Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Dive bombing was far more important than you realise, Franek.

The first pilot to dive bomb was Lieutenant Harry Brown of 84 Squadron RFC who sank a munitions barge by dive bombing on the Western Front in 1917.
The RFC then conducted trials and experiments which the RAF continued at Orfordness in Suffolk, England through 1918-1919. They concluded the method gave great accuracy but was dangerous (no air brakes).

The first USAAC dive bombers were Attack Group 3 led by Lewis Brereton who had been taught by the RFC in France in 1918. They patrolled the Mexican border in the early 1920s. In the 1920s the USN and Marine Corps adopted dive bombing. The IJN followed suit and produced a succession of designs. Germans developed the He 50 in Russia and Udet bought Helldivers. The Germans saw the work of the Swedes at Froesen in 1934 and rejected rockets in favour of dive bombing. The first German unit was Jagdgeschwader 132 equipped with He 50 dive bombers. They refined their tactics and equipment in Spain.
The RN pressured the RAF to supply the Skua.
By 1939 there were quite a few dive bombers due to their inherent accuracy.
USA - Vought SBU Vindicator, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Curtis SB2C Helldiver, Vultee A34 Vengeance, and Brewster SB2A Buccaneer;
Germany - Ju 87 and Ju 88;
Japan - Aichi D3A1 Val, Yokasuka D4Y Comet, and Aichi B7A Shooting Star; USSR they had developed the technology - Archangelski AR-2, and soon introduced the Petlyakov Pe-2 Peshka;
UK - Hawker Henley and Blackburn Skua;
Poland - PZL P38 Wilk;
France - Loire Nieuport LN 401/410;
Italy - Savoia Marchetti SM85/86;
Sweden - Saab 18;
Bulgaria - DAF 10F;
Roumania - IAR 81.

The argument in a nutshell is whether the RAF refused to operate dive bombers for political or technical reasons.

You seem to question whether anyone except the Luftwaffe and naval aviation (USN, IJN and RN) operated dive bombers. I wonder if you would share your reasons for believing this.

Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

That is what I said, and I gave the reason.

What is your point?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

You said: "d) the RAF and IAF in Burma, and the RAAF in Burma (NG), used them successfully as dive bombers."

The point was the operational service life of the Vengeance, which wasn't very long, as the Vengeance was regarded as being inferior to other aircraft which had become available to Allied forces.

Agh, the protytpe SB2C didn't fly til Dec 18 1940 and finally saw battle Nov 11 1943.

The Brewster SB2A Buccaneer didn't fly til June 17 1941.

Hard for them to be available in 1939.

The Vultee Vengeance was the A-31. An improved version was the A-35. The A-34 designation was for the British version.

The first D4Y1 prototype made its maiden flight in December 1940, and proved to possess an excellent combination of high performance and good handling. After the prototype's successful trials development was sped up, the first unpleasant surprise came. Although well-proportioned and purposeful in appearance, service trials demonstrated weakness in the wing structure. During dive-bombing trials the wings of the D4Y started to flutter, so much that it could break up the wing spars, a fatal flaw for an airframe subject to the stresses of the dive bombing manoeuver, and the initial models were used as planes starting in late. Two early aircraft joined the fleet in time for the battle of Midway, when one was used in action.
The structural problems were fixed by March 1943.

The Aichi B7A was designed in response to a 1941 requirement issued by the Imperial Japanese Navy for a carrier attack bomber that would replace both the Nakajima B6N Tenzan torpedo plane and the Yokosuka D4Y Suisei dive bomber in IJN service. Given the codename Grace by the Allies, it first flew as a prototype in May 1942, but problems with the delivery of the engines meant that it was not produced in numbers until 1944.

Hard for them to be available in 1939.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

A brief comparison between the dive-bombing techniques of the Stuka and the Vengeance :

Vengeance :
a) Approach target at approx. 12, 000'
b) Target goes past trailing edge of wing (usually port)
c) Select bombs to 'live,' bomb doors open
d) Wing over into dive
Alternately
b) Open bomb doors and fly over target
c) Observe target through window on floor
d) When target directly below half-roll into dive
e) Select dive brakes and dive at 70-90 degrees
f) Terminal velocity speed in dive approx. 320 mph
g) Release bombs at 4, 000 - 3, 500' agl
h) Retract dive brakes and initiate pull-out 3, 000' agl
f) Complete pull-out by 500' and exit or engage ground targets with guns

Stuka :
a) Approach target at approx. 13, 000'
b) Target goes past trailing edge of wing (usually port)
c) Close radiator flaps
d) Supercharger off
e) Wing over and half-roll into dive
Alternatively
e) Stick forward into dive
f) Set angle of dive 70-90 degrees(red lines showing various angles marked on canopy side panels)
g) Accelerate
h) Apply dive brakes
i) Release bomb 1, 600' agl
j) Retract dive brakes, open radiator shutter, supercharger on, initiate recovery
k) Recover around 700' agl and exit or engage target with guns

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Tony, we talk about WWII, are not we?

It was Export Hawk but it does not matter.
Of these first three are naval aircraft, of the latter only Vengeance saw limited use. You could mention A-24 as well.
Ju 87 since 1942/43 was used as ordinary level bomber and gradually replaced with Fw 190F. Ju 88 is in another league like He 177.
Naval aircraft.
Pe-2 used mostly as a level bomber and in the same 'shallow' league as Ju 88. Ar-2 hardly widespread and quickly phased out.
Henley never saw active service. Skua - naval.
Never heard of it being a dive bomber.
Limited quantities.
Never seen that.
Is not it post-war?
Limited production if any.
Outdated fighter turned into fighter bomber. I would put it in the same league as eg. Spitfire.
Mate, tell me what major power used dive bombers for ground support, apart of early use of Ju 87s?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

It was judged inferior to the Hurricane IV, Liberator, Typhoon, Spitfire, in fact to anything that could fly, by the Air Marshals.
But since the objectivity of the Air Marshals stands condemned by their own words and actions that are on the record, it is circular to argue that the Vengeance was regarded as being inferior because it was regarded as being inferior.
If you want to understand this whole appalling story, then read Peter C. Smith's 'Vengeance!'.

Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

No, Franek.

We talk about your statement; "It does not change the fact, that dive bombers appeared in 1930s and were destined mostly to pin-point such targets like ships, thus most of them were naval aircraft."

Your "fact" is not true. Agree? Dive bombing appeared in 1917 and was taken up enthusiastically by all of the major powers because of its unmatched accuracy.

The major powers then dropped it, except for the Ju 87 which was close to being a war-winning weapon and was later fitted with an accurate gun, for entirely spurious reasons to do with Douhet and strategic bombing as expounded by Portal, Harris, Slessor, and Dr. Strangelove.

Tony

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Sure Tony. I don't see one Spec for a RAF dive bomber for the 1920-1929 period. Who will you blame for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Specifications

Until 1937, the Naval Air Branch was part of the RAF and dive bombers (Skau) were ordered.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Re: The P-39. I have several friends who flew the P-39 in training and hated it. In North Africa, Col Sluder was making an inspection trip of a P-39 outfit to see how well they were doing with the new P-39 model (I forget the designation) and inquired of the squadron commander how they liked it. The reply was, “It’s still a P-39.” He then went on to tell Col Sluder that on his morning fight he observed 4 Me-109s above and ahead of him and his greatest concern was being able to stay low and hidden in their 6 o’clock position. If you inquire of the German pilots who flew there, they described the P-39 as “good target practice.”

The 325th FG was the first to fly a Frantic mission to Russia and on landing there, they talked with some of the Russian pilots who were flying P-39s from Piryatin field. The Russians were quite satisfied with the performance of the P-39 and insisted they could hold their own and more below 12,000 feet with the Me-109. However, these P-39s were unlike ours. All the armor plate was removed, all the guns except the 37 mm cannon were removed, and all the radio equipment had been taken out. They were extremely interested in our P-51s. There are some interesting stories about the lengths they went to in order to determine its performance and “secrets.”

An interesting sidelight to that mission was the realization by our pilots that the Russians were fighting a different war from us. Because there was a possibility of going down behind Russian lines during our missions, we were required to wear the .45 in a shoulder holster. If a Russian pilot was shot down behind German lines, he was expected to engage the Germans with his sidearm and not surrender! Thus, they would have been upset if we did not also carry a sidearm. The implication was that we were also supposed to take on the German army with our .45 if downed on one of our missions. Ha! Our briefings clearly pointed out that no one had ever shot his way out of Germany with his .45. There were many other unbelievable stories we heard when they got back. Unfortunately, 3 others and myself had been sent to Casablanca to ferry back some new P-51s when the 325thFG was alerted and sent on this mission. We surely missed a good one.


By the way, the only ace I know of in the P-39 was a William Fiedler who was flying them in the Pacific. He met his demise when a P-38 landed on him while he was waiting to take off.

Cordially, Art Fiedler

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Thank you very much for very interesting post.

You are right, the Russians "re-manufactured" their P-39s into the other aircraft. In 1944 they published their own Russian-language maintenance manual for the P-39s. This is general purpose document which does not differentiate the Airacobra variants. This manual confirms all your words. No armor plates, no radio, entire technical culture of P-39 maintenance is reduced mainly to the hammer, rivet and brake press for propeller straightening.

Best regards

E.