Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.

[Kutscha]

Since when does the stated 70* dive become a 90* dive?

"Richard Hallion in 'Strike from the Sky' state the Pe-2 was used as a 70degree dive-bomber"

I guess it can be said the RAF had dive bombers since the Spitfire could be dived at a 60* angle. There is also your claim, tcolvin, that the Typhoon also did vertical dives. So what are you running on about that the RAF did not have dive bombers?

[Franek Grabowski]

Touche!

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Since when does the stated 70* dive become a 90* dive?

"Richard Hallion in 'Strike from the Sky' state the Pe-2 was used as a 70degree dive-bomber"

I guess it can be said the RAF had dive bombers since the Spitfire could be dived at a 60* angle. There is also your claim, tcolvin, that the Typhoon also did vertical dives. So what are you running on about that the RAF did not have dive bombers?

You, Kutscha and Franek, cannot be saying that a dive bomber is any bomber that can dive. You both must believe that to qualify as a dive bomber it must be stressed for pullout, have an automatic pullout system, dive brakes, and a method of delivering bombs outside the propeller arc.

So if you both believe this, then why equivocate over whether dive angles were 60, 70 or 90 degrees?

The Pe-2, Ju87, Vengeance and Skua were dive bombers and could dive vertically. Why do you fight against accepting that simple fact?

Be honest, now. What is your problem?

Tony

[Franek Grabowski]

Tony
We do not have any problem, you have. Dive bomber is an aircraft able to drop bombs in a dive not necessarily perpendicular. He 177 was also a dive bomber but it was hardly able to stand up a shallow dive, so does not fit to your theory. Come on.

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

The Pe-2, Ju87, Vengeance and Skua were dive bombers and could dive vertically.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

"Richard Hallion in 'Strike from the Sky' state the Pe-2 was used as a 70degree dive-bomber"

When did 70* become vertical? Is this the 'new math'?

It doesn't take a genious to understand that the dive limit angle is 70*. If the limit was more it would have been stated.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

"Richard Hallion in 'Strike from the Sky' state the Pe-2 was used as a 70degree dive-bomber"

When did 70* become vertical? Is this the 'new math'?

It doesn't take a genious to understand that the dive limit angle is 70*. If the limit was more it would have been stated.

No it wouldn't.
But at least you've cleared the air. We're arguing semantics.
It's true both Shores and Hallion say the Pe-2 attacked in a 70 degree dive.
You interpret this as a design restriction.
I interpret it as a operational decision.
Hallion explains what he means by "70 degrees". He says the Ju87 attacked at a "very steep angle" of 60 to 80 degrees. But you would be wrong to conclude the Ju87 was restricted to a dive angle of 80 degrees. It wasn't. The Ju87 could and did attack at 90 degrees whenever pinpoint accuracy was required. Ditto the Pe-2.
Everybody including Hallion calls the Pe-2 a dive bomber, which means it had dive brakes, and a system for automatic pullout (which the Russians would have copied from Vultee who built them a factory), and bombs released from outside the propeller arcs. The Pe-2 must have had all these to qualify as a dive bomber.
But it had more. According to Hallion; "Designed to an ultimate safety factor of 11g, the Pe-2 obviously had the ruggedness to be operated with abandon by its crews". That is inconsistent with a restricted dive angle of 70 degrees
For myself I will not believe the Pe-2 was restricted to a dive angle of 70 degrees.
But Franek is right; such a restriction if it existed would be included in the Pilot's Notes, which no one has.
Tony

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Tony
We do not have any problem, you have. Dive bomber is an aircraft able to drop bombs in a dive not necessarily perpendicular. He 177 was also a dive bomber but it was hardly able to stand up a shallow dive, so does not fit to your theory. Come on.

Come on yourself, Franek. Look at the facts. Ernst Heinkel's Luftwaffenfeuerzeug was a dive bomber. He may have been lying. I don't know, but I'll take his word over yours. He certainly had enough time to make it into a dive bomber after telling Udet it couldn't be done.

You won't believe me, so I'll quote what Heinkel said.
"Even after Udet's death, leading men in the Technical Office and in the general staff .... could not be moved to take back their demand for dive bombing capabilities, despite the need for a long-range, heavily armed giant plane at the front. But even after the production of an airframe stable enough for absolute dives, the use of the DB 606 (later DB 610) coupled engine remained the plane's achilles heel". page 283 of 'Stormy Life' by Ernst Heinkel.

AFAIK the He 177 had dive brakes, automatic pullout, a system for releasing bombs outside the propeller arcs, and was stressed for "absolute dives" which means from the vertical. That made it a dive bomber.



Are you still sure it's me with the problem?

Tony

[John Beaman]

OK, guys, let's cool the tone of th rhetoric here! Stop the personal characterizations and stick to dive-bombing issues. Otherwise, I'll lock this thread.

Also, we've gotten WAY off base with the subject matter which is the place of the P-39 in history. Let's stick to that.

If you want a separate thread on dive bombing, set it up in the WWII in General forum. and, be cool!

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by John Beaman

OK, guys, let's cool the tone of th rhetoric here! Stop the personal characterizations and stick to dive-bombing issues. Otherwise, I'll lock this thread.

Also, we've gotten WAY off base with the subject matter which is the place of the P-39 in history. Let's stick to that.

If you want a separate thread on dive bombing, set it up in the WWII in General forum. and, be cool!

Yes and no, John.

Yes, let's stay cool, and avoid personal characterizations. But no, we have not gotten off base with the P-39's place in history.

Please note what's really going on here.

There are greater issues here than dive bombing and the P-39, and these greater issues determine the P-39's place in history.

We're talking trees and wood. The place of the P-39 tree is determined in some degree by the place of the VVS wood in history.

And discussing that brings into question the validity of the consensus view of the WWII air war. The Pe-2 is related to the P-39 and Il-2 in that all three types of aircraft were rejected by the RAF/USAAF, and rejected with feeling. Any arguments made in their favour come up against this RAF/USAAF weltanschauung. And putting that in doubt is like questioning motherhood and apple pie; the person doing it must be a troll, which is what I have been accused of.

It's a pity there are no Russian contributors. Then we wouldn't be arguing over basic facts about the Pe-2, which was one of WWII's most successful aircraft designs. We've had the same disagreements with the P-39 and Il-2. But that's indicative of the wider problem. A Russian contributor might also stand up for the importance of effective tactical aircraft and the general irrelevance of strategic aircraft to victory in WWII.

The RAF/USAAF worldview has quasi cult status. Many have internalised it. A statement that the RAF/USAAF got it wrong tends to produce howls of outrage, charges of trolling, and counter-charges about Russian inhumanity and the loss rate of the Il-2. That says buckets about those who obviously have a lot invested. But having emotion involved is not conducive to rational debate.

Tony