Dive bombers replaced all light bombers before WW2

[ShadowArxxy]

Funny enough, during Vietnam war it was given the attacker A back again.

Yes, but that was only for political reasons -- the Thai government prohibited the U.S. from basing bombers in-country, so the heavily upgraded B-26K Counter-Invaders were designated "A-26A". They're quite rare -- only forty B-26s were remanufactured in this configuration, of which six survive as museum craft.

The simple placard that Pima Air & Space puts on theirs -- photographed here by yours truly -- really doesn't do her justice.

 

[Zachowon]

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.


But Bf 110 did.


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.

Except even medium bombers like the B-25 had defnesive armement and front facing weapons. If we go by the definition that a light bomber has no offensive armenent and only defensive or non at all, then would that not apply to medium bombers as well? Like variations of the B-25 having multiple forward facing machine guns, sometimes up to 8...

It all depends on the mission they are given, as you can have the B/A-26 and the A-20 loaded up bombing only and used just like that in an area where ground attack is not needed, or you load them up for a CAS role.

The US during World War 2 only really had multi role aircraft below medium bombers, at least in Europe. Closest to light bombers you would get are Attackers.

 

[Marduk]

Except even medium bombers like the B-25 had defnesive armement and front facing weapons.

If we go by the definition that a light bomber has no offensive armenent and only defensive or non at all, then would that not apply to medium bombers as well? Like variations of the B-25 having multiple forward facing machine guns, sometimes up to 8...

USA was weird with that, most countries didn't stick a big battery of fixed guns on their medium bombers, especially those not meant to often double as heavy attack planes (like Tu-2).
Many iconic medium bombers like Wellington, G4M, Ju-88 indeed had no forward fixed guns.

It all depends on the mission they are given, as you can have the B/A-26 and the A-20 loaded up bombing only and used just like that in an area where ground attack is not needed, or you load them up for a CAS role.

Yeah, though that in turns means the difference is specialization of the design. If its specialized for bombing only, its a bomber, simple.
If its a plane that can do CAS or bombing, i think attacker fits better than calling it just another bomber. Especially when even if bombing, the design is still burdened by having to carry half a ton or more of guns and ammo it won't use, plus the aerodynamic effects.

The US during World War 2 only really had multi role aircraft below medium bombers, at least in Europe. Closest to light bombers you would get are Attackers.

US joined it late, and the concept of dedicated light bomber was already on its way out, so the few light bombers USA had were somewhat obscure planes like Baltimore or Maryland.
Later in the war, anything that could fit that niche was "versatilized" into attackers and fighter-bombers.

 

[Zachowon]

USA was weird with that, most countries didn't stick a big battery of fixed guns on their medium bombers, especially those not meant to often double as heavy attack planes (like Tu-2).
Many iconic medium bombers like Wellington, G4M, Ju-88 indeed had no forward fixed guns.

Most American bombers that weren't heavy generally had some form of armament front facing. From one or two, to 6 or 8 machine guns. The B-25 one of the US's most known medium bombers was one of these.

Hell, the B mother fucking 52 has 4 front facing 50s...

Yeah, though that in turns means the difference is specialization of the design. If its specialized for bombing only, its a bomber, simple.
If its a plane that can do CAS or bombing, i think attacker fits better than calling it just another bomber. Especially when even if bombing, the design is still burdened by having to carry half a ton or more of guns and ammo it won't use, plus the aerodynamic effects.

I think the Havok, Invader and most US Attackers were better then light bombers in aerodynnamics to some extent. As they had to be able to pull up and avoid ground fire a lot more.

US joined it late, and the concept of dedicated light bomber was already on its way out, so the few light bombers USA had were somewhat obscure planes like Baltimore or Maryland.
Later in the war, anything that could fit that niche was "versatilized" into attackers and fighter-bombers.

Yeah, the US only used Light bombers as patrol craft most of the time after they entered, and generally in the pacific, and said aircraft could be light bombers as well

 

[Vargas Fan]

The very early Wellington's did have a pair of fixed, or at the most semi flexible guns. The very earliest marks didn't have the power operated turret.

 

[ATP]

I recently discovered,that french navy had some dive bombers in 1940,both american and french,and used them against german tanks.Unfortunatelly, i knew nothing about how good they were.

Interesting thing - next generation of navy dive bombers would have two engines/Breguet B.810/,the same goes for torpedo bombers/Cao 600 and Dewointe/ .Pity,that french never made them.It would be interesting to see how two engine planes act from carriers.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I recently discovered,that french navy had some dive bombers in 1940,both american and french,and used them against german tanks.Unfortunatelly, i knew nothing about how good they were.

The French Loire-Nieuport LN.401 dive bombers took catastrophically heavy losses when used against German motorized columns; there were only two squadrons of them, and they lost two thirds of their entire strength in about a month of action, with the worst incident being 17 out of 20 dive bombers being lost in a single attack -- ten shot down outright and a further seven damaged beyond repair.

The LN.401 had a maximum speed of only 240 MPH and a cruise speed of 186 MPH, making it a lumbering death trap even by pre-war standards.

 

[Vargas Fan]

I recently discovered,that french navy had some dive bombers in 1940,both american and french,and used them against german tanks.Unfortunatelly, i knew nothing about how good they were.

Interesting thing - next generation of navy dive bombers would have two engines/Breguet B.810/,the same goes for torpedo bombers/Cao 600 and Dewointe/ .Pity,that french never made them.It would be interesting to see how two engine planes act from carriers.

Where do you get that the Breguet B810? All I see is a reference to it in a game as a naval torpedo bomber development of a land based aircraft? The plain fact is that replacing all light bombers with dive bombers is not a magic cure all as for one thing, range generally suffers and ordnance load also is generally not as great.

 

[ATP]

Where do you get that the Breguet B810? All I see is a reference to it in a game as a naval torpedo bomber development of a land based aircraft? The plain fact is that replacing all light bombers with dive bombers is not a magic cure all as for one thing, range generally suffers and ordnance load also is generally not as great.

some article about french navy.torpedo bomber would be either Snacao Cao 600 or Dewointe.
Dive bomber - first was light bomber B.693 developed into dive version B.698,which would be turned into naval dive B.810.

 

[Vargas Fan]

some article about french navy.torpedo bomber would be either Snacao Cao 600 or Dewointe.
Dive bomber - first was light bomber B.693 developed into dive version B.698,which would be turned into naval dive B.810.

No, I meant the Brequet. The link to that piece about the game is here

Breguet Br 810 - forumini wiki

forumini.wikidot.com

It mentions an experimental torpedo bomber.

It doesn't matter anyway, you were told in either the first or second page that the problem with France wasn't equipment, or at least not solely equipment, it was also doctrine. The French had a larger army than the Germans and some of their tanks were more advanced, the Wehrmacht was still largely equipped with Panzer I and II's with only a smattering of III's and IV's at this time but doctrine won out.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Where do you get that the Breguet B810? All I see is a reference to it in a game as a naval torpedo bomber development of a land based aircraft? The plain fact is that replacing all light bombers with dive bombers is not a magic cure all as for one thing, range generally suffers and ordnance load also is generally not as great.

The Breguet 810 never actually existed; it was a proposed naval variant of the Breguet 690 for the two Joffre class fleet carriers which were laid down but were only about 20% complete at the time of the French surrender.

The Breguet 690 itself was originally designed for a heavy fighter contract which it lost to the rival Potez 630, and later entered service as an attack bomber along similar lines to the American A-20 Havoc, smaller and a little bit slower, but with a solid weapons load relative to its size. Like the Havoc, it was popular with crews for being tough, versatile, and having good flying characteristics. The Bre 697 variant was notable for having substantially more powerful engines that greatly increased performance, having an exceptional climb rate and also being as fast as a Bf-109. Only one was built, but this is because it was a field prototype for the further refined Bre 700, which would have been faster still and have a considerably greater armament.

As to ATP's claimed Bre 698 dive bomber variant, I am not finding anything that validates it even existing. The 690 series as-is had a light bomb capacity and was used in "shallow angle" dive bombing, but not true dive bombing as it lacked dive brakes and a proper bombsight.

 

[ATP]

No, I meant the Brequet. The link to that piece about the game is here

Breguet Br 810 - forumini wiki

forumini.wikidot.com

It mentions an experimental torpedo bomber.

It doesn't matter anyway, you were told in either the first or second page that the problem with France wasn't equipment, or at least not solely equipment, it was also doctrine. The French had a larger army than the Germans and some of their tanks were more advanced, the Wehrmacht was still largely equipped with Panzer I and II's with only a smattering of III's and IV's at this time but doctrine won out.

Indeed.Even 1.000 dive bombers would not save France,if they do not change doctrine.

 

[ATP]

I recently discovered,that germans made prototype of jet dive-bomber Hs132.Soviets take it,but never mass produced.
Was jet dive bomber bad idea,or soviets simply were unable to copy that ?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I recently discovered,that germans made prototype of jet dive-bomber Hs132.Soviets take it,but never mass produced.
Was jet dive bomber bad idea,or soviets simply were unable to copy that ?

Only one of the three Henschel Hs 132 prototypes was even close to physically complete, and no actual testing had been completed at the time the Soviets captured the development facility. Contrary to some reports that the Soviets had a complete one, the records show that both the nearly complete first prototype and the 80% complete second prototype were destroyed during the fighting. The slightly less complete third prototype was the only one captured intact, consisting of a complete fuselage, tailplane and engine but no wings, vertical stabilizers, and undercarriage.

The Soviets did transport the incomplete aircraft to the TsAGI research bureau, but not until late 1945 as complete, functional aircraft were prioritized over incomplete ones. Nonetheless, a detailed technical study was made, and the Soviets judged that the HS 132 showed very little potential and that it would be too costly to produce the missing parts to complete and flight test the aircraft. Like most of the WWII war prizes deemed not historically notable, it ended up being scrapped when the evaluation unit of TsAGI was shut down in the 1950s.

 

[Zachowon]

I mean...not the worst of the jets they were making

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I mean...not the worst of the jets they were making

Way too specialized, however, given the very short range, limited bombload, and no weapons other the the single bomb.

 

[Zachowon]

Way too specialized, however, given the very short range, limited bombload, and no weapons other the the single bomb.

The Arado was a better jet bomber because it at least had longer range and at least 2 bombs

 

[ShadowArxxy]

One of the huge problems with the Nazi jet projects was there were just too many of them. Most of them were not completely insane designs, but many were far too ambitious, and more importantly, the Nazis could not possibly afford to actually build and deploy all of them. The end result was that they frittered away precious time and scant resources by refusing to consolidate down to one or two modest designs that could have actually made a difference.

 

[ATP]

One of the huge problems with the Nazi jet projects was there were just too many of them. Most of them were not completely insane designs, but many were far too ambitious, and more importantly, the Nazis could not possibly afford to actually build and deploy all of them. The end result was that they frittered away precious time and scant resources by refusing to consolidate down to one or two modest designs that could have actually made a difference.

Germans,not nazis.And they did it in many other places,for example making many kind of trucks instead choose few and mass produce it.
Once i read article that Hitler wonted as many as possible german factories making their own stuff,but it seems too strange to be true.

 

[Vargas Fan]

No, it was Nazi projects, and part of the problem with German industry was that they were continually set against each other, Willi Messerchmitt also had a long running feud with Erhard Milch, Secretary of State for Aviation. This was not the only such case of industries being set against each other.

In fact the Nazi obsession with trying to make every bomber and fighter bomber project into being dive bomber capable crippled them, not helped them. The Heinkel 177 Grief, already beset with technical problems like its unreliable engines had further issues due to the idiotic requirement to make it dive bomber capable.