Dive bombers replaced all light bombers before WW2

[Vargas Fan]

Dive Bombers were basically obsolete in the European campaign outside of the eastern front.

The last time in Western Europe seems to have been the Battle of Britain where they largely attacked radar stations and while achieving minor success they were butchered by the RAF fighter squadrons and the damage quickly repaired. Despite the towering radar masts, they were not an easy target to destroy. In that theatre conventional bombers with their greater range were of more use and even then the Luftwaffe squadrons suffered heavily.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

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.

The Italians really had no decent light or medium bombers at all. The Breda Ba.65 and Caproni Ca.310 were both obsolete death traps; the Ba.88 was an absolute failure, as was the Piaggio P.32 and the Savoia-Marchetti SM.84.

 

[Zachowon]

The last time in Western Europe seems to have been the Battle of Britain where they largely attacked radar stations and while achieving minor success they were butchered by the RAF fighter squadrons and the damage quickly repaired. Despite the towering radar masts, they were not an easy target to destroy. In that theatre conventional bombers with their greater range were of more use and even then the Luftwaffe squadrons suffered heavily.

Ligh bombers and fighter bombers seemed to replace dive bombing for the allies come the euroipe theater. As the US mainly used said light bombers and fighter bombers during the war A-20's and A/B-26s are an example

 

[Knowledgeispower]

I will also note that the greater range of light bombers meant that they where far better suited for maritime patrol duty than dive bomber.

 

[Zachowon]

I will also note that the greater range of light bombers meant that they where far better suited for maritime patrol duty than dive bomber.

The two most successful dive bombers used the whole war...had a lot further range then that of the Stuka

 

[Vargas Fan]

The two most successful dive bombers used the whole war...had a lot further range then that of the Stuka

Which ones are you thinking of, I quoted ranges of a number of contempary early war ones and the Stuka was by far the least range. Even the Skua outranged the Stuka by a significant margin.

 

[Zachowon]

Which ones are you thinking of, I quoted ranges of a number of contempary early war ones and the Stuka was by far the least range. Even the Skua outranged the Stuka by a significant margin.

Val and Duantless

 

[Vargas Fan]

Val and Duantless

Those were two of the ones I quoted, all in all, the Skua, Val, Dauntless and Stuka and the Stuka was the worst in term of range. Wiki gives the range of the Stuka with a bomb load but not the others but I don't imagine it would be that much difference from the figures given.

 

[Zachowon]

Those were two of the ones I quoted, all in all, the Skua, Val, Dauntless and Stuka and the Stuka was the worst in term of range. Wiki gives the range of the Stuka with a bomb load but not the others but I don't imagine it would be that much difference from the figures given.

Point being the bombers that faired best in dive bombing in th water were Japanese and US

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Point being the bombers that faired best in dive bombing in th water were Japanese and US

Which makes sense what with the fact that they had been using them for quite some time and so knew how to use them properly and set requirements for designs to fit what they actually needed and also had a proper training pipeline for the pilots albeit not the most robust one in the case of the Japanese.

 

[Marduk]

Ligh bombers and fighter bombers seemed to replace dive bombing for the allies come the euroipe theater. As the US mainly used said light bombers and fighter bombers during the war A-20's and A/B-26s are an example

Since when are A-20 and B-26 light bombers? Those are medium bombers, in the same class as Tu-2 and Ju-88, they are pretty big, twin engined planes, with almost/over twice the empty weight of a Blenheim, which is a light bomber, and over 3 times its bombload.

Those were two of the ones I quoted, all in all, the Skua, Val, Dauntless and Stuka and the Stuka was the worst in term of range. Wiki gives the range of the Stuka with a bomb load but not the others but I don't imagine it would be that much difference from the figures given.

Yup. Though considering the specifics of its role, unlike the others its not built for naval operations, but for tactical frontline bombing above all, usually operating from airstrips as close to the frontline as possible for quick turnaround and not using most of its short range anyway.

I will also note that the greater range of light bombers meant that they where far better suited for maritime patrol duty than dive bomber.

Still most of the maritime patrol craft, especially the best ones, were not light bomber based. Dedicated recon aircraft, heavy fighters and medium bombers are most common.
And that's when we only consider the specialised, short ranged Ju-87 everyone knows about. Meanwhile, Germany had other dive bombers too - like Ju-88's A-4 variant, and Me 210, the former also had maritime patrol variants.

 

[Zachowon]

Since when are A-20 and B-26 light bombers? Those are medium bombers, in the same class as Tu-2 and Ju-88, they are pretty big, twin engined planes, with almost/over twice the empty weight of a Blenheim, which is a light bomber, and over 3 times its bombload.


Yup. Though considering the specifics of its role, unlike the others its not built for naval operations, but for tactical frontline bombing above all, usually operating from airstrips as close to the frontline as possible for quick turnaround and not using most of its short range anyway.


Still most of the maritime patrol craft, especially the best ones, were not light bomber based. Dedicated recon aircraft, heavy fighters and medium bombers are most common.
And that's when we only consider the specialised, short ranged Ju-87 everyone knows about. Meanwhile, Germany had other dive bombers too - like Ju-88's A-4 variant, and Me 210, the former also had maritime patrol variants.

They are the closest thing to a light bomber/attacker next ti the fighter bomber/attackers. The US form what I can gather did not really go into the light bomber discipline, and focused on medium and heavy in Europe, with fighter bombers as the smallest, and fighter bombers, dive bombing and Torpedo bombing.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Well, Wikipedia for one classes the A-20 Havoc and A-26 Invader as light bombers, as well as mentioning that most torpedo bombers could also be used as light bombers, and many of the prewar designs for twin engine heavy fighters were adapted into light bombers as well.

The prewar line between light and medium bombers seems to have been a rule of thumb that lights carried a bomb load of one ton or less. This meant that a lot of twin engine light bombers ended up becoming mediums as more powerful engines made increased bombloads possible without undue sacrifices in speed and range.

 

[Marduk]

They are the closest thing to a light bomber/attacker next ti the fighter bomber/attackers. The US form what I can gather did not really go into the light bomber discipline, and focused on medium and heavy in Europe, with fighter bombers as the smallest, and fighter bombers, dive bombing and Torpedo bombing.

A-20, as the designation implies, is an attacker, while B-26 with its crew of 7 kinda sticks out away from any proper light bombers.
Also USA did built some Blenheim style light bombers earlier - Hudson and Maryland. For discussed reasons they did not get too popular though, still they were built in meaningful number.

Well, Wikipedia for one classes the A-20 Havoc and A-26 Invader as light bombers, as well as mentioning that most torpedo bombers could also be used as light bombers, and many of the prewar designs for twin engine heavy fighters were adapted into light bombers as well.

That doesn't make them any more light bombers than any random fighter that could take off with a 500 kg bomb under fuselage, which are many of them. For the sake of apples to apples comparison, talking of dedicated light bombers like Battle, Do-17 or Blenheim, not any plane that could chuck a bit of bombs and isn't big enough to be classified as a medium bomber.

The prewar line between light and medium bombers seems to have been a rule of thumb that lights carried a bomb load of one ton or less. This meant that a lot of twin engine light bombers ended up becoming mediums as more powerful engines made increased bombloads possible without undue sacrifices in speed and range.

Even twin engine heavy fighters have ended up carrying more bomb, completely throwing out the bombload criterion. Even some single engine fighter-bombers did, like P-47. The decisive change was in design philosophy and application, essentially getting the light bomber niche covered completely by more versatily heavy fighters, fighter-bombers and attackers. Even these mediums you mentioned were often designed as more of attack planes with serious forward fixed guns (A-20), or mini strategic bombers (B-26 with its crew of 7), and those eventually ran into similar issues to light bombers to some degree (too inaccurate from high altitude, too vulnerable to any serious defenses when low).

A good example of the few later light bomber is the basic Mosquito (not the later heavy fighter/multirole variants), with just 2 man crew, and no defensive or fixed guns (the typical examples had some, but so little it was hardly worth relying on), relying on speed alone to deal with enemy fighters.

 

[ATP]

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.

Valid questions.
1.Japaneese would not sell D3,but they have obsolate biplanes D1A - and made 590 of them.If they sell only 200,it would be enough to starve Malta in 1941./As long as they would have fighter escort and target only transports/

2.Germans stopped production of Hs123 in 1939,so italy could simple buy some and produce more - in better,Hs123C version.
It would be not only enough for starve Malta, but they could support their troops,too.

3.We are taking about Italy - their long range bombing missions never achieved anything worth mentioning,so 0 results woild remain 0 results.

4.Germans could mass produce before 1940 only Do19 or Ju89,and both would die without fighters.So, my idea that german should mass produce heavy bombers before 1940 is silly.
Maybe medium bombers with Fw187 escort ? it could be mass produced,and unless Me110 could fight modern fighters.

 

[Vargas Fan]

No we are not JUST talking about Italy, your very own original post referred to getting rid of all light and twin engine bombers, please answer that, the Italian thing was a later tangent. Doing as you mentioned back then would have an adverse affect on the war. If you're going to cite dive bombers as an improvement in the Mediterranean theatre you also have to consider the other implications of your OP and it's effect elsewhere.

So your answer to said Italian front is to get aircraft that are even more obsolete than the ones they already have. As to producing an improved Henschel do the Italians even have a suitable engine as engines were one of their major problems, do they have the production capacity, crew training etc. You can't just click your fingers and have a full complement appear. Also you keep at this target only transports, flak is still a thing and as mentioned even merchants will have rudimentary armaments. Your supposed targets are not going to sit still and do nothing, not are their escorts.

 

[Zachowon]

Well, Wikipedia for one classes the A-20 Havoc and A-26 Invader as light bombers, as well as mentioning that most torpedo bombers could also be used as light bombers, and many of the prewar designs for twin engine heavy fighters were adapted into light bombers as well.

The prewar line between light and medium bombers seems to have been a rule of thumb that lights carried a bomb load of one ton or less. This meant that a lot of twin engine light bombers ended up becoming mediums as more powerful engines made increased bombloads possible without undue sacrifices in speed and range.

I shluld realize this by the capabilities of the Avenger and the like

A-20, as the designation implies, is an attacker, while B-26 with its crew of 7 kinda sticks out away from any proper light bombers.
Also USA did built some Blenheim style light bombers earlier - Hudson and Maryland. For discussed reasons they did not get too popular though, still they were built in meaningful number.


That doesn't make them any more light bombers than any random fighter that could take off with a 500 kg bomb under fuselage, which are many of them. For the sake of apples to apples comparison, talking of dedicated light bombers like Battle, Do-17 or Blenheim, not any plane that could chuck a bit of bombs and isn't big enough to be classified as a medium bomber.


Even twin engine heavy fighters have ended up carrying more bomb, completely throwing out the bombload criterion. Even some single engine fighter-bombers did, like P-47. The decisive change was in design philosophy and application, essentially getting the light bomber niche covered completely by more versatily heavy fighters, fighter-bombers and attackers. Even these mediums you mentioned were often designed as more of attack planes with serious forward fixed guns (A-20), or mini strategic bombers (B-26 with its crew of 7), and those eventually ran into similar issues to light bombers to some degree (too inaccurate from high altitude, too vulnerable to any serious defenses when low).

A good example of the few later light bomber is the basic Mosquito (not the later heavy fighter/multirole variants), with just 2 man crew, and no defensive or fixed guns (the typical examples had some, but so little it was hardly worth relying on), relying on speed alone to deal with enemy fighters.

So...you don't consider Attackers actual light bombers?
And the Hudson, Baltimore, Maryland.
The A-20 had a lighter version called the P-70. Most of what the US used were medium bombers, and towards the end they used fighter bombers as the faster attack craft.

I know for sure B/A-26s were used during the end of 44 at least.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

A-20, as the designation implies, is an attacker, while B-26 with its crew of 7 kinda sticks out away from any proper light bombers.

The Army Air Corps actually defined the Havoc as an "attack bomber", an unusual classification which reflected the specifications requiring both fixed forward firing machine gun armament and a light bomber class internal bomb load (2000 lbs). It was however adopted by the French as a straight up light bomber designation, even with the exact same armament.

Even twin engine heavy fighters have ended up carrying more bomb, completely throwing out the bombload criterion. Even some single engine fighter-bombers did, like P-47.

Which is why I specified that was the prewar rule of thumb. The P-47 did not exist prewar.

A-20, as the designation implies, is an attacker, while B-26 with its crew of 7 kinda sticks out away from any proper light bombers.

You're conflating the Douglas B-26 light bomber with the Martin B-26 Marauder medium bomber. @Zachowon and I were both explicitly referring to this specific aircraft; Zachowon called it "A/B-26" reflecting its later redesignation as the B-26, and I called it by its original designation of A-26 Invader. It was a direct successor to the previously discussed A-20 Havoc, and was explicitly a light bomber, hence its postwar redesignation.

 

[Zachowon]

The Army Air Corps actually defined the Havoc as an "attack bomber", an unusual classification which reflected the specifications requiring both fixed forward firing machine gun armament and a light bomber class internal bomb load (2000 lbs). It was however adopted by the French as a straight up light bomber designation, even with the exact same armament.



Which is why I specified that was the prewar rule of thumb. The P-47 did not exist prewar.



You're conflating the Douglas B-26 light bomber with the Martin B-26 Marauder medium bomber. @Zachowon and I were both explicitly referring to this specific aircraft; Zachowon called it "A/B-26" reflecting its later redesignation as the B-26, and I called it by its original designation of A-26 Invader. It was a direct successor to the previously discussed A-20 Havoc, and was explicitly a light bomber, hence its postwar redesignation.

Yeah the one I talked about is the three crew invader

 

[Marduk]

So...you don't consider Attackers actual light bombers?
And the Hudson, Baltimore, Maryland.
The A-20 had a lighter version called the P-70. Most of what the US used were medium bombers, and towards the end they used fighter bombers as the faster attack craft.

I know for sure B/A-26s were used during the end of 44 at least.

Yeah, attackers aren't light bombers - the distinction here being that while in theory they can fight like dedicated light bombers, they can also do things light bombers can't, and the tactics of their use were adjusted accordingly. For all practical purposes, technically they are closer to twin engine fighter-bombers like Me 410, which happens to be very similar to A-20 in weight and gun armaments, while having a bomb load of 1000kg but somewhat better flight performance, than to light bombers of old.

Meanwhile dedicated light bomber Mosquito has even better flight performance and 1800kg maximum bombload, the main difference being total lack of forward or defensive guns, yet older, older and lighter than any of the above Bf 110 fighter-bomber could carry 2000kg of bombs in addition to few defensive machineguns and fairly strong forward guns.

So ignoring the inherent inconsistency of what different countries called them, seems like the closest things to decisive characteristics are the strength of forward facing guns, and implied tactics of the plane's use. The former makes a surprising amount of sense as it inherently affects the latter too - if you stick a whole lot of forward facing guns on a light bomber and plan to get any use out of them, how is it different from a fighter-bomber or attack plane?
After all that's what happened to Mosquito later in the war, and these models became fighter-bombers.

Which is why I specified that was the prewar rule of thumb. The P-47 did not exist prewar.

But Bf 110 did.

You're conflating the Douglas B-26 light bomber with the Martin B-26 Marauder medium bomber. @Zachowon and I were both explicitly referring to this specific aircraft; Zachowon called it "A/B-26" reflecting its later redesignation as the B-26, and I called it by its original designation of A-26 Invader. It was a direct successor to the previously discussed A-20 Havoc, and was explicitly a light bomber, hence its postwar redesignation.

True, got confused about that one.
A-20 was always designated as "attack bomber", in USA at least, hence the A.
A-26, as its successor, was one too.
Only post-war, with the massive changes to air warfare happening around it, it got redesignated as a light bomber.
Funny enough, during Vietnam war it was given the attacker A back again.