Even then, compared to their support ships, they were not the BEST but damn good
Dive bombers replaced all light bombers before WW2
- Thread starter ATP
- Start date
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Which support ships? Destroyers, adjusted for the weight simply couldn't compete, due to the lack proximity fuses, cruisers could perhaps compete, but usually didn't have as good fire control facilities. To stop a kamikaze, who got through the fighter screen, from reaching the carriers, the best bet was on the AAA from the battleships.
I forget the US went overboard on arming our BS. I forget they had powerful fighter screens
The Dido class was perpetually handicapped by the lack of adequate 5.25" gun production (they were supposed to have five twin turrets but most of them only had four because Britain literally could not build enough guns) and by the severe technical flaws of the 5.25" gun itself.
The Atlanta class was the most capable AA warship fielded in WWII, carrying the superb 5"/38 DP gun with the same top tier fire control as American battleships and delivering a *greater* AA broadside since it carried them as centerline superfiring main guns rather than secondaries.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
From what I understood, 5,25'' gun was actually quite good, though some preferred 4,5'' gun due to lighter shells and better traverse rates. Problems with guns were actually often problems with ships themselves, which in turn were mostly a consequence of British way-too-strict adherence to treaties - cramped mountings in KGV battleships may have been a consequence of that as well, seeing how these ships were cramped in general (main guns also had some issues with ammunition feed).
The main technical issue with the 5.25" gun was that the shells were too heavy, which was severely exacerbated by the physical mountings being excessively cramped.
The unusual 5.25" caliber was selected for these weapons on the basis that it provided the maximum possible weight of shell that could still be manually handled by an average gun crew, except that this was a purely academic determination by the Admiralty which ignored prior operational experience with the 4.7"/40 Mark XII, which was intended to be a DP gun but which had proven unable to sustain rapid high-angle fire due to the 74-pound fixed shells rapidly exhausting the gun loading crews. The exact same problem recurred with the prototype 5.1"/50 QF Mark I gun of the early 1930s and then again with the 4.5"/45 QF Mark I of the mid-1930s, both of which also could not achieve their designed rates of fire due to the shells being too heavy.
Undeterred by these prior experiences (and also ignoring any sense of logistical streamlining with 5", 4.7" and 4.5" weapons already in service), the Admiralty insisted that the 5.25" DP mounts would achieve 12 rounds per minute with manual shell handling. In reality, the mounts could never exceed a practical rate of seven to eight rounds per minute even under ideal conditions. Even the redesigned mounts on HMS Vanguard, which were both substantially less cramped and featured automated fuze-setting, only managed 9 rounds per minute. For comparison, the U.S. Navy's 5"/38 DP mounts, with lighter shells and a high degree of mechanical assistance in the loading process, consistently fired 22-25 rounds per minute with on-mount ready ammunition and 15 rounds per minute sustained from the hoists.
In addition, the size and weight of the mountings meant that traverse and elevation rates in manually operated mode were simply too slow, at only 10 degrees per second both elevating and traversing; only half the rates that could be achieved in power operated mode. This was specifically identified as a major factor in the loss of Prince of Wales, as her 5.25" mounts literally could not keep up with the attacking aircraft.
Finally, the issue from strict treaty adherence was that the Didos were very lightly built and had severe issues with the bow flexing while turning or in heavy weather, which led to "A" turret in the early Didos specifically having extreme issues with jamming. This was mitigated with careful stiffening of the bows and attention to fittings in later ships of the class, although firsthand reports from sailors were that the "A" mount was still generally unreliable.
The unusual 5.25" caliber was selected for these weapons on the basis that it provided the maximum possible weight of shell that could still be manually handled by an average gun crew, except that this was a purely academic determination by the Admiralty which ignored prior operational experience with the 4.7"/40 Mark XII, which was intended to be a DP gun but which had proven unable to sustain rapid high-angle fire due to the 74-pound fixed shells rapidly exhausting the gun loading crews. The exact same problem recurred with the prototype 5.1"/50 QF Mark I gun of the early 1930s and then again with the 4.5"/45 QF Mark I of the mid-1930s, both of which also could not achieve their designed rates of fire due to the shells being too heavy.
Undeterred by these prior experiences (and also ignoring any sense of logistical streamlining with 5", 4.7" and 4.5" weapons already in service), the Admiralty insisted that the 5.25" DP mounts would achieve 12 rounds per minute with manual shell handling. In reality, the mounts could never exceed a practical rate of seven to eight rounds per minute even under ideal conditions. Even the redesigned mounts on HMS Vanguard, which were both substantially less cramped and featured automated fuze-setting, only managed 9 rounds per minute. For comparison, the U.S. Navy's 5"/38 DP mounts, with lighter shells and a high degree of mechanical assistance in the loading process, consistently fired 22-25 rounds per minute with on-mount ready ammunition and 15 rounds per minute sustained from the hoists.
In addition, the size and weight of the mountings meant that traverse and elevation rates in manually operated mode were simply too slow, at only 10 degrees per second both elevating and traversing; only half the rates that could be achieved in power operated mode. This was specifically identified as a major factor in the loss of Prince of Wales, as her 5.25" mounts literally could not keep up with the attacking aircraft.
Finally, the issue from strict treaty adherence was that the Didos were very lightly built and had severe issues with the bow flexing while turning or in heavy weather, which led to "A" turret in the early Didos specifically having extreme issues with jamming. This was mitigated with careful stiffening of the bows and attention to fittings in later ships of the class, although firsthand reports from sailors were that the "A" mount was still generally unreliable.
The main problems with early war light bombers were that the ones that are seen as kinda useless were built with insufficiently powerful engines, kinda ruining one of the purposes of being light bombers - ability to avoid effective interception (fighters were getting major advancements at the same time so it was bound to happen), and overall pre-war optimism about accuracy of level bombing.
In comparison dive bombers were a specialist tool for accurate by the era's standards delivery of bombs, with a specific set of tactics that had their obvious strengths and weaknesses.
If played well to them, they worked, if not, they got massacred by fighters or heavy AA.
OTOH with better planes and tactics, the general idea behind light bombers was implemented and appreciated at work by both sides, to a large degree evolving into fighter-bombers. Germans loved their JaBo Bf 110's and FW-190D's, British loved their Mosquitos, Soviets loved their Pe-2's.
What changed? For one all these planes had enough performance to be hard to intercept for the fighters of the time, if not being able to turn around and fight back if necessary (unlike something like Blenheim or Battle), with a bonus of getting out of the flak range quicker, and used bombing tactics meant to increase accuracy over just flying level at any meaningful altitude, which was so inaccurate that it required large numbers of large bombers to hit the main target by the sheer chance of dropping many bombs.
In comparison dive bombers were a specialist tool for accurate by the era's standards delivery of bombs, with a specific set of tactics that had their obvious strengths and weaknesses.
If played well to them, they worked, if not, they got massacred by fighters or heavy AA.
OTOH with better planes and tactics, the general idea behind light bombers was implemented and appreciated at work by both sides, to a large degree evolving into fighter-bombers. Germans loved their JaBo Bf 110's and FW-190D's, British loved their Mosquitos, Soviets loved their Pe-2's.
What changed? For one all these planes had enough performance to be hard to intercept for the fighters of the time, if not being able to turn around and fight back if necessary (unlike something like Blenheim or Battle), with a bonus of getting out of the flak range quicker, and used bombing tactics meant to increase accuracy over just flying level at any meaningful altitude, which was so inaccurate that it required large numbers of large bombers to hit the main target by the sheer chance of dropping many bombs.
Vargas Fan
Head over heels in love :)
The other problem was that the rapid pace of aircraft development quickly made aircraft that had been rated as damned good quickly obsolete. The Fairey Battle for instance was fast for its time, which unfortunately was very short. The Dornier 17, especially the 'flying pencil' early versions were also fast but but an anaemic bombload as well as not being as durable as others.
I read,that italian actually made some dive bombers in 1940 /SM86/ but never used them.Officially,becouse british fighters would massacre them.
Which was stupid - british in beginning of 1941 had 3 squadrons of Hurricane in Egypt,and their naval fighters till the end of 1941 was Fulmars,which could be fight even by Cr42.
Of course,after 1941 they would become less and less efficient.Italian would replace them with Mc200 capable of using 400kg bombs,and and third generation fighters with 640kg bombs.
So,Italian in 1941 ,after adding their dive bombers to torpedo bombers and fighter escort,could starve Malta.Which would let Rommel conqer Egypt and Iraq....and still lost after that.
Only difference - less lean-lease for soviets,more countries remain free after WW2.
Which was stupid - british in beginning of 1941 had 3 squadrons of Hurricane in Egypt,and their naval fighters till the end of 1941 was Fulmars,which could be fight even by Cr42.
Of course,after 1941 they would become less and less efficient.Italian would replace them with Mc200 capable of using 400kg bombs,and and third generation fighters with 640kg bombs.
So,Italian in 1941 ,after adding their dive bombers to torpedo bombers and fighter escort,could starve Malta.Which would let Rommel conqer Egypt and Iraq....and still lost after that.
Only difference - less lean-lease for soviets,more countries remain free after WW2.
He's talking about the Savioa-Marchetti SM.85, of which only 34 were made because flight evaluations found that they were grossly deficient in every possible way. They had inadequate speed, inadequate rate of climb, inadequate stability while diving, excessive difficulty in pulling out from diving, frequent uncontrollable spins, and poor visibility for both the pilot and gunner. When the sole SM.85 unit -- the 96 Gruppo Tuffatori -- was sent to Sicily for intended operations against the British Mediterranean fleet, the commander protested that the performance of the aircraft was so limited that any attempt to use them in actual combat guaranteed 100% losses. They were sent anyway.
The British only considered this plane a threat because they mistranslated 96th Gruppo Tuffatori and thought the SM.85s were intended for use as kamikazes, a role in which their large size made them potentially dangerous.
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
yep USN fast battleships where the best AA platforms of the war but considering the cost of building and then running them they weren't the most efficient ships to do the job
Sorry,@ShadowArxxy is right,it was SM85. Italian really need other - that is why i say about dive version of Breda 65.And they made poor bomber Breda 88,which later was converted into dive version/few prototypes/ if they built it from the start as dive bomber and add dive Breda 65,torpedo bombers and fighters escort,Malta in 1941 would really fall.
Of course,they must target only transport.One of reason why italian torpedo bombers had limited succes was their orders - they were ordered to attack warships first.They even damaged few cruisers,but so what ?
Uh, no. The Ba.65 was a reasonably effective ground attack craft, but it was utterly defenseless against fighters, being slow, bulkly, and having no tail guns whatsoever.
The Ba.88 was a handsome enough aircraft, but sadly an absolute failure in aviation design.
The Ba.88 was a handsome enough aircraft, but sadly an absolute failure in aviation design.
Then building dive bomber instead of Ba 65 from the start.They could simle copy american biplane dive bombers,just like they copied P.35 and made Re 2000.Or buy japanesse one,they were allies.And japaneese biplane dive bombers would be enough for transports.
Given that the WWII Italian aviation industry repeatedly and persistently failed to build viable bombers or any time, your assertion that they could "simply" do anything goes against the historical facts. The Ba.88 was the worst of the lot, but it was not an outlier.
Vargas Fan
Head over heels in love :)
Buy Japanese ones because they were allies? The Japanese will be needing all the aircraft they have for themselves eventually and are on a build up.
The Breda 65 was, like other aircraft of that time, rapidly obsolete due to advances and the Ba 88 was an utter failure as a military aircraft. As to 'designing it as a dive bomber', that's not always viable. You saw what happened when the Germans tried to design aircraft like the He-177 in a dual dive bombing and level bombing role, it added to the many problems that aircraft suffered.
You also still have not answered the fact that handwaving away light bombers for shorter ranged dive bombers (as you said in the OP) will affect other aspects of the war like long range bombing missions. During the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe had bomber fleets from Norway attacking the North of England and Scotland, there is no way a Stuka could do the same. Could you make your mind up as the OP proposed replacing all light bombers with dive bombers and it now seems to be supplement them, which is what happened in reality.
The Breda 65 was, like other aircraft of that time, rapidly obsolete due to advances and the Ba 88 was an utter failure as a military aircraft. As to 'designing it as a dive bomber', that's not always viable. You saw what happened when the Germans tried to design aircraft like the He-177 in a dual dive bombing and level bombing role, it added to the many problems that aircraft suffered.
You also still have not answered the fact that handwaving away light bombers for shorter ranged dive bombers (as you said in the OP) will affect other aspects of the war like long range bombing missions. During the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe had bomber fleets from Norway attacking the North of England and Scotland, there is no way a Stuka could do the same. Could you make your mind up as the OP proposed replacing all light bombers with dive bombers and it now seems to be supplement them, which is what happened in reality.