RAF and dive-bombing.

[Juha]

Hello Tony
if 70 deg was seen as optimal by AFs practicing dive-bombing, I’d say that dive bombing was a bombing attack made by diving at an angle of 60 deg or steeper. And I mean the angle of dive when it was stabilized, not at the moment of bomb release.

Juha

[tcolvin]

OK, Juha, we can't agree, but we know the reason.

Under this definition 2TAF and every other air force practised dive-bombing, which to me is steep glide-bombing.

BY the way, what would you call my definition, as practiced by what are universally called the "dive-bombers" of the LW, RN, IJN and USN?

Tony

[Bill Walker]

It is all just words guys, and the words mean what you want them to mean. Words have value for communication when we can agree on these meanings. This value increase as the the meanings converge, but the words still have some value whenever the meanings are close (but not identical).

After many years writing specifications for military equipment, I can't buy that it isn't "dive bombing" if the aircraft doesn't have dive brakes. I would call an aircraft with dive brakes "equipped specifically for dive bombing". You can still dive bomb without them. Similarly, a crutch that lowers the bomb before it separates improves dive bombing, but you can still dive bomb without it. Whatever you mean by dive bombing, of course.

[tcolvin]

Exactly, Bill, it's all words in one sense.

But it's worth recalling that these mere words carry a large amount of historical baggage.

They determined bombing accuracy which decided whether some lived or died on the battlefield, and these words are therefore charged with emotion - just read Peter C Smith's books.

Tony

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

BY the way, what would you call my definition, as practiced by what are universally called the "dive-bombers" of the LW, RN, IJN and USN?

Tony

The He 177, Ju 88 and Do 217 were all considered dive bombers, and fitted with dive brakes, by the Lw, yet the their respective dive angles were 60*, 45*, 50*.

[Chris Thomas]

I don't really see the point in this debate, nor in setting the limit on what should be considered dive-bombing. Different aircraft, different theatres demanded different techniques.

I did refer to the CFE's post-war report on tactics used by the 2nd TAF, hoping for the final word. It certainly detailed (to some degree) the methods used by Spitfire and Typhoon fighter-bombers and 'dive-bombing' was the main technique used on both types (as opposed to 'low-level bombing').

For Spits the dive angle was quoted at 60 degrees for the lead aircraft, with lesser angles for successive aircraft in the formation. Release at 3,000 feet. (Starting level was not given but approach to the target was c.5,000ft). For Typhoons, surprisingly, no figures were given, merely recommendation of 'a good steep dive' for accuracy. However many pilots have told be that 60 degrees was the norm and that seemed steep enough! They usually started about 8-12,000ft. 438 Sqn's notes for new pilots recommends 60 degrees for accuracy.

Incidentally, accuracy, if you can count APC results, was a lot better than Clostermann suggested.
CT

[stefaan]

Hi Tony.
Just saw your note and don't know if I am able to give some new evidence of dive bombing in Spits.
I immediately phoned a friend of mine who flew Mk IX's in 4 sqdn (KJ) SAAF in 7 wing.
I asked him about dive bombing as I have heard DAF members talk about it many times before, and asked him for some info.
He told me the following.
The DAF started of by using single 500lb bombs under the fuselage, and eventually ended up with 2 x 500 Lb under the fuselage.
Used to fly line astern, bank over in steep dive, not predetermined, but quite steep.
Starting altitude was variable according to the target, and even the angle varied due to the amount of flak.
Used to pull the nose up through the target and as soon as the target dissappeared under the nose they released the bomb.
Accurasy varied, but some guys ie Maj 'Bomb" Finney and Maj Johnny Seccombe became quite good at it.
We all have seen the praise the DAF got from the Brass at Desert A/F HQ, so it must have worked.
The altitude at which they dropped depended on the pilot.
I have some photos of those Spits with bombs under the fuselage.
I have seen documents on tactics in our archives but have never copied or read them.
(Kick myself)
Hope it helps.
Stefaan Bouwer

[Juha]

Hello Tony
IIRC usually 60deg was seen as divine between dive- and glide-bombing. Anyway, if the main users of dive bombing saw 70deg dive angle as optimum, IMHO it’s a bit silly to claim that 69 deg dive angle means that the plane wasn’t dive-bombing but glide-bombing.
IMHO dive-bomber is a category of planes, dive-bombing is a category of attack methods.

Juha

[tcolvin]

I think we should probably leave it there.


We know 'what was', ie what 2TAF did, due to the good work of Chris Thomas and Christopher Shores; there are no questions and no debate about the results of their research from me.


We don't know, however, “what ought to have been”, which is a normative question, and cannot follow from “what was”.


Thr normative aspect is raised because claims made by RAF and USAAF pilots of 2TAF (firing RPs) , IXTAC and XIXTAC (both of which were “dive-bombing”) were proved by 2 ORS investigators to be overstated by a factor of at least ten. Source: Joint Report No. 1 by 2 ORS which examined an area in the Ardennes Salient where pilots claimed 90 AFVs destroyed. 2 ORS found 101 destroyed AFVs, of which only 7 were due to air attack. 2 ORS interviewed captured Germans; eg “Signaller W of 130 Pz Regt said that when conditions were favourable they were attacked from the air as often as 3 times a day. No tanks had been put out of action by the air force. A bomb fell 10 metres from his tank but no damage was caused”.


All of this is old hat to most/all of you, and no excuse for starting this thread.


However new information appeared - Bill Simpson's book, which is not about 2TAF but about Fighter Command and their task of stopping the V2 launches from the Hague. The rockets were terrifying and killing large numbers of Londoners (over 2,700). The army had messed up by neglecting to free the Scheldt and liberate northern Netherlands, and instead run into a brick wall at Arnhem. Six squadrons were used against the V2s, and were at it for a period of over 5 months. They did everything they could with the equipment at their disposal. Not for them 2TAF's 60 degree dive angle with release at 3,000 ft, but 70+ degrees with release sometimes as low as 1,500 ft and straight into heavy Flak. They failed almost completely, according to Bill Simpson, who shows that V2 launchings continued even when the RAF was overhead in strength, (although the Spitfires did cause the Gemans to fire more at night, which probably reduced casualties because Londoners were not so concentrated together in groups as they were during the day).


The RAF had always rejected specialist dive-bombing, and managed to fight off all demands from the Army for its own air corps equipped with specialist dive-bombers. The RAF claimed complete vindication when they shot the Stukas out of the skies over southern England. They never publicly wavered in their rejection of specialist dive-bombers, although they had to suppress the news about the success of the Vengeance in the Far East which achieved the required accuracy and performed far better than was possible with the abused Spitfires. However, when faced with the demand to hit V2 launchers in the woods surrounded by the built-up area of the Hague, RAF Fighter Command was forced to try and achieve the accuracy of specialist dive-bombers without the kit. Ditto 2TAF who had to support the army by destroying tiny targets such as tanks, anti-tank guns and machine-gun nests using kit without the necessary accuracy. The Allies enjoyed complete air superiority, so the Stuka excuse was irrelevant.


It seems to me indisputable that the RAF should have been using their Vengeances over North West Europe and especially the Hague. These would probably have needed teaming with Austers and Stinsons (notoriously difficult to shoot down) to spot V2 launcher movement in the Hague, in air-to-air communication with a cab-rank of Vengeances. Maybe this would have shut the V2s down, or maybe not. The point is, it was never even raised AFAIK.


And, to repeat, history shows it would be wise to leave it there.


Tony

[Kutscha]

If dive bombing Spitfires were shot down by flak then why would your Vengeance a/c not suffer the same fate?

If the 300+mph Spitfires were shot down by flak, then so would your much slower Austers and Stinsons which also would be operating well behind the front lines.