much in a straight line from the dive. A pretty predictable flight path and with dive brakes out a somewhat limited top speed?

A dive bomber doing 400mph in it's dive and doing a 90 degree dive (best case) takes about 11 seconds to go from 3000 meters to 1000meters. A lower release adds time and the pull out adds time exposed to gun fire.

 

[davebender]

How long does a crack AA gunner such as tomo require to get on target using optical sights?

 

[Shortround6]

Considering that the gunners may have been tracking the approach of the dive bombers for a number of seconds before they are within the 3000 meter range how long do you think?