RAF and dive-bombing.
 

So much past ink and emotion have been spilt on this board over the RAF's refusal to countenance dive-bombing in support of the army, that we have no need for a rehash.

But I have been knocked out of my socks by a book casually picked up last Friday, and then immediately bought, by Bill Simpson, called 'Spitfire Dive-Bombers Versus the V2' (Pen & Sword 2007). What was so arresting was Simpson's view that dive-bombing requires by definition a dive angle of 70 plus degrees, and that what passed for dive-bombing in 2 TAF – a 30 to 40 degree dive angle – was just inaccurate 'skip-bombing' and should never be called 'dive-bombing'.


Simpson quotes Clostermann, who referenced Sqn Ldr Max Sutherland (453 Sqn). Sutherland “evolved a method for delivering a 500-lb bomb from the fuselage centre line (of a Spitfire IX or XVI) .... he dived at an angle of 75 degrees (from 12,000 ft) with the target in the gunsight and at full throttle. At 3,000 ft he would begin to pull out, count three and release the bombs (sic – presumably two 250-lb under the wings and one 500-lb on the centreline). Eventually, with practice, the pilots could place them within a 450 yd circle”.


Simpson quotes Fl Lt Raymond Baxter (yes, that one) (602 Sqn).....”approach made at 8,000 ft .... never below 5,000 ft .....speed reduced to 200 knots ..... rolled ..... target lined up in the centre of the unlocked gyro-gunsight .... throttled back and trimmed into what was effectively a hands-off dive at about 70 degrees .... Once trimmed, and with the throttle pulled back, the Mk XVI held very steady when hurtling groundward, which allowed you to make full use of the excellent Mk II gunsight ...... the gunsight graticule was brought to bear on the target .... We never really monitored our dive speeds .... I think 360 mph was a typical maximum ..... bombs (presumably only 250-lbs under the wings) usually released at 3,000 ft – no lower than 1,500 ft – and the aircraft was then pulled out to escape at low level. An experienced pilot could bomb accurately to within 25 to 30 yards”. If the bombs failed to release, then the aircraft would usually break up during the attempted pull-out.


Now, if a very slippery aircraft like a UK-based Spitfire Mk XVI of 12 Group, Fighter Command, without airbrakes, and without a cradle to ensure a bomb carried on the centre-line was released outside the propeller arc, was used as a true dive-bomber against V2s launched in the Hague in an environment of intense light Flak in order to minimise collateral damage to Dutch civilians, (while 2 TAF refused requests from Fighter Command to use Belgium-based Mosquitos employing skip-bombing because of the risk to aircrew of exploding rockets), then many questions arise both about 2 TAF's refusal to dive-bomb in support of the army, and about the universally accepted view that dive-bombing needed a specialist aircraft and could not be performed by fighters.


The only conclusion I can reach from Simpson's book is that the RAF's (and 2 TAF's) views about dive-bombing were as wrong as their views about long-range escorting of bombers by fighters; viz: a long range fighter (like the Me-110) was no good as an air-superiority fighter. It was only when the USAAF sent Thunderbolts and Mustangs on long-penetration flights into Germany that the RAF accepted that they had been wrong all along for years.


Fighter Command (and ADGB) Spitfire pilots privately discovered a way of solving the problem of the V2s through the trial-and-error development of dive-bombing. They didn't know it was 'impossible' and 'forbidden'.



The RAF and 2 TAF never looked for, and therefore never found, a way to solve the Army's problem of accurate battlefield dive-bombing. To save face the RAF were willing to suppress news of the success of the Vengeance in the Far East and to turn a blind eye to Max Sutherland's tactical introduction of Spitfire dive-bombing by Fighter Command.


It is most peculiar that the story of true dive-bombing by Spitfires did not come out until 2007. The reason must be because it was not regarded as interesting and wouldn't sell. Simpson is interested in the men and the machines and the minutiae of their lives, and seems to be completely unaware of the controversy over how the RAF got away with only going through the motions of providing air support to the army.


This is extraordinary, and ultimately baffling.


Tony

Re: RAF and dive-bombing.
 

Tony, assumptions and the purchase of secondary sources aside, have you consulted any of the primary reference available?

Stephen

Re: RAF and dive-bombing.
 

Stephen; I would hope to think I've consulted all or nearly all of them.
Do you think my post shows a lack of awareness of them?

Would you know, by the way, of any source, primary or secondary, that would explain:

a) why Raymond Baxter could dive his Spitfire Mk XVI at 70 - 80 degrees and maintain a maximum velocity of 360 mph without airframe damage (which was constantly being checked according to Simpson), while 43 Sqn's pilots in Italy in Spitfire Mk VIIIs found that "at such angles, speed could build up rapidly, going off the clock to around 600 mph, and a certain amount of wing root stress was encountered. Buckling was quite common..." - source (secondary): Peter C. Smith 'Dive-Bomber", or

b) why Fighter Command/ADGB implemented dive-bombing with Spitfires while 2 TAF would not. Peter C. Smith in 'Dive-Bomber' mentions the campaign against the V2s and the dive-bombing of the Calais guns, which I don't know, but guess was also performed by Fighter Command (if not, I would certainly like someone to put me right). I would guess the answer to the question is the differing attitudes of Roderic Hill and Mary Coningham towards the army.

Tony

Re: RAF and dive-bombing.
 

Hello Tony
if in the book the author calls glide-bombing as skip-bombing, which is entirely different thing, I’d be a little careful with his conclusions.

Juha

Re: RAF and dive-bombing.
 

Yes, Juha, I agree.

But Sutherland's bombing of the BIMA building (aka Shell House) in the Hague, which is described, was genuine skip-bombing, with the bombs fused for 11seconds delay and dropped at 400mph from a height of 100ft onto the ground 300yards from the building.

However, the book (which is expensively produced and well-illustrated) contains dicey sentences which raise questions about the author's knowledge; "Typhoons and Tempests were legendary in their ground-attack support of the Allied armies in Europe, but much of this would be 'skip-bombing' and strafing with rockets and cannon rather than dive-bombing".

The Raymond Baxter quotation about maintaining a speed of 360mph in a 70 degree dive is a problem, and cannot be correct. Baxter's autobiography, 'Tales Of My Time', might clarify the matter. You can buy it for £1.20 from Amazon, but I'll get it from the library.

Tony

Re: RAF and dive-bombing.
 

Tony,

In spite of what appears to be a pissing match developing here, considering the argument is based on the recollection of ‘a’ veteran, this might be of interest to you.

A few snippets Taken from the Royal Air Force paper TC-33 “The Use of the Spitfire-Bomber (Bombfire), dated April 1943.

Introduction: As time goes on in this war we have been finding that aircraft have been subjected to all sorts of queer roles. The old idea of the Fighter being the destroyer of enemy bombers alone has changed, and we now find that we have to cope with anything from the heavily defended bomber down to the lightly defended motorized column. The fighter-bomber has proved itself to be worth its weight in gold and you, the Spitfire pilots, are about to use your aircraft in the role of the fighter-bomber. Set out below are certain points which you must familiarize yourselves with if you are going to cope effectively.

Methods of Attack: Spitfires cannot be used for precision high level bombing because of the enormous bombing errors involved, but with practice, accuracy can be achieved in dive and low level bombing. The methods of attack are as follows:

High Dive Bombing: …It will probably be found necessary to begin the attack off a turn, in order to lose sight of the target. The angle of (the) dive must not exceed 45 degrees in order to ensure that the bomb clears the airscrew bales and also to ensure that the bomb does not oscillate after release. The bomb should be aimed with the gun sight, and the nose of the aircraft must be eased up just before the bomb is released in order to allow for trail of the bomb.

Low Dive Bombing: This form of attack consists of a dive down to the minimum safety height for the type of bomb and fusing employed, the technique and angle of (the) dive being as given in sub-para (i) above, (which is High Dive Bombing)

Low Level Bombing: This form of attack is made from the minimum safety height for the type of bomb and fusing employed. It is usually delivered after an approach at nought feet…

In a supplement included with TC-33 entitled; Further Information on the Use of Fighter-Bombers (Spitfire and Whirlwind), here are few more snippets.

….When the target re-appeared behind the trailing edge, the bombers turned on to the target in a dive of about 75 degrees. They commenced pulling out at 13,000 feet.

Tactics used by No.249 Squadron:

The Officer Commanding No.249 Squadron, Krendi, states that the best results were ultimately obtained by using the following tactics:

…The resultant dive was 80-90 degrees. The bombs were released at 10,000 feet….


Tony, I am not sure what to make of your comment about 2nd T.A.F. not implementing dive-bombing. Surely, you must be joking? I hope you are.

Stephen

Re: RAF and dive-bombing.
 

Hello Stephen

Quote: ” In a supplement included with TC-33 entitled; Further Information on the Use of Fighter-Bombers (Spitfire and Whirlwind), here are few more snippets.

….When the target re-appeared behind the trailing edge, the bombers turned on to the target in a dive of about 75 degrees. They commenced pulling out at 13,000 feet.”

Sounds much like what G/C H. F. O’Neill wrote on dive-bombing in Sicily in 43 in Aeroplane Monthly Sept 88 while serving in 1435 Sqn at Malta. They crossed the coast of Sicily at appr. 23,000 ft then approached the target in a gentle descent so to arrive above it at 20,000 ft. When the target appeared at the root of his port wing trailing edge, the pilot stall-turned into near vertical with engine throttled back and the gun sight lined up on the target. No release altitude given but Spits would join up in open tactical formation at about 12,000 ft on a reciprocal course for Malta. Bombload was one 250lb under each wing. According to O’Neill bombing accuracy wasn’t very high, targets were area-type, like the harbour of Catania and airfields and attacks were mainly of nuisance value with fluke hits on ships or parked a/c now and then. One must note that O’Neill used often understatements.

Juha

Re: RAF and dive-bombing.
 

SMF144.

Firstly, let's agree there is no room for a pissing match. We discuss only to search after facts we can all agree on - that is by you, Juha, hopefully Chris Thomas, and anyone else interested, and myself.

Secondly, let's define terms before deciding whether 2TAF implemented dive-bombing or not.

For me, an aircraft can be defined as dive-bombing when all of the following are present, with the aircraft:
1. equipped with dive brakes
2. diving from a minimum of 5,000ft
3. releasing its bomb/s at no higher than 1,500ft
4. diving at an angle steeper than 75 degrees.

Do you, and others, agree with this definition?

Tony

Re: RAF and dive-bombing.
 

Hello
I’d define dive-bombing simply a bombing attack made by diving at an angle of 75 deg or steeper and with a loss of height during the attack at least say 1000-1500ft. Initial and release heights are tactical questions. Of course a long dive with a plane using dive-brakes and releasing at low level gives prospects of clearly better accuracy. But IMHO those Spits using high dive-bombing tactics were dive-bombing, they were not glide-, skip- or level-bombing.

Juha

Re: RAF and dive-bombing.
 

Mmmm, Juha.

In your definition does the angle of the aircraft have to be 75 degrees at time of bomb release, because Sutherland started the pull out from 75 degrees before release and counted to three. He would therefore have released at some unknown angle that was less than 75 degrees, which explains the poor accuracy. He did this to ensure the centre-mounted bomb did not hit the propeller. The dive was only his method of tactical target-approach.

The point of my definition was to limit dive-bombing to a technique that delivered bombs accurately and repeatedly on target. Yours does not do so, as you admit, and might be defined as "steep glide-bombing".

I think, however, my definition should be revised to 70 degrees or steeper, since the Luftwaffe, RN, Imperial Japanese Navy and USN all considered 70 degrees as the ideal angle of dive.

In the late 1930s, RAF doctrine, according to Smith, restricted the dive angle to 50 degrees and refused to use the term 'dive-bombing', referring to it as "losing height bombing".

Tony