Best Dive Bomber of WWII?

It was apparently even used (Presumably in moments of dire desperation!) as a fighter to intercept US bombers on occasion, of course it'd be reasonably fair to say this wasn't the Stuka's ideal role...

Thanks for the explanation regarding the Stuka's losses Lynn1212, although to be fair that seems an unusual method of assessing loss rates, I'd be pretty sure over the period January-October 1940 many RAF squadrons, probably Fighter Command as a whole probably wouldn't come out that favourably during the Battle of Britain, that doesn't make the Spitfire or Hurricane particularly bad planes though.

 

Re: loss rate

The Ju 87 was never used as a torpedo bomber. It was a very stable gun platform, and as such much better suited to carry AT guns than for example the Hs 129, but was vulnerable to ground fire and was replaced by the Fw 190F and G as soon as they were available.

 

True, but weren't some "D"s also modified as CASEVACs?

 

And even apparently used to plant agents behind enemy lines...

A possible reason for the Stuka's high loss rate compared to other dive bombers is the Theatre of Operations it was in.
The ETO was a far more 'hectic' Theatre, and very 'threat rich', whereas the PTO had long periods of sailing around looking for each other...

To get a meaningful statistic you would need to look at losses per sortie, and factor in the number of Stukas used, the size & quality of the opposition, and the size & quality of the escort, then do a similar study on SBD (etc) losses.

 

True, but in the meantime we have to make due with what information we have available to us.

If you look through my posts, you should notice that I have never claimed the Dauntless to be the greates dive bomber of WWII. I'm just curious why Ome Joop is so secure in his opinion. Do we, in fact, even know if the Stuka indeed was the most accurate dive bomber? And even if it was, how much more accurate was it than for example the Dauntless or the Aichi D3A? A lot more, or just a little bit more? Both the Dauntless and the Aichi have more impressive battle records, as dive bombers at least, than the Stuka.

As for survivability, we just have to compare the aircraft in question from what we know. Both the Dauntless and the Aichi had radial engines which we know are more reliable and can take more battle damage than an inline engine. The Stuka was an exceptionally stable aircraft, but stability goes at the expence of maneouvreability. We also know that all testing of the Stuka has concluded with it having an exceptionally poor climb rate. On which grounds can anyone claim that the Dauntless or the Aichi had just as poor maneouvreability as the Stuka?

 

tied up in the reputation

sometimes people get invested in the reputation and let it blind them to the facts. its hard to admit a favorite is not also the beat.

 

Re: tied up in the reputation

I hope you are not talking about me coz the Stuka ain't my fav!

The Hs123 is my fav dive bomber of WWII!

I claim thing out of what i've read and seen not because i ever flew a dive bomber.....
If that should be the case (almost) nobody here can claim anything....coz i don't reckon many people here have flown a Stuka, dauntless or a Val?!

 

Re: tied up in the reputation

The Hs 123 was not a dive bomber, it was a ground attack aircraft.

 

Re: tied up in the reputation

No it was not!
It was a dive bomber! used in the ground attack role....(altough bombers are not many times used in air attack roles i would guess :roll till the last one was gone in 1944!

I'm talking about the Hs123 a Bi-plane and I think you are talking about the Hs129 !?

 

Um, actually it was designed as a dive bomber, was issued as a stop-gap dive bomber until something better came along, and was used to train cadets how to dive-bomb...

In combat, AFAIK (and not including the Spanish Civil War) it was only used as a night harassment bomber.

 

Interesting description of Ju 87 divebombing tactics from here:

http://www.mts.net/~royb/112_photos_page_5.html



Ju87 Dive Bomb Technique

A. Ju87 enters dive, here at 15,000 feet.

B. Ju87 reaches the maxium dive speed of 350 mph at a dive angle of 80%.

C. About 30 seconds after start of the dive, the Ju87 reaches the pull-out altitude, which was previously decided if the attack was planned. The pilot presses a button initiating the automatic pull-out system.

D. A few seconds after pull out is initiated, the bomb automatically releases from the plane.

E. After the pull-out, the pilot attempts to regain control of the plane, retracts the dive brakes, opens the throttle, trims for level flight and tries to get away as quick as possible to avoid being hit by the explosion and debris of the bomb!

 

Hs-123 was used as dive bomber on the eastern front for entire duration of the war. I was very popular with its crews as very reliable, rugged, highly maneurable and useful little plane. In 1944 gen. Richthoffen asked if limited production of this type could be initiated again, but got the answer that all jigs were already scraped. It was considered wery useful as it could operate in conditions Stukas couldn't ( muddy airstrips etc.).

After GCE ( Spanish civil war) it was relegated to training units. After 1940 campaign and BoB , becouse of cronical shortage of dive bombers ( stukas) it was send into combat again. It seved in the Balcans and Eastern front mainly in LG2 later in SG2.

My favorite dive bomber is Peshka ( Pe-2). It was fast could carry decent bomb load and if used properly very deadly.

 

I'd always considered the Pe-2 to be more of a sort of attack-bomber than a Dive-bomber as such...

Well if we're going to bring bombload into it I doubt any of the others could beat the Lancaster for Bombload, and yes, it did divebomb!

 

As it has no dive brakes i wonder how accurate it would have been (very shallow dive)?!

I think the He-177 was the biggest bomber that really could do dive bombing?

 

Quoting myself from another site, how good is that for your Ego? :lol:

"617 Squadron (the Dambusters) adopted the practice of dropping their own marker flares on targets when they found that the Pathfinder Force just wasn't accurate enough for their purposes, especially if they were trying to hit small targets like V-1 launch sites.

The problem was that to mark acurately enough meant flying very low, and Lancasters attracted too much fire and were too big and slow to avoid it.

Returning from a training flight with practice bombs one member of the squadron, McCarthy, broke away and dove on a patch of seaweed, scoring a direct hit.

So the idea formed, and the next proper operation with the rest of the squadron flying at altitude, Cheshire and McCarthy Divebombed the V-1 site, pulling out and Leveling off at around 100-150ft. For those of you who know the layout of a Lancaster, or even have a model of one, I'm sure you'll agree that the view from the bomb-aimer and nose turret position must have been pretty terrifying!

The results were impressive. The V-1 site was obliterated, and the marking and bombing were amazingly accurate, plus the two marking aircraft got away with little or no damage as the defending AA gunners found it difficult to aim due to their unusual manouevre!

This proved 617's case for accurately marking their own targets and they were able to argue for a more agile plane, better suited to the task of dive-bombing, and subsequently they got a number of Mosquitoes and even trialed Mustangs."

OK, it wasn't exactly carried out by regular crews, but they did achieve results better than those of the Pathfinders by doing this, and they did so (Unofficially) on several occasions with Lancasters! The above is a summary from events described in Paul Brickhill's "The Dambusters".

There you have it, my nomination for best Divebomber - The Avro Lancaster! :lol:

 

Ok i must agree with it....Best all round bomber the Lancaster as it was even very good at dive bombing! :lol:

BTW i love the Lanc and hope to see one flying again on the 18th of June! :smok:

 

As for myself, I'll still take the SBD over any other dive bomber.