Why the USAAF gave up on the A-36 in favour of the P-47.

[tcolvin]

Thank you, Graham.

I would only make the point that it is not my repetition that makes "the divebomber .. the best solution for air-to-ground in all circumstances", but the fact that the dive-bomber was uniquely accurate in an environment where a near miss didn't cut it, and was worse than useless because it wasted scarce resources.

Tony

[tcolvin]

You tell me, Nick.

I thought the Spitfire IX (416mph) could not compete with the TA-152 (472mph), and was superseded by the Spitfire Mk XIV (439mph) and Tempest V (435mph), which had also replaced the Typhoon (412mph).

But I agree of course that it was fighters that seized command of German airspace.

Some of these same fighters when fitted with air brakes and bombs could also have turned the lights out in Germany and ended the war before D-Day by destroying the 90 large electricity generating stations on which German war production depended. This strategy would have been cheaper and more certain of success than the alternative of trying to destroy the largest 100 German cities.

Tony

[Kutscha]

There was less than a dozen Ta152Hs operational at any one time. It was only above 40,000' that such speeds were achieved by the Ta152H and even then it required GM1 to do so. At sea level it was slower than the Spit IX and had a lower climb rate > up to 1500fpm less.

The Tempest hardly replaced the Typhoon in squadron service with only 4 of the 30 Typhoon squadrons converting to Tempests.

Now that is an interesting concept. Use war weary a/c in the high stress dive bombing role. Not hard to miss the target when one is a lawn dart.

Yes be sure that 250lb or even 500lb bomb dropped by a single a/c could destroy power station complexes. How were these converted fighters to fly into German airspace before D-Day when they could not even reach the German border without carrying drop tanks?

Graham, Spit XVIs had rear fuselage fuel tanks. These were fitted initially in late 1944.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Yes be sure that 250lb or even 500lb bomb dropped by a single a/c could destroy power station complexes. How were these converted fighters to fly into German airspace before D-Day when they could not even reach the German border without carrying drop tanks?

Graham, Spit XVIs had rear fuselage fuel tanks. These were fitted initially in late 1944.

Kutscha - technically the P-51B-7 or its modified equivalent B/C could perhaps reach Hanover and Brunswick/Kassel and maybe Freiderichshafen radius with 500 pound bombs on the internal fuel including the 85 gallon fuse tank. Certainly could make it with one 500 pounder and one 75 gallon tank.. Ditto P-38J - both of which in ops prior to May 1944.

Having said that, I have no idea what percent of the Electrical Power Generation plants coud be reached.

[Kutscha]

A Lancaster could carry 14 1000lb bombs.



Or 6 2000lb bombs



So why waste a squadron of dive bombers when one Lancaster could deliver the same weight of bombs that would shake the earth more than a 500lber?

Then there is this load out of up to 18 500lb + 1 4000lb,



The German power system, except for isolated raids, was never a target during the air war. An attack was extensively debated during the course of the war. It was not undertaken partly because it was believed that the German power grid was highly developed and that losses in one area could be compensated by switching power from another. This assumption, detailed investigation by the Survey has established, was incorrect.

20/20 hindsight is so wonderful.

What you failed to mention Tony is those 95 plants produced 50,000 kw. or more, and those 45 plants produced 100,000 kw. or more. Naturally, all were in easy range of the dive bombers.

Another thing you failed to take into consideration was the German response to the first few attacks on the power plants.

How long would it take from the time pencil was put to paper for dive brakes till at least one squadron of a/c was operational? How long would it take to set up and produce the parts required for the dive brakes and what would you cut from production to facilitate the manufacturing of these components?

You may be right, Juha, about the accuracy of glider bombing, but from my knowledge of what actually happened on the battlefield in February-March 1945, 2TAF could not do it effectively. However, that may be explained by the politically correct attitude of the RAF brass in never getting close to the army (evidence the crap thrown at Broadhurst for doing so) and their poor equipment - never let it be said 2TAF pilots were the problem.

More likely from the stress of being under fire.

Though these are for the 190 and 109, they can be applicable to the Allied dive bombers.




BTW, shouldn't these dive bomb topics be in the WW2 General Forum.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

You tell me, Nick.

I thought the Spitfire IX (416mph) could not compete with the TA-152 (472mph), and was superseded by the Spitfire Mk XIV (439mph) and Tempest V (435mph), which had also replaced the Typhoon (412mph).
Tony

You only have to read some combat reports to see how seldom aircraft in action came even close to their maximum speed in level flight. For that matter the Me 262 could make 540 mph and look how many of them got shot down.

Fascinating though the type is, the Ta 152 was of almost zero significance, with barely 20 (IIRC) making it into service.

Yes the RAF brought in faster aircraft than the Spitfire IX but that is not the same as the Mk IX no longer being a viable type in combat - it was used in large numbers up until the end and I don't recall reading of any occasions where it was outclassed and massacred by the opposition.

As for the Typhoon, its use for ground attack was consistent with the Luftwaffe's conversion of the Schlachtgeschwader to the Fw 190 F and the USAAF's reliance on the P-47.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Yes the RAF brought in faster aircraft than the Spitfire IX but that is not the same as the Mk IX no longer being a viable type in combat - it was used in large numbers up until the end and I don't recall reading of any occasions where it was outclassed and massacred by the opposition.

Appearantly it wasn't messarcred but ignored. Clostermann wrote about this (the situation in the 2nd TAF in late 1944):

The Spitfires were powerless. There was only one Wing of three Spitfire XIV Squadrons and the rest were equipped with Spitfire IXs or Spit XVIs (Spit IXs with Rolls-Royce engines built by Packard in the U.S.A.). In any case all the Spit IX Squadrons operated most of the time as fighter-bombers. The Huns, knowing the Spits quality in dogfight, carefully avoided taking them on, and the poor Spits had neither the speed nor the range to force the new German fighters to fight.

Clostermann's Big Show, page 214.

BTW he didn't mean the 262 but rather uprated piston engined fighters of the LW with MW-50 and other boosts (ie. G-14s, A-8s, A-9s, D-9s). These had some significant speed advantage (up to 40-70 km/h) over the Mark IX that was just introduced in service in numbers.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The Huns, knowing the Spits quality in dogfight, carefully avoided taking them on …

Clostermann's Big Show, page 214. BTW he didn't mean the 262 but rather uprated piston engined fighters of the LW with MW-50 and other boosts (ie. G-14s, A-8s, A-9s, D-9s). These had some significant speed advantage (up to 40-70 km/h) over the Mark IX that was just introduced in service in numbers.

I'm quite familiar with Clostermann's book and the reliability of some of his observations. If the Germans really avoided taking on the Spitfire IX at a time when much of their fighter effort in the west was in defence of their own supply lines against fighter-bombers, doesn't that rather reinforce my point that it remained a viable combat aircraft in 1945?

[tcolvin]

Nick, it was you I believe, who evidenced the Spitfire IX/XVI to rebut my statement that 2TAF operated retired air-superiority fighters for the sake of convenience.

Surely Clostermann's statement that Spitfire IX/XVIs were powerless, because they lacked the speed necessary to enforce air superiority, revealed the truth they were well past their sell-by date as air-superiority fighters in 1945.

Their manoeuverability was such, however, that faster German fighters left them alone, but that is a different point and the reason Austers and L4s were rarely troubled either.

Hill, CO of 662 Sqn, described what happened to two FW-190 pilots who decided to 'have a go' near Nijmegen at end September 1944 with one of his Austers, flown of course by a soldier. "A 'C' Flight pilot, called Cracknell, got the warning of bandits. He came down very low for ten minutes and then, seeing three Spitfires flying above him, decided that he would continue his registration shoot. Unfortunately above the Spitfires and flying in and out of clouds were two FW-190s. They pushed their noses down and went straight at him. He saw them and dived for the ground. One of the Spitfires also saw them, dived after them and shot one down and then crashed himself. For ten minutes we then watched the FW and the Auster have a battle. Round the trees, down the side of the river, round the chimneys of the power station. The FW got in four bursts but missed each time. Eventually he decided the AA was getting too hot and cleared off. The Auster landed and had to be completely re-rigged - one wing had gone back about one inch during the attack."

Tony

[tcolvin]

Kutscha; your comments reveal misunderstandings.

1. Agreed, that since there were so few Ta152s, and little petrol, nothing much mattered any more.

2. 2TAF did not operate "war-weary a/c", but rather obsolescent designs.
The Typhoon was designed as an air-superiority fighter, and replaced in that role by the Tempest V. But instead of shutting down Typhoon manufacture, the Typhoon IB continued to be built as an inaccurate fighter-bomber for the reasons given by the RAF - stable platform, reliable, big lift, infrastructure in place, etc, etc. Retired air-superiority fighter is surely the right description. RAF convenience trumped military need. The interesting question is how the RAF managed, and still manages, to get away with it.

3. You can be sure that 250lb and 500lb bombs could destroy 'power station complexes' with catastrophic results for the Germans, because the Strategic Bombing Survey said so. Destruction of the five largest German stations would have removed 8% of installed capacity; 45 plants 33%; and 95 plants over 50%. As little as one 500-lb bomb per acre of plant area would have disrupted operations for months, and 1,000 lbs of bombs per acre put the plant out of operation for 6 months to a year or longer. All these tonnages are in the Strategic Bombing Survey, which stated that, “all evidence indicates that the destruction of such installations would have a catastrophic effect on Germany’s war production.” The reason why electricity generating stations are peculiarly vulnerable to small bombs is because it takes only a small shock to disturb the rotor on its bearings, requiring plant shutdown until the bearings are repaired/replaced/re-balanced. The consequences of instantaneous removal of a power station is a nightmare for balancing the load within the distribution grid. And remember, once the Ruhr, or any of the other grids, had been brought down, any attempt to re-start could have been detected by aircraft fitted with equipment to detect the electro-magnetic radiation of the high voltage transmission lines, and triggered the return of the dive-bombers. The Germans could not have won this battle.

Tony