[Bill Walker]

Kryten, the term "dive bombing" has had several meanings through the years. In these threads Tcolvin appears to stick to the original narrow sense of the term: releasing the bomb from a vertical or very nearly vertical dive. This tactic was developed in the 1920s and 1930s, and theoretically gave great accuracy. On the other hand, aircraft designed for this specific task were at a disadvantage in terms of payload and maneuverability, and the maneuver, once understood by the enemy, gave lots of opportunities for opposing AA gunners and fighters.

You will find the term used loosely from WW2 up to today to describe any tactic where the bomb is released in a dive, even from fairly shallow angles. Don't get hung up on the words, you need to understand what the aircraft was actually doing in order to follow this discussion. I think most 2 TAF "dive bombing" was at angles of 30 to 45 degrees below the horizon. This gave less accuracy, but afforded the aircraft a wider range of approach options, and was a maneuver possible for fighter aircraft, as opposed to pure dive bombers like a Stuka. This meant the 2 TAF could use true multi-role fighters, that could also do strafing and rocket attacks, and hold their own in air-to-air combat. As the Luftwaffe learned in the Battle of Britain, a true dive bomber is a "one trick pony".

It is interesting to note that allmost all the 2 TAF "dive bombing" was done in aircraft originally designed as interceptors: the Spitfire and the Typhoon. Some here suggest this resulted from ignorance or deliberate hostility to other branches by senior RAF staff. I personally believe that it is more a reflection of the tough decisions made at all levels in the Allied government and military on the allocation of finite resources amongst a large number of competing demands. Like any compromise, somebody always looses, at least relatively. A similar trade off had to be made with large aircraft and their trained crews going to Bomber Command or Coastal Command, generating alot of unresolved questions over the years. Rather than lengthy discussions of "what could have been" (which can never be truly resolved) we should be looking at the overall outcome of the trade offs made on both sides. In most wars it is not "the best side" that wins, but the "least bad side".