Dive bombers replaced all light bombers before WW2

[ATP]

Light bombers /one engine or two,but with small number of bombs/were produced becouse were economical,but was disaster - small payloads,and modern fighters massacred them.
Now,assume that all countries which made them get dive bombers instead.

How would that change WW2 ?

For example - Poland had 205 PZL P.23B light bombers in 1939,which achieved little - except sloving one german armored corps for one day.
But we had dive bomber version,PZL P.42 - if we have them instead,then we could do that to few german armored corps.
More polish dyvisions could widraw - but,since soviets would come anyway,and our idiot leader Rydz-śmigły forbade army from fighting them,we wluld lost as quickly.
Only difference - more dead german soldiers,polish strongpoints would fight longer.

But France in 1940 is different matter.Fairey Battle,Blenheims,Potez63 and Breguet B.693 could not destroy german bridges - but their dive bomber version could do that.
French armies would hold Seine river,and war would last till 1942 - when Stalin would backstab his german allies and take half of Europe,not only eastern part.
After that,he could probably attack and conqer France and England,and since entire Africa belonged to Europe,he would take it,too.
Soviets would still fall thanks to economy,but instead of 100-200 millions of commie victims,we would have billion or so.
Becouse workers in Western Europe belived in their rights - and all such workers in soviet union were murdered by CZK and replaced by farmers.
Now,they would must send to Gulags 50% of Western Europe population.

 

[Navarro]

The problems France had in 1940 were doctrinal, not technological. They had plenty of planes, they just spent the Battle of France sitting in central depots.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Light bombers /one engine or two,but with small number of bombs/were produced becouse were economical,but was disaster - small payloads,and modern fighters massacred them.

Dive bombers are light bombers, they just use a different deployment method. But they have the same issues of limited payloads and poor performance in a dogfight.

 

[ATP]

The problems France had in 1940 were doctrinal, not technological. They had plenty of planes, they just spent the Battle of France sitting in central depots.

You are probably right.France doomed itself by poor doctrine.Even if dive bombers destroyed all german bridges,french doctrine would not change.They would last longer,but not long enough for soviets to backstab their german allies.

What dive bombers could change elsywhere ? I think,that Italy would profit from that.
If they have dive bombers instead of Breda B.65 light bombers,british would be less succesfull during Compass operation in 1940,and take real loses on sea.
In OTL Italy send many medium bombers against british ships,but they achieved practically nothing.Now british fleet would lost many ships there,maybe even some older carriers.

Would it be enough to help them win ? no,but british fleet in 1940 or 1941 would evacuated from Mediterraean sea.They could take Malta,Alexandria,maybe entire Egypt...and still lost.

P.S @Battlegrinder is right,they usually were massacred by fighters.Only exception were when japanees Val engaged british Fulmars in 1942,then they could fight relativelly well.
But only becouse Fulmar was shitty fighter,when they tried that with anything else they died.

 

[Aldarion]

You are probably right.France doomed itself by poor doctrine.Even if dive bombers destroyed all german bridges,french doctrine would not change.They would last longer,but not long enough for soviets to backstab their german allies.

What dive bombers could change elsywhere ? I think,that Italy would profit from that.
If they have dive bombers instead of Breda B.65 light bombers,british would be less succesfull during Compass operation in 1940,and take real loses on sea.
In OTL Italy send many medium bombers against british ships,but they achieved practically nothing.Now british fleet would lost many ships there,maybe even some older carriers.

Would it be enough to help them win ? no,but british fleet in 1940 or 1941 would evacuated from Mediterraean sea.They could take Malta,Alexandria,maybe entire Egypt...and still lost.

P.S @Battlegrinder is right,they usually were massacred by fighters.Only exception were when japanees Val engaged british Fulmars in 1942,then they could fight relativelly well.
But only becouse Fulmar was shitty fighter,when they tried that with anything else they died.

Bombers in general were massacred by fighters... be it dive bombers, torpedo bombers, medium bombers, heavy bombers... the best tactics was to send fighters in first and keep enemy fighters and AAA busy, or to sacrifice torpedo bombers so that dive bombers can set up their attack unimpeded (Midway).

 

[Husky_Khan]

Still vulnerable or not, dive bombers were probably still much better then light bombers generally speaking. They typically get massacred by fighters and AA, just not quite as easily as light bombers would. And so they would be more survivable, more efficient and more accurate in broad terms AFAIK.

 

[ATP]

Still vulnerable or not, dive bombers were probably still much better then light bombers generally speaking. They typically get massacred by fighters and AA, just not quite as easily as light bombers would. And so they would be more survivable, more efficient and more accurate in broad terms AFAIK.

Yes.For example,in 1940 vritish send Fairey Battles to destroy bridges,which get massacred for nothing.If they habe dive bombers instead,they would still get massacred,but those bridges would be gone.
But, like @Navarro said,Considering France doctrine,it still would change nothing.

Italian with losts of dive bombers in 1940 - it would not win war,but made british bleed.Maybe even partially destroy their fleet.And war would be longer.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Dive bombers are not a magic win buttons, you need pilots specially trained in this mode of bombing and a developed doctrine for their use. People often overlook the fact that Stukas were only part of the Luftwaffe/Wehrmacht cooperation plan, they had forward air controlers to call in the strikes and forces trained to exploit the suppression effect of these strikes (Stukas were nowhere as accurate as they are memed to be).

 

[ATP]

Dive bombers are not a magic win buttons, you need pilots specially trained in this mode of bombing and a developed doctrine for their use. People often overlook the fact that Stukas were only part of the Luftwaffe/Wehrmacht cooperation plan, they had forward air controlers to call in the strikes and forces trained to exploit the suppression effect of these strikes (Stukas were nowhere as accurate as they are memed to be).

Good point.Soviet Pe 2 were dive bomber,but from 1941 used as horizontal one.Why? soviets almost till end of war send fresh pilots to front,so they do not knew how to dive.Strange.
Even in 1947,when soviet Pe 2 and Tu 2 was send to attack captured and towed Graf Zeppelin with fake bombs,they use 100 - and only 6 hit.

So,if italian use fresh pilots it would change nothing - but good one,with bombs made from 320mm and 380mm schels,could maimed british fleet and stop their army.
They could take Egypt and maybe even Iraq - but still lost war.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Pe-2 also didn't take the stress of dive bombing too well

but good one,with bombs made from 320mm and 380mm schels,could maimed british fleet and stop their army.

Only if you remove RAF, Fleet air and anti-aircraft defense, while magically increasing the skills of Italian aviators.

 

[Zachowon]

As someone who knows AAA REWALLY well.....Dive bombing worked worse in that case....

 

[ATP]

Pe-2 also didn't take the stress of dive bombing too well


Only if you remove RAF, Fleet air and anti-aircraft defense, while magically increasing the skills of Italian aviators.

In 1940 RAF had only tree dyvisions of Hurricanes in Egypt,and their fleet still used Fulmars,which had problems with japaneese dive bombers in 1942.And get massacred by D.520 in Syria.
But AA would be problem.

And italian aviators were quite good,their problem was weak engines/that is why they used medium bombers with 3 engines/
and bad tactic - using horizontal bombers to target ships worked only in Pearl Harbour.

But in 1941 RAF would get more Hurricanes,so dive bombers would be less efficient.After british send Spitfires there,dive bombers could survive only with strong escort of Mc202.
But british navy would use sea Hurricanes and Wildcats,so Mc200 as escorts would be enough.

I read,that last generation of italian fighters,like Mc205 ,G.55 or Re2005,could use 640kg bombs and be used as dive bombers - they should work even against all USA and british navy fighters in 1943.In 1944 and later - i do not knew.

 

[Vargas Fan]

If you'e going to class all twin engines as useless, that's going to apply to the Luftwaffe as well. The triumvurate of the Heinkel 111, Junkers 88 and especially the Dornier 17 were not particularly heavy bomb carriers. And for all the way you're trying to make dive bombers as a magic weapon, the Stukas got pretty brutalised in the Battle of Britain. Don't forget the Allies also had dive bombers that had varying success, the British Skua for instance didn't do particularly well. The Japanese Aichi D3 Val did well but that was also because at Pearl Harbor the Japanese Kudo Butai were very experienced and well trained.

You might argue that US Torpedo bombers had heavy losses early in the war but that was two factors, like many aircraft of that time, the rapid development of aircraft technology quickly rendered many aircraft obsolete, like the Battle, and the US Devastator which combined with the notorious US torpedos at the time didn't do so well despite the bravery of their pilots.

 

[Zachowon]

If you'e going to class all twin engines as useless, that's going to apply to the Luftwaffe as well. The triumvurate of the Heinkel 111, Junkers 88 and especially the Dornier 17 were not particularly heavy bomb carriers. And for all the way you're trying to make dive bombers as a magic weapon, the Stukas got pretty brutalised in the Battle of Britain. Don't forget the Allies also had dive bombers that had varying success, the British Skua for instance didn't do particularly well. The Japanese Aichi D3 Val did well but that was also because at Pearl Harbor the Japanese Kudo Butai were very experienced and well trained.

You might argue that US Torpedo bombers had heavy losses early in the war but that was two factors, like many aircraft of that time, the rapid development of aircraft technology quickly rendered many aircraft obsolete, like the Battle, and the US Devastator which combined with the notorious US torpedos at the time didn't do so well despite the bravery of their pilots.

US Dive Bombers in the pacific were a lot better then people give credit for. the SPD Dauntless was pretty good

 

[Vargas Fan]

US Dive Bombers in the pacific were a lot better then people give credit for. the SPD Dauntless was pretty good

I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that Dive Bombers as mentioned before aren't a magic cure all. Carrier forces generally prefer to have a mix of fighters, torpedo craft and dive bombers. I know the Dauntless was a decent aircraft and like most USN aircraft was pretty sturdy. However, the OP seems to think that dive bombers are a magic weapon, they aren't, they take a great deal of training and nerve to use properly, as well as a bit of luck.

 

[Zachowon]

I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that Dive Bombers as mentioned before aren't a magic cure all. Carrier forces generally prefer to have a mix of fighters, torpedo craft and dive bombers. I know the Dauntless was a decent aircraft and like most USN aircraft was pretty sturdy. However, the OP seems to think that dive bombers are a magic weapon, they aren't, they take a great deal of training and nerve to use properly, as well as a bit of luck.

They are only really effective against ships towards the end of war because of how good torpedo bombers and conventional bombers got

 

[PsihoKekec]

And no one used dive bombers in ground campaigns at the end of war. I wonder why.

 

[Aldarion]

And no one used dive bombers in ground campaigns at the end of war. I wonder why.

Because dedicated ground attack aircraft proved superior: cannons were much more accurate than bombs.

 

[Zachowon]

Because dedicated ground attack aircraft proved superior: cannons were much more accurate than bombs.

Eh, yes and no. You can use a fighter/bomber to more affect as it doesnt have to dive, it can drop as it flys or do an improvised dive for a short distance and then fly out and defend itself

 

[ATP]

I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that Dive Bombers as mentioned before aren't a magic cure all. Carrier forces generally prefer to have a mix of fighters, torpedo craft and dive bombers. I know the Dauntless was a decent aircraft and like most USN aircraft was pretty sturdy. However, the OP seems to think that dive bombers are a magic weapon, they aren't, they take a great deal of training and nerve to use properly, as well as a bit of luck.

Sorry if i was unclear,but i do not belive that dive bombers were magic cure.Only that horizontal bombers till heavy bombers come was waste of resources against any enemy with good fighters.
And becouse countries with poor fighters,like Poland fell quickly,after that anybody should made either dive or heavy bombers.
Preferable both.

Germany and Hungary could use medium bombers against soviets till 1945 only becouse soviet air force sucked.And even they used mostly Ju88 in dive bomber version.

Now,what italian dive bombers/some dive version of Breda Ba65/ could achieve ?
1.1940 - british had small number of fighters there,so they could act freely there.With 400kg bombs made from 320 schells they could not sink battleships,but carriers and cruisers are another matter.If british fleet do not widraw,they would be bloodied.

2.1941 - they could partially stop operation Compass,targeting british trucks.Tobruk would remain in Italian hands,and germans do not need send more then one dyvision there.
British navy fighters still sucked,so their fleet could do nothing - Malta would probably fall.And dive bombers get 640kg bombs,which mean pssibility of sunking battleships.

Which mean one more tank dyvision and Rommel against soviets - Leningrad could fall this time.

3.1942 - with more german resources on East,Stalingrad would fall and 6 army do not get destroyed.
Turkey joined war against soviets.
Italian with one german dyvision still do not take Egypt,and their dive bombers would face Spitfires.This mean end of their land career,but against british navy they still would do.

4.1943 - Germans ad Leningrad and Stalingrad, heavy fighting there.but till the end of year soviet would reclaim Don river.
Turkey fight in Caucasus mountains.
Italian start using new fighters/Re2005 etc/ with 640 kg bombs,efficient against allied fleet.Italy still lost Africa,but nothing more.

4.1944 - soviets come to Dniepr river,retake Leningrad.And most of Turkey.
Italy invaded and surrender,german fight there near Alps/american forces fighting better then in 1943 OTL/

5.1945 - soviet take Wisła river,Allies take all of Italy,Hungary and probably Bulgary.Maybe Constantinopole,too.War end with A bombs on Berlin.

Result - soviets take less in Europe/only Poland and Romania/ but get Turkey.And british navy lost more ships.War last 4 months longer.