Response to Glider and Juha.

[MW Giles]

Please do not shout at me for going off at a tangent, but we are debating the merits of the Spitfire and Typhoon and their ability or inability to hit precise targets when compared with the dive bombers of either the VVS or the Luftwaffe.

There is one very large airforce operating in Europe alongside the RAF that also lacked dedicated dive bombers, i.e. the 9th USAAF. In 1944-5 they had lots of P-47s and some P-38s and P-51s. No Vengences or Dauntlesses. I wonder why?

12th USAAF was also largely dive bomberless (except for a few A-36s, which were replaced by more conventional fighter bombers in 1944- for production reasons)

Please do not tell me they were brainwashed by the RAF and could not think for themselves. I would argue that the USAAF (interestingly an Army Air Force) looked at the Western European environment which was likely to develop following an invasion. An environment that was likely to densly fill up with ground units and their associated flak defenses (high densities of Army Divisions/mile, in comparison with the wide open spaces of the Eastern Front where there were more men but much more space too) and an environment where fighter defences were likely to be well trained and capable. Given that scenario the USAAF chose fighter bomber types for their ground support, which were more flexible and capable in a range of roles than a dedicated dive bomber.

Could they have equipped a number of Dive Bomber Groups? Certainly they could have. Did they? No