To settle it once and for all, I am going to call the A-36...drum roll please...Jonathan
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Italians classified it as an 'assalto' - assault aircraft. Eg. they classified the Ju 87B in their service as 'bombardamento a tuffo' - dive bomber.Does the Re 2002 fit the bill here?
To settle it once and for all, I am going to call the A-36...drum roll please...Jonathan
For naval attack, yes, since the accuracy is optimized. For ground attack, I'd rather have a fighter like a Typhoon than a Stuka.Was dive bombing a good idea? It worked well when people had air superiority and victims did not have effective anti-aircraft guns. Late in the war, you spent minimum time being visible to the enemy.
As above.Was dive bombing a good idea? It worked well when people had air superiority and victims did not have effective anti-aircraft guns. Late in the war, you spent minimum time being visible to the enemy.
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.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).
The fighters were Typhoons and P-47Ds which were no longer up to date in terms of performance.
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?
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.How come the P-47D was no longer up to date in terms of performance?
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.
???In 1944, a P-47D was faster by 350-400 mph than any Tempest V or Spitfire over Frankfurt, Stuttgart or Kiel.
The escorts (P-51D and P-47D) also conducted ground attack after handing off their bombers to the next escort group waiting.???
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.
???
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.
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.
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 Japanese also failed to come up Decent medium (37-40MM) AA gun.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?
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.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.
We are discussing dive bombing.
I don't see where Spitfire_XIVs some into this.
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.
The big, decisive moment for the SBDs was when the Japanese fighters were landed (aircraft carriered?), refuelling after massacring VT-8.Even early in the war SBDs were pretty effective.