I don't know any for the US, or UK
Dive bombers replaced all light bombers before WW2
- Thread starter ATP
- Start date
I remember some old american movie from WW2 about torpedo boats on Philippines,which in the movie sunked japaneese carrier.Unfortunatelly,i forget tittle.
Back to topic - i just read about italian torpedo bombers in 1940.They never attacked in more then 10 planes,usually without fighter escort,so they accomplished only damaging few cruisers and sunking few carriers -
but could act,becouse british had only Fulmars from carriers and Blenheims from land as fighter escort.If they have then even 30 good dive bombers,and always gave them fighters,they could sunk all that cruisers and stop transports to Malta.
Which,of course,would not change anything except war lasting little longer.And weakening Royal Navy even more.
Vargas Fan
Head over heels in love :)
I still don't know where you're getting the Dive bomber as a wonder win all weapon. It 's an entirely different skill set for one thing. Also, as has been mentioned there is such a thing as onboard AA on ships. You can also guarantee that vessels aren't going to just sit still when there are dive bomber attacks.
Who said about wonder weapons ? if they combined their attack with torpedo bombers,get fighters and target transport ships instead of warships,Malta would fall.
Which means more transports for Rommel.Which means taken Egypt.Which means longer war and less countries taken by soviets.
Vargas Fan
Head over heels in love :)
Even if you target transports, there is no way they will be unescorted. There will still be the flak coverage and fighters also have a range limitation. Remember for instance in the Battle of Britain that Me-109's could only have 10 minutes over sections of the South of England when they were escorting the bombers.
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
And dive bombers aren't known for their long range either.
Those that did carried small bombs
Vargas Fan
Head over heels in love :)
Well trying to get a comparison of contempary dive bombers here.
Junkers 87B with a 500kg bomb is 370 miles.
Blackburn Skuas range is given on wiki at 760 miles which seems more than I would have thought.
SBD Dauntless is 1,115 miles
Aichi D3A 'Val' is given at 840 miles.
I'm assuming that's pretty much max with ideal weather. The Stukas range is very aneamic compared to the others and these aircraft are all pretty much contempary with each other.
They wernt made for long range bombing like the others.
SDB were going in mind with that long range capabilities because they are naval, same woth Val
Yes, but that was a lucky hit while said battleship was moored in harbor and thus a completely static target. Two Stukas, one of which was Rudel, scored 1000-kilogram bomb hits to the forward superstructure, causing a fire which spread into the forward magazines. Rudel was so target fixated on this run that he nearly blew himself out of the sky, disabling the Stuka's automatic dive-recovery system, overriding the dive brakes, and releasing the bomb at only 900 feet instead of the rated 3000 feet and then barely managing to pull out.
First and more important - Merry Christmas.
Now,back to topic.
Italian torpedo bombers in 1941 was ordered attack warships first,that is why they sunk so little ships for Malta.
But if both torpedo and dive bombers attacked at the same time with fighter escort targeting only transport ship,then even CR42 or Mc200 would be enough to fend Fulmar and Blenheims /which was only british fighter escorts then/.
Which leave only flak.And like sunking Repulse and Prince of Wales showed,british AA was not very good - they were attacked by Betty and Nell bombers known as flying lighters,and get sunken after schooting only 4 of them.
British cruisers in 1942 do not fared better again D3 dive bombers,too.
In other worlds,Malta would fall in 1942,Rommel would take Egypt,Palestine and part of Iraq in 1942,and part of Lend-lease send to soviets in OTL would go tp Africa instead.Enough to save Hungary,Czech,Yugoslavia and maybe Bulgary from soviet occupation.
If Turkey joined Germany in 1942,they would take Baku - and then soviet would attack slow enough to let western part of Romania remain free,too.But Poland,and in this scenario Turkey,would be soviet anyway.
So,from my point of viev - nothing really change.
Except, Dive bombers are not going to magically make any of that differently... What kind of bombs can they carry? Also, Torpedo bombers are actually better then Dive Bomberrs as they are less risk, and you can pull out of an attack run easier. Also, do you think it could be that the torpedoes were not the best?
Really your argument makes more sense. What about Malta? What light bombers were there?
Not magically.Simply combo of torpedo and dive bombers attacking only transport could have break Malta,when in OTL there were only torpedo bombers which attacked mostly warships.
And Malta bombers sunked less italian transports then submarines attacking from islands - but both dangers would be eliminated if Italian starve islands in 1941.
In 1942 Rommel lost even 50% of stuff send to him - without that loses,he could,in short term,win.Of course,even after he take Egypt and part of Iraq,allies would kick his off in 1944 from Africa.
And end war in 1945,just like OTL.
Vargas Fan
Head over heels in love :)
So basically this combo is going to ignore all AA fire from warships?
You cite the sinking of Force Z while ignoring the fact that there were none of your magical dive bombers present in the attack. Prince of Wales FCS was damaged by the heat and humidity and a good portion of its AA ammo deteriorated. Due to time constraints, Admiral Phillips sailed before repairs could be affected. Not to mention that the torpedo bombers present were using the excellent Long Lance torpedo.
Additionally, Force Z destroyer escort were a pair of WW1 vintage vessels at the time of her sinking.
It's hardly going to compare to an organised merchant convoy with escorts. Also, if necessary the merchants will have rudimentary armament which might provide nuisance factor as well.
Apart from the Stuka, what do you propose be used as a dive bomber.
To earlier, I was aware of the circumstances of Rudels sinking of the Marat but my phone battery was running down and I wished to just mention it. I knew it wasn't a solo effort and that the vessel had been static. This brings up another point, there are photos of the Pacific where you see ariel photos of mostly Japanese ships constantly weaving to try and avoid attack. A target even in convoy isn't going to sit still and just take it.
Another major point was that in the OP you mentioned replacing ALL twin engine bombers with dive bombers. That has a major knock on effect. While the Luftwaffes bomber force wasn't comparable to the late war RAF and USAAF, it still achieved things that a dive bomber force couldn't. The Blitz had major damage in many towns and cities. London, Coventry, Liverpool among others. One of the most devastating outside London was the Clydebank blitz which although not having an immense loss of life had major property damage both to civilian and military and strategic targets like fuel depots and shipyards, docklands, etc.
There is absolutely no way that a dive bomber force would have had the range to reach many of these targets.
To give an idea of the damage of the Clydebank blitz, refer to this
en.wikipedia.org
You cite the sinking of Force Z while ignoring the fact that there were none of your magical dive bombers present in the attack. Prince of Wales FCS was damaged by the heat and humidity and a good portion of its AA ammo deteriorated. Due to time constraints, Admiral Phillips sailed before repairs could be affected. Not to mention that the torpedo bombers present were using the excellent Long Lance torpedo.
Additionally, Force Z destroyer escort were a pair of WW1 vintage vessels at the time of her sinking.
It's hardly going to compare to an organised merchant convoy with escorts. Also, if necessary the merchants will have rudimentary armament which might provide nuisance factor as well.
Apart from the Stuka, what do you propose be used as a dive bomber.
To earlier, I was aware of the circumstances of Rudels sinking of the Marat but my phone battery was running down and I wished to just mention it. I knew it wasn't a solo effort and that the vessel had been static. This brings up another point, there are photos of the Pacific where you see ariel photos of mostly Japanese ships constantly weaving to try and avoid attack. A target even in convoy isn't going to sit still and just take it.
Another major point was that in the OP you mentioned replacing ALL twin engine bombers with dive bombers. That has a major knock on effect. While the Luftwaffes bomber force wasn't comparable to the late war RAF and USAAF, it still achieved things that a dive bomber force couldn't. The Blitz had major damage in many towns and cities. London, Coventry, Liverpool among others. One of the most devastating outside London was the Clydebank blitz which although not having an immense loss of life had major property damage both to civilian and military and strategic targets like fuel depots and shipyards, docklands, etc.
There is absolutely no way that a dive bomber force would have had the range to reach many of these targets.
To give an idea of the damage of the Clydebank blitz, refer to this
Clydebank Blitz - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
So basically this combo is going to ignore all AA fire from warships?
You cite the sinking of Force Z while ignoring the fact that there were none of your magical dive bombers present in the attack. Prince of Wales FCS was damaged by the heat and humidity and a good portion of its AA ammo deteriorated. Due to time constraints, Admiral Phillips sailed before repairs could be affected. Not to mention that the torpedo bombers present were using the excellent Long Lance torpedo.
Additionally, Force Z destroyer escort were a pair of WW1 vintage vessels at the time of her sinking.
It's hardly going to compare to an organised merchant convoy with escorts. Also, if necessary the merchants will have rudimentary armament which might provide nuisance factor as well.
Apart from the Stuka, what do you propose be used as a dive bomber.
To earlier, I was aware of the circumstances of Rudels sinking of the Marat but my phone battery was running down and I wished to just mention it. I knew it wasn't a solo effort and that the vessel had been static. This brings up another point, there are photos of the Pacific where you see ariel photos of mostly Japanese ships constantly weaving to try and avoid attack. A target even in convoy isn't going to sit still and just take it.
Another major point was that in the OP you mentioned replacing ALL twin engine bombers with dive bombers. That has a major knock on effect. While the Luftwaffes bomber force wasn't comparable to the late war RAF and USAAF, it still achieved things that a dive bomber force couldn't. The Blitz had major damage in many towns and cities. London, Coventry, Liverpool among others. One of the most devastating outside London was the Clydebank blitz which although not having an immense loss of life had major property damage both to civilian and military and strategic targets like fuel depots and shipyards, docklands, etc.
There is absolutely no way that a dive bomber force would have had the range to reach many of these targets.
To give an idea of the damage of the Clydebank blitz, refer to this
Clydebank Blitz - Wikipedia
No,only that if 2 battleships in 1941 was capable of destroing only 4 bombers known for their iflammability,average convoy would do not fare better against much safer italian planes.
And british fighters who could help them would be easy keep away by every italian fighter.
All they need was to create unit made from dive and torpedo bombers,fighters and recon planes.
And becouse planes from Sicily could attack convoys at leat few times before they reached Malta,they really could sunk or damage all transports and starve island.Which prolonge war and made more european countries remain free.
Vargas Fan
Head over heels in love :)
And did you ignore the fact that the FCS was faulty and the ammunition for the 2 pounders had degraded. Prince of Wales FCS had been faulty, she was still a relatively new vessel and probably had teething problems, meanwhile Repulse was an older WW1 era ship and while upgraded in the inter war years, the R class never were given the upgrade priorities that the Queen Elizabeths were and did not have the same upgrade potential.
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
At least for their tonnage.
You are correct overall, but this detail is incorrect. The Long Lance was far too large and heavy to be used by an aircraft; there was an attempt to design an oxygen fuelled heavy aerial torpedo -- the Type 94 -- but it never worked. The Japanese aerial torpedo used throughout WWII was the conventional Type 91, which was an excellent torpedo in its own right but nowhere as powerful as the Long Lance.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
It depends, US battleships were upgraded through the war as rather brutal AAA platforms, especially once the proximity fuses were developed, as they could carry considerable number of centrally controlled guns firing these kinds of shells.