Quote:
Originally Posted by tcolvin
Nifty, My strong opinion against the Typhoon and Spitfire is based on accuracy. Dive bombing was the most accurate method of bombing in WW2.
|
And precisely what do you mean?
The war has just ended and three airplanes in mint condition arrive over a target practice range for tests and evaluation. A Typhoon, Spitfire, and Stuka of the variants most commonly seen in 1945. The three test pilots (the Stuka man is ex-Luftwaffe) were properly trained for this kind of mission, with average ability, and a similar number of combat dive-bombing sorties. All the planes carry the same type of bomb, so what will be the % difference in probability of hitting a target the size of medium tank?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcolvin
This was acknowledged by all those who operated dive bombers - GAF, VVS, USN, USMC, IJN, FAA, Regia Aeronautica, Flygvapnet, and probably more.
|
The path of your logic is not unlike suggesting that because a Gladiator biplane could easily outmanuever a Spitfire in a dogfight, the Gladiator must be the better fighter. And therefore the RAF would have been better off keeping biplanes in front line service for as long as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcolvin
Only the RAF refused to operate dive bombers. Perhaps you (or anyone) would care to give the real reason for the RAF's refusal, rather than the rationalisations put forward by the RAF - such as Dowding's argument that inaccuracy is desirable for its own sake, or the argument that dive bombers are liable to be shot down by fighters.
|
Costs vs. Benefits.