I think that dive bombers where a great gun for the navy .
But i want you to write and vote which you believe was the best
Well for me the best was the Ju-87 Stuka . Especially The D version with the two tankbusters 37mm cannons fitted under the wings . It was devastating against the allied tanks in Northern Africa . After that i choose the SBD Dauntless and then the D3A Val and my last choise would be the Helldiver because it was to difficult to fly
No mention of the British Skua?
Oh, that’s right, because it was crap…
We almost have to define what a “true” divebomber is. The Stuka was specifically to launch pinpoint attacks against small ground targets such as tanks and was based on what naval aviators had been doing since the 1920s. But these types of slow moving, specialized aircraft seemed to become largely obsolete by 1943 because of better AAA and were totally defenseless against fighters in the absence of total air superiority…
It also seems that P-47s or Tempests configured for ground-attack are just as effective in the role of tactical air strikes as a true “divebomber” was, and much more survivable…
While I think that the SBD Dauntless was not only the best dive bomber but it certainly made the most important contribution to the USA in the Pacific.
The Stuka was outdated shortly after the war started but it gets my two thumbs up for being the most feared by it’s fear factor alone.
Heck, I have 2 1/18th scale Stukas hanging in my Hobby Room! :twisted:
Jeff
Stuka or Dauntless, both very accurate machines and very important historically. Probably the most precise was the stuka since it could aim its bombs in a nearly 90º dive, but the Dauntless was more resilient to battle damage.
For me, its the Val. I dont know why but I just liked some of thier paint schemes I suppose.
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal4/3401-3500/gal3439_Val_Workman/gal3439.htm
Oh that’s a nice site Firefly.
Very interesting- i like the modelling of WW2 and at all.
BTW i think the Stuka was the best ( well at least most famouse and has played tha most significant role in war).
I m agre the Tanderbolt was effective due it a lengthwise accuracy during the bomb attack.
But i rather doubt it was as effective and surviable as the specialiced groung-attacker like the Il-2 for instace.
The bomb attack is not the primary role for the any fighter( or even escort fighter).
The main lack of fighter (inspite of excellent speed) was a less firepower.As i remember the P-47 and Mystangs has the usially mashin-guns that was not so effective agains armored vehicles.
One of two little aircraft bomb was not able fully compansate.
For instance the Me-262 with his 4x30 mm gun should be very effective as the ground-attacker, but its enginnes were very sensitive for the any SINGLE bullet of aaa-artillery.
i absolutely agree about with Panzerknacker and also with Nickdfresh . But i think his wrong about the Tempest and the P-47 . They were going lower from very far and then unleash their rockets or bombs instead of the diving move of the dive bombers which loose their armament right above their targets . The Panzerknacker’s foto of the Stuka is PERFECT
Regarding armor-piercing M2 .50 cal ammunition (19mm max penetration)
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=92027&postcount=109
Regarding P-47 Thunderbolt
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=108603&postcount=25
Russian Designers of P-47 Thunderbolt:
Alexander Kartveli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Kartveli
Alexander Kartveli (Georgian) 1896-1974, born Kartvelishvili) was one of the greatest aircraft engineers of the 20th century and a pioneer of American aviation.
Kartveli was born in Tbilisi, Georgia, then in Russian Empire. He graduated from the Gymnasium in Tbilisi in 1914.
Kartveli graduated in 1922 from the Highest School of Aviation in Paris. In 1922-1927, he worked for a while at the Louis Bleriot Company and designed the “Bernard” and “Ferbois” aircraft . In 1924, one of his aircraft established a world speed record.
In 1927, American millionaire Charles Levine invited Kartveli to New York. In 1928 he joined the Fokker American Company. In 1931 Kartveli met well-known engineer Alexander de Seversky, who was also from Georgia, and became Chief Engineer at the Seversky Aircraft Corporation. In 1939 this Company changed its name to the “Republic Aviation Company”.
Kartveli and Seversky created a series of aircraft and during World War II they designed one of its greatest planes, the Republic P-47.
After World War II, Kartveli designed well-known aircraft such as the Republic F-84 Thunderjet and the Republic F-105 Thunderchief.
Kartveli died in 1974, in New York.
Alexander Procofieff de Seversky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_de_Seversky
Alexander Nikolaievich Prokofiev de Seversky (also Prokofiev-Seversky or DeSeversky), (June 7, 1894 – August 24, 1974) was a Russian-American aviation pioneer, inventor, and influential advocate of strategic air power.
Biography
Of noble Russian parentage, Seversky was born in Tiflis. He served as a Russian naval aviator in World War I, lost a leg in combat, and continued to fly, shooting down six German aircraft. In 1917 he was in the U.S. as a member of the naval aviation mission and decided to stay. He worked as a test pilot and became an assistant to air power advocate General Billy Mitchell, aiding him in his push to prove airpower’s ability to sink battleships. Seversky applied for and received the first patent for air-to-air refueling in 1921.
He was awarded the Order of St. George (4th Class); Order of St. Vladimir (4th Class); Order of St. Stanislaus (2nd & 3rd Class); Order of St. Anne (2nd; 3rd; and 4th class).
Seversky married New Orleans socialite and pilot Evelyn Oliphant (c1895-1967) in 1923; the two settled in New York City. [1] In 1927, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
He founded the Seversky Aircraft Corporation in 1931, but despite landing several government contracts the company was never able to turn a profit under his management; the Board of Directors voted him out and reorganized as the Republic Aviation Company, which was successful and produced many planes, including the famous Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. Republic was acquired by Fairchild in 1965.
Often described as “flamboyant” and a “showman,” Seversky was always good at capturing the public eye, and was considered a newsworthy celebrity. In 1942 The New York Times considered it news that “Airplane Designer Rents Apartment: Major Seversky One Of Seven New Tenants in 40 Central Park South.”
He was the author of the influential 1942 book, Victory Through Air Power, which Disney adapted into a motion picture. Seversky argued for the immediate development of long-range bombers, specifically intercontinental bombers capable of directly striking Germany and Japan from the U.S. without refueling. He urged the shift of manufacturing resources away from traditional land- and sea-based armaments and air-support aircraft and toward these bombers. He argued that existing U.S. strategy was futile and could not achieve victory, due to the disparity between the long supply lines needed by U.S. forces and the excellent interior communications within Germany and Japan. No matter how many machines and planes the U.S. threw at the Axis powers, they could withstand the assault by shrinking their defensive perimeter and concentrating their power. Seversky argued that direct bomber attacks from U.S.-based aircraft were the only way of administering a knockout blow. He acknowledged that shifting priorities to strategic air would reduce the strength of traditional forces, but argued that this would require only a temporary yielding of ground.
He was one of a number of strategic air advocates whose vision was realized in the 1946 creation of the Strategic Air Command and the development of aircraft such as the Convair B-36 and B-47 Stratojet. Seversky continued to publicize his ideas for innovative aircraft and weaponry, notably the 1964 Ionocraft which was to be a single-man aircraft powered by the ionic wind from a high-voltage discharge. A laboratory demonstration was acknowledged to require 90 watts to lift a two ounce (60 g) model, and no man-carrying version was ever built.
He was a trustee of The New York Institute of Technology, which in 1972 acquired an elegant mansion originally built by Alfred I. du Pont. It was renamed “The DeSeversky Center” in his honor, and is a popular venue for weddings.
His died in 1974, and was buried in the Woodlawn Cemetery in the Bronx.
My vote goes for the Stuka
Oh George thank you
You know how to impress me and any one:)
Thank for infor about Kartavely and Severskij.
Before i knew just adout Sikorskij - the father of American helicopters industry:)
Well i,m not deny that P-47 was effective in the groung attack. It was.
However it wasn’t and could not be so effetive as the specialized armored aircraft.
Just one example.
As you know the cocpite of fighters usially could armored, but engine is not so well armored.
If you are in attack of the defended by AAA-mushingan land aim- the any 1-2 bullet in the engine - and Game OVER.You could not come back to the base:)
The success of fighter-bombers as attackers in last month of war was due to the total chaos and lack of aaa-defence (both artillery and fighters )in Germany. Coz ONLY in when you have the air superiority yo could use the fighters as bombers- or it would shoted or uneffective visewerse.
I’ve read in memours of Ivan Kozedub - the soviet fighters also used the small bombs agains land targets.
Besides the gun wearpon of most of the soviet fighters were able to hit effectively the many of the german light vehicles. Even the Airacorba p-39 with its 30-mm gun was ABLE to do a much.Besides i know it was developed the special modification of Jak-9T with 45-mm gun!!! in 1944 for that ground mission.
So it was a common tend of both Allies and Soviets to use the fighters as the ground attackers in last days of war coz the Germans have a strong shortage the aviation in all front so the surplus of fighters were particulary compensate in the ground attacks.
However in the conditions of strong aaa-defence the usial fighter was very weak. Look for instance in Korean war where a shoted down a relatively Great number of P-51 that was used primary as ground-attackers ( about 500)
This was his famouse lack - the engine usially stoped off after a hiting of even a 0.5 cal bullet.So the any ground masin gun could hit the Mustang( i,m not tell about specialized speed fire aa-gun agtillery).
You my friend fly on the air combat simulators, righ?
So yo could be easy convinced of it- just try to hit a ground aim that defended by the two-three aaa-guns on for instance the fighers P-47 or Jak-9.
You will nice be sirprised how quickly tray would teared your figher into the pieces:)
And try it again in for instance on Stuka or Il-2.The armored engine of the Il-2 was capable to ignore even the 20-mm shells. The wings certainly were full of holes but engine was still working enough good in many cases.
Althouth even today the ground attack coud be realised by the any modern jet fighter- but the best for that role the A-10 and Su-25- specally armored ground attackers.
All the best my friend
Thing is, that’s true for water-cooled engines like that on the Spitfire, Stuka or Il-2. Oddly, it turned out that Radial engines are massively tougher and actually worked like armour for the pilot - there are a hell of a lot of stories of radial engines being shot to shreds but the aircraft making it back in one piece.
I think the reason for this is that water-cooled engines have a single point failure source - the cooling system. Damage that and the engine will overheat and die in a few minutes. Radial engines don’t have that - they’re effectively a whole bunch of single cylinder engines flying together in close formation. To get one to seize you need to lock a cylinder in place completely - which needs a fairly heavy shell which would probably go through any plausible armour on the plane anyway.
Is it not also the case that if one cylinder gets mashed, it’s possible for the piston rod to get broken off by the power from the other cylinders and the engine keeps turning, albeit a bit rattly…
Sorta-kinda-maybe. All sorts of things are possible, what matters is how likely they are. Just because there have been instances of radial engines still working with totally destroyed cylinders (and I have heard of a couple) doesn’t mean it happened very often at all.
Sure you right.
I do not know about P-47 and Mustang but Soviets pilots of La-5/7 with air-cooled engins feels much better then themself behind this wide engeen than the polots of Jak-9 or Airacobra.
Coz the massive M-82 endine was enough great to work as additional armor for the pilots.
But the problem of air-colled radial engines was relatively great square of frontal cylenders that need to be OPEN for air.i.e you could not cover it by the armor.
As the resault the during the frontal attack the bullets with the great relative speed ( sum of bullet speed +speed of fighter) hited the cylinders and could easy critically damaget it.
So although the air-cooled engine protected the pilots- with a great probability it could be damaged also.
Coz you could not defend the wide radial air-cooled by additional armor as effective as the water-cooled.
So just the engine armor was the real defence like in IL-2
And what type of engine had the P-47?
All depends of what king of damaging had the broken cylinder- in many cases engine was able to work at least for the short time.
However the much more critical problem for both water-cooled and air-cooled engine was the pressure of OIL- if this decrease to a zero - the Game over again:)
The P-47 could “dive” for bombing but was not a divebomber, the only real USAAF divebomber was the A-36 apache. A basic element to this type of aircraft was the aerodinamic dive brake, if you have not those …
P-47 had a radial engine, the P-51 had an inline engine. So far as I’m aware, the P-51 was used in Korea only because that’s what they had available - the P-47 was considered more suitable, but wasn’t available.
The other thing to remember here is that for some countries - particularly the US - they have huge excesses of production so can afford to spend production to save pilots. Armouring an engine is weight you can’t use for increased performance or better armour elsewhere - so if you can afford to replace a lot of engines, you can use the engine as armour and have an aircraft that is better protected overall.