Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.

[Graham Boak]

Not QED at all. As has been pointed out several times, accuracy was not the only parameter going into the decision. If you restrict your argument to the RAF not using potentially the most accurate method, then you are probably right. Note "the most accurate": not the one and only holy scripture, with all other approaches satanic. To suggest that they had the wrong method for the job, in that theatre at that time, starting from where they did, facing what they were facing, is another matter altogether. As has been said.

Jukka: No. Acceleration is such as to overwhelm accuracy, regardless of quality of the pilot. Do you think that Rudel, to name the most famous divebomber pilot, operated without divebrakes - or could have? That they were only fitted into specialist designs for the benefit of inferior pilots? The answer is in the plural, and they bounce.

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

Kutscha, 60 deg cannot be described as "almost vertical". Or would you describe 6000 euros as "almost 9000 euros"???

Sorry Jukka but your reading comprehension is off. How did you arrived at such a thought?

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

The RAF refused to operate aircraft designed for vertical delivery.

I was trying to stay out of this because it's clearly been going nowhere for some time but ...

As far as the RAF was concerned, its fighters had repeatedly massacred "aircraft designed for vertical delivery" in the Battle of Britain. Any so-called "refusal" to operate such aircraft itself was most likely because the RAF had learned the lessons from that campaign.

When the RAF was framing its future operational requirements, how could anyone possibly know what the strength of the Luftwaffe's fighter force would be in the West two, three or four years hence? Would you have bet on its near-impotence? No one could have known that by mid-1944 a hypothetical divebomber might be able to operate over Europe with little fighter opposition.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Did you miss the part where Spits carried bombs beneath the wings. Hard to to put a bomb through a prop when dropped from that postion.

Think instead of parroting. An a/c shooting at an a/c (target) directly in front of it does not have the a/c (target) disappear. Now, if the shooting a/c pulls some lead, then the a/c (target) will disappear.

An a/c flying horizontal has the ground target disappear at a certain distance (speed, height and cowling size dependent). Depending on the a/c, the angle the a/c is flying (ie dive angle), this distance will decrease until the a/c is vertical/perpendicular.

So the a/c could not be vertical if the target disappeared.

A dictionary should be able to help you with the word 'almost'.

1. Now what are you on about? 2TAF Spitfires carried a 500 lb bomb beneath the fuselage (that could not be delivered from the vertical without destroying the propeller) and one 250 lb bomb under each wing (which could be delivered from the vertical). Typhoons carried bombs only beneath the wings. Are you getting confused?

2. I think I buy your statement about the plane not being vertical when the target disappeared. Parrotting, by the way, means mindless repetition; that does not seem to be my function, which is rather to produce evidence denying the many untruths written on this thread. That's why I only buy your statement provisionally. There is such a thing as wing incidence that is designed to be neutral in the case of an aircraft designed as a dive bomber but may affect target visibility when a failed air superiority fighter with a wing designed with significant incidence is pressed into the vertical dive bombing role. But I cannot think that one through, and is a detail for techies. It doesn't alter the conclusion that the RAF's refusal to operate the Vultee Vengeance was worse than a mistake; it was a crime.

Tony

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

to produce evidence denying the many untruths written on this thread.
Tony

Tony, you spend most of your time stating contrary opinions, which is not quite the same thing in my book as "denying untruths."

On the subject of dive-bombing in a Spitfire, you can find an interesting description in Pierre Clostermann's book of how his Squadron developed a technique.

[Franek Grabowski]

It looks the thread goes out of control.

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

Franek, the Pe 2.

Pe-2 and following Tu-2 were indeed called dive bombers, but they were as dive bombers as He 177 was. Those were not aircraft able for perpendicular dives, and I would say that if they dived it was something quite shallow. Similarly, Il-2 was not capable to dive, and Soviets had no dive bombers in a sense discussed here.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I was trying to stay out of this because it's clearly been going nowhere for some time but ...

As far as the RAF was concerned, its fighters had repeatedly massacred "aircraft designed for vertical delivery" in the Battle of Britain. Any so-called "refusal" to operate such aircraft itself was most likely because the RAF had learned the lessons from that campaign.

When the RAF was framing its futrue operational requirements, how could anyone possibly know what the strength of the Luftwaffe's fighter force would be in the West two, three or four years hence? Would you have bet on its near-impotence? No one could have known that by mid-1944 a hypothetical divebomber might be able to operate over Europe with little fighter opposition.

The patronising statement that this discussion has "been going nowhere for some time" reveals a mindset dominated by RAF apologia.

Why "refusal" in inverted commas? Why was this "refusal" "most likely because the RAF had learned the lessons from that (1940) campaign"? You seem unclear.

It is fanciful to believe the RAF was commanded by people who took account of experience except to confirm their prejudices.

The RAF top brass was quite clear about what its mission was and what its mission wasn't. Its mission was to win the war by bombing German civilians as a substitute for destroying factories which they couldn't find. Its mission was not to support the Army. There is a vast mass of evidence that this was true. That was the reason why there was no dive bomber. Pointing to the Stuka's fate over southern England was a rationalisation of an RAF strategic doctrine that precluded army support.

In 1934 Wing Commander Slessor said; "The aeroplane is NOT a battlefield weapon". Air Marshall Slessor (who became an AM because he was judged to be sound by RAF luminaries, and not because he knew anything about winning wars) repeated this stupid statement in 1941 after Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Greece, Yugoslavia, Crete and large areas of Russia had gone down to an all-arms system of warfare with an integral air-based ground attack element (which in 1939 included the dive bomber) that the British under Monash had invented in 1918. In the spring of 1941 Slessor said; "...we don't want aircraft skidding around Kent looking for enemy tanks, that is the job of the anti-tank gun" - the blinkered idiot.

And that is the explanation of why there was no "hypothetical divebomber" operating over Europe with or without fighter opposition, which in the event the 'US ARMY AF' had obliterated over Portal's dead body and which - and here is the only statement you make that is based on reality - was opposed by the RAF who could not imagine beating the LW day fighter force. Portal was another sound RAF chap who could prove that a long-range fighter could never compete with a short-range fighter, just as he could prove the RAF's task was to support 'brown jobs' through winning the war strategically far from the battlefield.

2TAF used Typhoons to nip over the front-line and range in the rear areas shooting up transport and destroying bridges (except they couldn't hit them), rather than field a dive bomber which could with certainty destroy Paks, 105-mm howitzers, and the lethal mortar and Nebelwerfer. This had been decided in 1936 when Slessor wrote Air Power and Armies, in which he 'proved' the use of air attack was to seal off battlefields from enemy reinforcements and supply rather than destroy enemy weaponry on the battlefield a la Monash.

The RAF set up 2TAF for only one reason - from fear of losing it to the Army. It was done on the RAF's terms and in pursuit of the RAF's mission. The resulting lack of effective Allied all-arms is the reason why the war ended in May 1945 with the Russians in Berlin rather than in October 1944 with the Anglo-Americans in possession of the continent. Th RAF wartime commanders have a lot to answer for.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

It looks the thread goes out of control.

Pe-2 and following Tu-2 were indeed called dive bombers, but they were as dive bombers as He 177 was. Those were not aircraft able for perpendicular dives, and I would say that if they dived it was something quite shallow. Similarly, Il-2 was not capable to dive, and Soviets had no dive bombers in a sense discussed here.

The thread doesn't go out of control. Franek.

You are denying much that has been written about the Soviet Air Force. Good on you if you have evidence.

Historians here believe the PB-100 was the dive bomber version of the Pe-2 and was fitted with dive brakes. In concept it is believed to be similar to the Ju88 which also had dive brakes and was also used for dive bombing.

Christopher Shores wrote; "When used as a dive-bomber its (Pe-2) attacks were every bit as accurate as those of the Ju87, whilst its far heavier bombload made it a more effective proposition....One unit which did much to pioneer use of the aircraft as a dive-bomber was the 150th Bomber Regiment, led by Col. Ivan S. Polbin, who was to become to the Soviet dive-bombers what Hans-Ulrich Rudel became to the German Stukas. Polbin's Pe-2s were active during the winter of 1941/2 during the first major Soviet offensive of the war, and by the middle of 1942, as a result of the experience gained by Polbin and others, most units were becoming proficient in the new role.......The Pe-2s had now (1944) developed dive-bombing as a fine art, some experienced pilots being referred to as aerial snipers, for their ability to destroy pinpoint targets such as observation posts with great accuracy".

Tony

[Graham Boak]

The Pe 2 had dive brakes, and was at least as capable a divebomber as the Ju 88, which used the technique successfully on a number of occasions. I believe the career of Soviet dive-bomber specialist Polbin (sp?) and his techniques with the Pe 2 has been written up in English-language sources. Perhaps Christopher Shores' Ground Attack Aircraft mentioned earlier in the thread? The Pe 2 was often, even most often, used as a level bomber, though this is barely mentioned in Peter Smith's book on the type, which concentrates almost entirely on its use as a divebomber. But then that is Peter Smith's obsession.

The Tu 2 is another matter. It is not clear to be how capable it would have been as a divebomber, but there seems to be no evidence of its use in the role. I think the Do 217 a closer equivalent than the He 177, although some do compare it with the Ju 88.

Tom: re the technical point of wing incidence. I think you are being a bit casual with terms, and confusing wing-body incidence with angle-of-attack (or wing to free stream incidence). Dive bombers were not designed with wings at zero w-b incidence, as this would mean flying with the fuselage at an uncomfortable nose-up attitude and cause problems in take-off and landing. For a vertical dive to remain vertical, then the wing would have to be at zero angle-of-attack, or more strictly at the angle producing zero lift, allowing for tailplane trim. However this can be obtained in an aircraft of conventional configuration, where the wing is mounted at a positive w-b incidence, in order to provide low drag and good views in level flight at a positive Angle of Attack.

This does make the point, however, that to obtain a truly vertical dive, with the wing at a zero-lift AoA, requires the fuselage to be over the vertical. No wonder it was difficult to carry out, and so many were misled as to the steepness of their dives. I suspect that most divebombers had larger than normal tailplanes to use trim to reduce this effect.

[Franek Grabowski]

Did Pe-2 or Ju 88 dive at an angle close to 90 degrees?