Quote:
Originally Posted by glider1
Another small point, but I didn't question accuracy of dive bombers, they were very accurate.
However regards this posting we are not questioning the accuracy of a dive bomber vs a Blenhiem, what would be interesting is a comparison of a dive bomber vs a Typhoon or a P47. Vengeances were replaced by the P47 in RAF service presumably for good reasons and one of those would be that the Fighter Bomber had a good enough accuracy, maybe not as good as a Dive Bomber but good enough.
|
The single-seat Typhoon and P47 would bomb with far less accuracy than a slower Blenheim IV bomber which was equipped with bomb sights manned by a trained bomb aimer who would direct the pilot.
There was no good reason for replacing the Vengeance in RAF service. It was done to avoid continuing RAF embarrassment at its success, news of which was filtering back to the UK (see Peter C Smith).
I suppose you know the quantified inaccuracy of Typhoon RPs provided by the Operational Research Sections of 21AG and RAF.
The percentage of shots hitting a; a) small gun position was 0.2%; b) Panther tank 0.5%; c) large gun position 0.8%; d) army hut 2.8%; and e) large building 10.0%. The number of sorties needed for a 50% chance of a hit on; a) was 44; for b) 18; c) 11; d) 3; and e) 1.
Remember what Gill said; 2 sorties would guarantee a hit on a bridge.
On the basis of cost-benefit, the Vengeance always won hands down.
Tony