|
Re: Stukas and HMS Illustrious.
Graham Boak;
I find the information given by Friedman (p.134) a bit confusing: It is a report of the relative qualities of 3.5, 3.0 and 2.5. inch thick armoured flight decks. 3.5in deck is supposedly proof against all 500 lb dive bombs, as well as 1000 lb AP bombs from 5500 feet (and lower). 2.5in is supposedly proof against all 500 lb bombs from 5000 ft and lower. The chosen 3in deck was proof against all 500 lb divebombs, as well as level bombs from 7000 ft. and lower.
But is the assumption valid that a bomb released in a dive has lower impact velocity than a bomb dropped from level flight?
If the RN in 1935 was thinking in terms of Swordfish type "dive bomber", described somewhere as "floating gently downwards" and in no need of airbrakes, they would be seriously underestimating the impact velocity achieved by monoplanes like the Stuka and SBD.
This, along with the 10 % greater weight of the German 250 kg bomb, makes me unsure if the Illustrious´ armored deck was in fact proof against the 250 kg SAP bomb.
Juha.
I was just reading the account in "Air War for Yugoslavia, Greece, and Crete", about the attack by II. StG 2 on Formidable. It seems to imply a serious failure of radar warning. The Stuka Gruppe was out searching for supply ships for Tobruk when they stumbled upon the main force of the Mediterranean fleet, and the account (rather unclear) is that first one staffel, and later the others found and bombed the Formidable, without being intercepted by Fulmars. There was no TB ruse, as with the Illustrious. For that to happen, the radar warning system must have been very much "at sea", weather it was because of human errors by the radar operators, or if there were serious technical gaps in the coverage that the germans just happened upon.
Birgir Thorisson.
|