To settle it once and for all, I am going to call the A-36...drum roll please...Jonathan
Other air forces/services go with the equivalent of A-36 Apache?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
Italians classified it as an 'assalto' - assault aircraft. Eg. they classified the Ju 87B in their service as 'bombardamento a tuffo' - dive bomber.
Once wonders whether the extending of U/C to act as a dive brake was a possibility for the Reggiane 2000/1/2?
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,344
- Jan 31, 2021
Just don't call it Shirley.
Admiral Beez
Major
For naval attack, yes, since the accuracy is optimized. For ground attack, I'd rather have a fighter like a Typhoon than a Stuka.
Shortround6
Major General
As above.
when dealing with naval dive bombing you are dealing with high value targets. Even a 500 ton Freighter is an expensive (and large) target compared to one or more trucks.
AA fire increased considerably during WW II, both naval and land based.
The dive bombers started out using an area of the sky that was at the lower end of the 3in/75mm gun range and above 6.5-8mm Machinegun fire (except on the very low end of the pull out) and 20-40mm guns were not at all common. As 20-40mm guns got a lot more common, both naval and land, dive bombing became a lot less attractive.
Please note even in the 1930s naval air tactics called for some of the fighters to be used as "strafing" planes to try to suppress the AA guns for both dive bomber and torpedo bombers.
The practically of those tactics is subject to question (ability to actually coordinate the attacks with limited numbers of aircraft).
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
American dive bombers were effective in the Pacific late in the war after the Americans killed off the experienced Japanese fighter pilots. The Japanese failure to develop a 2000HP Zero did not help them.
The ETO was where the most advanced aircraft operated. There were no specialised light bombers. Light bombing was done by fighter aircraft. The fighters were Typhoons and P-47Ds which were no longer up to date in terms of performance. The P-47Ds were not flying fighter bomber missions at their best combat altitudes. Both were still fast and dangerous if confronted. Focke Wulf Fw190Gs and Fs were similar.
In the Pacific, if you need to fly an American aircraft to bomb something, what would you prefer, a Curtis SB2C Helldiver, or an F4U Corsair?
- Thread starter
- #27
How come the P-47D was no longer up to date in terms of performance?
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,344
- Jan 31, 2021
The Corsair, because it's faster, more maneuverable, and far better able to defend itself than the Helldiver.
Just make sure I get time to practice bombing (or, later, rocket attacks) so as to be able to do that task with some proficiency.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
Below 10,000ft, it was slower than the contemporary Fw190As, and significantly slower than the more advanced aircraft like Fw190Ds, P-51Ds, TempestVs and SpitfireXIVs, and P-47Ms for that matter.
From what I can see, the P-47D could still hold its own at 30,000ft, but there was not a whole lot of dive bombing on top of Mount Everest, particularly in the ETO.
- Thread starter
- #30
Now we're changing the goal post with 10000 ft being the cut-off altitude??
P-47D was dive-bombing, the dive boming runs starting from 20000 ft, and was pretty accurate in doing that. In ww2, it was 'who is the fast one at high altitudes', P-47D fitted there just nicely. It was faster than Fw 190D, that there was perhaps a few dozen available in 1944 anyway (same as with P-47M, that was problems 1st, capability 2nd in even in 1945).
In 1944, a P-47D was faster by 350-400 mph than any Tempest V or Spitfire over Frankfurt, Stuttgart or Kiel.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Ah, but if the British had built a navalized Tempest (Sea Tempest Mk I), that would be a different story.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
???
Were they dive bombing Frankfurt, Stuttgart or Kiel?
Are you telling me that a fighter aircraft can see a suitable dive bombing target from almost four miles away? Dive bombing from 20,000ft gives attentive people on the ground a lot of time to man their guns and provide a reception.
The P-47D did not enjoy significant superiority at 20,000ft, even in 1943.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The escorts (P-51D and P-47D) also conducted ground attack after handing off their bombers to the next escort group waiting.
So, half their mission could be spent at 25 to 30 thousand feet and the second half spent at treetop level.
- Thread starter
- #34
Again changing the goal posts, I see. The P-47 was capable for 350-430 mph over those cities when taking off and landing at UK. Tempest and Spitfire XIV were not.
P-47D enjoyed a greater superiority at 20000 ft over the Luftwaffe types in 1944 than it was the case of 1943.
It is not my claim that P-47s were dive-bombing from 20000ft, but USAAFs, the happy costumers.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
And they weren't too shabby at either job.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Even early in the war SBDs were pretty effective.
Shortround6
Major General
The Japanese also failed to come up Decent medium (37-40MM) AA gun.
And the Naval light AA gun (25mm) also was not that good.
And the Army 20mm gun was also not the best thing going.
And they didn't have enough of either the 25mm or the 20mm guns.
Japanese 20mm AA gun
20 round magazine, 300rpm cyclic, 120rpm practical.
Japanese 25mm AA gun
15 round box, 200-260 cyclic, 110 practical (maybe)
yes the 25mm guns came in duals and triples, Feeding the center barrel was awkward.
Allied 20mm Oerlikon gun
60 round drum, 450rpm cyclic, 250-330rpm practical
Came in twin mounts.
German 20mm AA gun
20 round box, 450rpm cyclic, 180rpm practical.
Came in the famous quad mount.
Dive bombing in Europe in 1943 and beyond was a lot more difficult than dive bombing in the PTO.
Now throw in all those 40mm Bofors guns (or for the Germans all the 37mm AA guns)
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
We are discussing dive bombing. You are bombing tactical targets, almost certainly from airfields (hopefully) just out of the range of enemy artillery. The short range allows you to fly multiple missions per day. You need performance at low altitude, you need sturdy aircraft, with good landing and take-off handling on the crappy tactical airfields.
The A-36 Apache was conceived as a dive bomber. The Allison V-1710 worked well at low altitude and it was very fast in a Mustang airframe. The Mustang was sturdy enough, and it had nice, wide landing gear. Presumably, it was less safe to mess with than a Douglas A-24. I know they tested Apaches with dive brakes. Did the dive brakes reach combat?
The P-47D's performance was ideal for escorting B-17s and B-24s over Europe at 25,000+ft. The Germans failed to bring two-stage supercharging into service, and they failed to set up efficient pilot training to replace casualties. At low altitude, the P-47s were sturdy and well armed, and the radial engines were good. Typhoons without rocket rails, were faster down low, and they put out more ordinance, much of it high explosive.
I don't see where Spitfire_XIVs some into this. Spitfire_IXs and XVIs were often used for ground attack. The Tempest_Vs and Spitfire_XIVs flew air superiority. The official assumption was that the Typhoons and Tempests operated below 20,000ft, and the Spitfires above.
Dive bombing and ground attack take place at low altitude, where German superchargers worked fine. A big part of the P-47D's success late in the war was that experienced Luftwaffe pilots capable of using their superior performance at low altitude, were dead. A lot of them were killed by P-47Ds flying high altitude escort missions.
- Thread starter
- #39
We were discussing dive bombing. It was you that stated "The fighters were Typhoons and P-47Ds which were no longer up to date in terms of performance. " that does not hold true for the P-47D.
Me neither. We can ask the person that brought it to this thread.
P-47 started the dive bombing run where the pilots and their commanders wanted, not where anyone of us wanted. See here (the full doc is available on this site):
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
The big, decisive moment for the SBDs was when the Japanese fighters were landed (aircraft carriered?), refuelling after massacring VT-8.
