[glider1]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Glider.
I'm afraid you're revealing a sketchy knowledge of this subject.

I will let the other members of this forum decide who has a balanced and informed understanding of the topic.

In terms of accuracy, the Blenheim bomber was always more accurate at the same altitude as a glide-bombing Typhoon. (They rarely dive-bombed; in fact the only case I know was Lallement who fired his RPs vertically into tanks because it was the only way of ensuring a kill). The Blenheim was less vulnerable to FLAK because of its air-cooled engines, and it could fly on one engine if the other was shot up. However being slower over the target it was vulnerable for longer than the Typhoon. But we were discussing accuracy and not vulnerability.

Dive bombing was the preferred choice for Typhoons when using bombs unless there was no alternative, with the dive starting at 8,000ft for Typhoons and pull out at 4,000ft (6,000 and 3,000 for Spitfires) dive angle was between 60 and 45 degrees with the leader using 60 degrees and the following pilots between 60 and 45 as they would dive together. Attacks normally by section but sometimes individually. Low level bombing was used on large single buildings as the face of the building was used to expload the bombs.
60 degrees isn't 90 degrees but it is steep and a high level of accuracy can be obtained.
I don't pretend to know what height Blenhiems normally bombed at but am confident that apart from special low level raids it wasn't 4,000ft. Besides vulnerability and accuracy do have a link, anyone can do well on a bombing range and no one is shooting at you, its how well you perform in action that counts.

Read 'Vengeance' by Peter C Smith for a full expose of the RAF's despicable behaviour with regard to dive-bombing. Page 104 has the following; "The 8th July 1943 was notable as the first-ever time that a reference to Vengeance aircraft operating in Burma was given by the BBC in London. Hitherto Air Ministry policy had been to pour scorn and ridicule on dive-bombers and dive-bombing at every opportunity and the media had faithfully reflected this policy. The successful use of dive-bombers, with no losses and maximum efficiency, was in such stark contrast to the previous three years' proclamations as to leave the RAF hoist with its own petard. There was considerable embarrassment and it was only with reluctance that they finally admitted a few of the facts". But it also increased their determination to stop operating any dive-bomber and to speed up the transfer of the crews to P-47s and Liberators, in order to eliminate the possibility of further embarrassment.

I hope to read the book next week if the British Museum have a copy. However I do note that the first Vengence Missions were in March with the second squadron starting in June, so it wasn't too tardy in reporting them. Secondly the AA fire and fighter oposition in Burma was almost negligable compared to the opposition in Europe, to compare the two is chalk and cheese.

It is untrue to say the RAF switched from rockets to bombs; they operated Bombphoons and Typhoon RPs together at all times.

Sorry but it is true to say that the emphasis in 2 TAF was switching. We know that the Tempest wasn't equipped with rockets, we know that the 2TAF FB Mosquito's didn't use rockets on the wings and we do know that some Typhoon squadrons were retraining to use bombs instead of rockets. This was mentioned in an earlier posting of mine. Rockets were always the weapon of choice against shipping which in view of the accuracy figures you gave is understandable. Its also true to say that some Typhoon squadrons kept rockets until the end of the war.
Sorry but you are also wrong to say that bombphoons and Typhoon RP were used together at all times. It was a rare occaision when this happened. Squadrons were trained in either bombing or rocket firing and if the Rockets were to be used, then the bomber squadrons often acted as fighter escort and in reverse.

It is also untrue to say the Tempest FBII was not equipped with rockets - it was, and although the aircraft never saw action in NW Europe, it was to have used RPs in Japan.

I don't know why you raised this. I thought we were talking about the war and the Tempest FBII wasn't operational during the war.

BTW, the Tempest FBII with the Centaurus air-cooled engine would have had higher survivability than the Typhoon with its fitter's-nightmare and glycol-cooled Sabre. So why didn't the Tempest FBII replace the Typhoon 1B? Did the RAF top brass actually care a damn about its pilots? If they did, they had a funny way of showing it.

As I said earlier the Tempest II wasn't operational during the war with the first production aircraft being built in Oct 1944.

There is no reason to think the Il-2 was any more accurate than the Typhoon. Where the Il-2 scored was in survivability, because it was immune to all German infantry weapons. These were what killed you when you flew low over infantry.

This we have covered a number of times the IL 2 could take more damage, but was a hell of a lot easier to hit. It was invulnerable to mg fire whereas the Typhoon had the radiator issue but was otherwise well protected against mg fire. My position is and always has been that these factors probably balanced out. I do agree with you over the accuracy.