Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Didn't last to long in RAAF service as a dive bomber.

That is what I said, and I gave the reason.

What is your point?

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

That is what I said, and I gave the reason.

What is your point?

You said: "d) the RAF and IAF in Burma, and the RAAF in Burma (NG), used them successfully as dive bombers."

The point was the operational service life of the Vengeance, which wasn't very long, as the Vengeance was regarded as being inferior to other aircraft which had become available to Allied forces.

By 1939 there were quite a few dive bombers due to their inherent accuracy.
USA - Vought SBU Vindicator, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Curtis SB2C Helldiver, Vultee A34 Vengeance, and Brewster SB2A Buccaneer

Agh, the protytpe SB2C didn't fly til Dec 18 1940 and finally saw battle Nov 11 1943.

The Brewster SB2A Buccaneer didn't fly til June 17 1941.

Hard for them to be available in 1939.

The Vultee Vengeance was the A-31. An improved version was the A-35. The A-34 designation was for the British version.

Japan - Aichi D3A1 Val, Yokasuka D4Y Comet, and Aichi B7A Shooting Star

The first D4Y1 prototype made its maiden flight in December 1940, and proved to possess an excellent combination of high performance and good handling. After the prototype's successful trials development was sped up, the first unpleasant surprise came. Although well-proportioned and purposeful in appearance, service trials demonstrated weakness in the wing structure. During dive-bombing trials the wings of the D4Y started to flutter, so much that it could break up the wing spars, a fatal flaw for an airframe subject to the stresses of the dive bombing manoeuver, and the initial models were used as planes starting in late. Two early aircraft joined the fleet in time for the battle of Midway, when one was used in action.
The structural problems were fixed by March 1943.

The Aichi B7A was designed in response to a 1941 requirement issued by the Imperial Japanese Navy for a carrier attack bomber that would replace both the Nakajima B6N Tenzan torpedo plane and the Yokosuka D4Y Suisei dive bomber in IJN service. Given the codename Grace by the Allies, it first flew as a prototype in May 1942, but problems with the delivery of the engines meant that it was not produced in numbers until 1944.

Hard for them to be available in 1939.

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Graham, you are misled. A friendly Mustang pilot recalls that when dive bombing, the aircraft accelerated so uncomfortably, the tacho looked like a propeller. Dive brakes are as usual in perpendicular dive as they are in shallow dive.
That said, Soviets had no dive bomber in the sense of Ju 87. Americans had Dauntlesses and Japanese - D3As but that is all.

Franek, you forgot the Helldiver. The FAA also had the Skau.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Franek, you forgot the Helldiver. The FAA also had the Skau.

Yep, b***dy Helldiver and Skua. I think Japanese army also had dive bombers (Sonia?). It does not change the fact, that dive bombers appeared in 1930s and were destined mostly to pin-point such targets like ships, thus most of them were naval aircraft. Ju 87 was an exception rather than the rule, and still a lot of its job was hitting naval targets.
Then again, Soviets had no dive bomber in the sense of Ju 87, and simply I do not understand what actually the argument is.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

It does not change the fact, that dive bombers appeared in 1930s and were destined mostly to pin-point such targets like ships, thus most of them were naval aircraft. Ju 87 was an exception rather than the rule, and still a lot of its job was hitting naval targets.
Then again, Soviets had no dive bomber in the sense of Ju 87, and simply I do not understand what actually the argument is.

Dive bombing was far more important than you realise, Franek.

The first pilot to dive bomb was Lieutenant Harry Brown of 84 Squadron RFC who sank a munitions barge by dive bombing on the Western Front in 1917.
The RFC then conducted trials and experiments which the RAF continued at Orfordness in Suffolk, England through 1918-1919. They concluded the method gave great accuracy but was dangerous (no air brakes).

The first USAAC dive bombers were Attack Group 3 led by Lewis Brereton who had been taught by the RFC in France in 1918. They patrolled the Mexican border in the early 1920s. In the 1920s the USN and Marine Corps adopted dive bombing. The IJN followed suit and produced a succession of designs. Germans developed the He 50 in Russia and Udet bought Helldivers. The Germans saw the work of the Swedes at Froesen in 1934 and rejected rockets in favour of dive bombing. The first German unit was Jagdgeschwader 132 equipped with He 50 dive bombers. They refined their tactics and equipment in Spain.
The RN pressured the RAF to supply the Skua.
By 1939 there were quite a few dive bombers due to their inherent accuracy.
USA - Vought SBU Vindicator, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Curtis SB2C Helldiver, Vultee A34 Vengeance, and Brewster SB2A Buccaneer;
Germany - Ju 87 and Ju 88;
Japan - Aichi D3A1 Val, Yokasuka D4Y Comet, and Aichi B7A Shooting Star; USSR they had developed the technology - Archangelski AR-2, and soon introduced the Petlyakov Pe-2 Peshka;
UK - Hawker Henley and Blackburn Skua;
Poland - PZL P38 Wilk;
France - Loire Nieuport LN 401/410;
Italy - Savoia Marchetti SM85/86;
Sweden - Saab 18;
Bulgaria - DAF 10F;
Roumania - IAR 81.

The argument in a nutshell is whether the RAF refused to operate dive bombers for political or technical reasons.

You seem to question whether anyone except the Luftwaffe and naval aviation (USN, IJN and RN) operated dive bombers. I wonder if you would share your reasons for believing this.

Tony

[Kutscha]

Sure Tony. I don't see one Spec for a RAF dive bomber for the 1920-1929 period. Who will you blame for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Specifications

Until 1937, the Naval Air Branch was part of the RAF and dive bombers (Skau) were ordered.

[Juha]

Hello
what I have read the Russians liked P-39's radio, so I doubt that it was usual to remove it. And I have never read before that the two .5 mgs in the nose were removed. On the other hand wing mgs were rather often removed to lighten the plane and maybe also to improve the rate of roll. This can be seen from many photos. In about ½ of the photos on Russian P-39s which I have seen and from which it have been possible to see the area were wing guns are/should be the wing mgs were removed.

A good interview of a Soviet ex-P-39 pilot can be seen here http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...ikov/part3.htm

Juha

[Empiricist]

Hi Juha,

You know, war = no rules. Theoretically Kingfisher was armed with flexible gun at radioman position. Theoretically. Try to find its typical AN M2 machine gun behind the pilot in the rear-based Kingfishers when the life rafts replaced the guns in radiomen's cockpits.

When it comes to the Russian P-39s -- theoretically perhaps you are right. The Russian manual of 1944 I mentioned shows P-39 cutaway with complete set of two guns per wing. Heaven knows what the units did in the field however...

Regards

E.

[Franek Grabowski]

I have got a Soviet P-39 manual and it is quite detailed, so I would disregard such comments as the ones above.

Art's comments are more interesting though. Definetelly most if not all of Soviet P-39s had their wing guns removed. Armour was not being removed as quite recently I have seen a rather emotional description when pilots were faced with choice of aircraft with steel plate and armoured glass head armour. Perhaps the latter caused confusion? Also, I am not awared of any radio sets being removed, but they could have been converted to HF. Misinformation to poor communication perhaps?

Concerning US P-39s, there is indeed a number of conflicting accounts. I suppose part of them was caused by a rather bad publicity of Airacobra, part by availability of superior aircraft and part by a bad condition of worn aircraft. I know several pilots were happy to exchange worn Spitfire IXs for new Spitfire XVIs, despite the former was considered a better aircraft.

[mayfair35]

Mr Franek,
I am not sure what you mean by "disregard the above??" In our case, the 325th landed at Piryatin and observed the P-39s at close hand. Clearly these did not have radios as the pilots all ran to their aircraft when an alert came in and simultaneously took off in all directions. They were dispersed completely around the airfield. Try to visualize the situation of our 60+ aircraft landidng while the 39s were all taking off!! If you disagree with this, that is your right. I thought that what was observed in this instance might be of some value to the members of this board. I also think you may be making a mistake thinking that everyone obeyed the tech orders put out for their airplane.

The operating instructions for the Thunderbolt stated that when dropping the external wing tanks, the aircraft should be flown at no more than 160 mph and in straight and level flight. Now visualize yourself being bounced. Do you think you would slow up, go straight and level, and then drop the tanks. Of course not and no one did. This resulted in some bent ailerons and flaps but was eventually resolved.

Also it is my impression that many of the folks writing on this thread seem to think that there was no variation in the aircraft assigned to a Group. I cannot speak for the Russians or the Germans but the Americans modified their aircraft in many instances. In our P-40s, some of the pilots removed 2 of the machine guns for better performance. The same was true in the P-47 and although I have my doubts, one pilot was said to have his 8 guns loaded with 800 rounds per gun. I believe that all the other P-47s carried a load of 400 rounds per gun. Many of the pilots changed the convergence point of their guns. Wayne Lowry, an 11 victory ace had his guns converge at 200 yards, I had mine at 250 yards, but others decided that 300 yards was more to their liking. Then just prior to when we were supposed to get the K-14, all the gun patterns were changed.

Our Mustangs could not be set up to draw more than the 66 inches of MP because of the fuel octane. In the 8th as I am sure you know, they could draw 70 inches with the higher octane of their fuel. In the Thunderbolt, WEP was supposed to be 56 inches of MP as I recall; however in our group, we modified the engine so it could pull 70 inches. This was certainly not condoned by anyone from higher headquarters, and it drove the tech rep nuts. Our philosophy was that if you could not get away from an opponent, and you were in real trouble, you might as well use the 70 inches. But everyone knew this was a last ditch effort and so was seldom used.

Cordially, Art Fiedler