Quote:
Originally Posted by tcolvin
That's a different point, Nick.
Spitfires were free to strafe and bomb ineffectively because they couldn't dive-bomb.
"Superior" German machines chased around the skies ineffectively because they couldn't mix it with the Spitfires.
Meanwhile the war was being determined badly and slowly on the ground because the Army lacked accurate air-to-ground support and armour resistant to the DP 88-mm.
I suppose it 'depends'. German heavy armor was a factor during Normandy campaign, Operation Market Garden at Arnhem and the Battle of the Bulge - until the weather cleared. Progress of the Allies was as much factored by the skill and stubborness of the Wermacht fighting on the homeland - in terrain NOT conducive to Allied Armor - than the lack of a super dive bomber.
As to the point that Allies didn't have armor resistant to DP-88's, the LW didn't have fighters or bombers resistant to .50 caliber, much less the 20mm of the Spit IX.. and so?
In sum, it was a mess.
Tony
|
Tony - inability to dive bomb was certainly a common denominator for the Fw 190, P-47, P-38, P-51 (B/D), Spit, Tempest, Zero, F6F and F4U. Did that make them 'ineffective' while strafing? No. Ineffective at dropping napalm or cluster bombs? No. Ineffective at destroying heavy armor with bombs? Yes.
Was one of the best dive bombers of the war - the Ju 87 - effective in the West against the Allied invasion and campaign? No, essentially after D-Day it was non existant. Did the Ju 87 stop the Soviet advances? No.
What conclusions regarding application of dive bombing should one draw?
LW fighters in the West after D-Day were drawn into engaging Spit IX (and P-51s and P-47s and Tempests, etc) because they were engaged in tactical operations against Allied Ground forces. Defense of the Reich high altitude ops were out of range of the Spit IX so not important for this conversation.
Once engaged along Allied lines at low to medium altitudes they were particularly vulnerable to Allied fighters simply because ALL of the ETO fighters were flying Sweeps, dropping to the deck after bomber escort, etc and the improved LW fighters (190D or 109K) Weren't superior in a dogfight and often unable to capitalize on speed advantages over a Spit IX.. similarly, a 51B/C/D wasn't able to really capitalize on its high altitude performance against a Fw 190A or Me 109G at medium to low altitudes. Pilot skill and tactical situation prevailed.
Pilot skill, numbers and tactical situation were far more important that relative performance tweaks of late model LW conventional fighters over a Spit IX.