RAF and dive-bombing.

[tcolvin]

So much past ink and emotion have been spilt on this board over the RAF's refusal to countenance dive-bombing in support of the army, that we have no need for a rehash.

But I have been knocked out of my socks by a book casually picked up last Friday, and then immediately bought, by Bill Simpson, called 'Spitfire Dive-Bombers Versus the V2' (Pen & Sword 2007). What was so arresting was Simpson's view that dive-bombing requires by definition a dive angle of 70 plus degrees, and that what passed for dive-bombing in 2 TAF – a 30 to 40 degree dive angle – was just inaccurate 'skip-bombing' and should never be called 'dive-bombing'.


Simpson quotes Clostermann, who referenced Sqn Ldr Max Sutherland (453 Sqn). Sutherland “evolved a method for delivering a 500-lb bomb from the fuselage centre line (of a Spitfire IX or XVI) .... he dived at an angle of 75 degrees (from 12,000 ft) with the target in the gunsight and at full throttle. At 3,000 ft he would begin to pull out, count three and release the bombs (sic – presumably two 250-lb under the wings and one 500-lb on the centreline). Eventually, with practice, the pilots could place them within a 450 yd circle”.


Simpson quotes Fl Lt Raymond Baxter (yes, that one) (602 Sqn).....”approach made at 8,000 ft .... never below 5,000 ft .....speed reduced to 200 knots ..... rolled ..... target lined up in the centre of the unlocked gyro-gunsight .... throttled back and trimmed into what was effectively a hands-off dive at about 70 degrees .... Once trimmed, and with the throttle pulled back, the Mk XVI held very steady when hurtling groundward, which allowed you to make full use of the excellent Mk II gunsight ...... the gunsight graticule was brought to bear on the target .... We never really monitored our dive speeds .... I think 360 mph was a typical maximum ..... bombs (presumably only 250-lbs under the wings) usually released at 3,000 ft – no lower than 1,500 ft – and the aircraft was then pulled out to escape at low level. An experienced pilot could bomb accurately to within 25 to 30 yards”. If the bombs failed to release, then the aircraft would usually break up during the attempted pull-out.


Now, if a very slippery aircraft like a UK-based Spitfire Mk XVI of 12 Group, Fighter Command, without airbrakes, and without a cradle to ensure a bomb carried on the centre-line was released outside the propeller arc, was used as a true dive-bomber against V2s launched in the Hague in an environment of intense light Flak in order to minimise collateral damage to Dutch civilians, (while 2 TAF refused requests from Fighter Command to use Belgium-based Mosquitos employing skip-bombing because of the risk to aircrew of exploding rockets), then many questions arise both about 2 TAF's refusal to dive-bomb in support of the army, and about the universally accepted view that dive-bombing needed a specialist aircraft and could not be performed by fighters.


The only conclusion I can reach from Simpson's book is that the RAF's (and 2 TAF's) views about dive-bombing were as wrong as their views about long-range escorting of bombers by fighters; viz: a long range fighter (like the Me-110) was no good as an air-superiority fighter. It was only when the USAAF sent Thunderbolts and Mustangs on long-penetration flights into Germany that the RAF accepted that they had been wrong all along for years.


Fighter Command (and ADGB) Spitfire pilots privately discovered a way of solving the problem of the V2s through the trial-and-error development of dive-bombing. They didn't know it was 'impossible' and 'forbidden'.



The RAF and 2 TAF never looked for, and therefore never found, a way to solve the Army's problem of accurate battlefield dive-bombing. To save face the RAF were willing to suppress news of the success of the Vengeance in the Far East and to turn a blind eye to Max Sutherland's tactical introduction of Spitfire dive-bombing by Fighter Command.


It is most peculiar that the story of true dive-bombing by Spitfires did not come out until 2007. The reason must be because it was not regarded as interesting and wouldn't sell. Simpson is interested in the men and the machines and the minutiae of their lives, and seems to be completely unaware of the controversy over how the RAF got away with only going through the motions of providing air support to the army.


This is extraordinary, and ultimately baffling.


Tony