During War 2 , the aviation technology and the aviator,both had to cross a number of obstacles,hurdles along with adaptation of much more complex and advanced mechanism.Lots of technological progress also achieved here,under pressure.Lots of models were experimented,but a few only withstand in the high run. Amongst them one or two remains battle winner. Which dive bomber/bombers you consider the most effective and victorious in War 2,for both strategic & operational..?
Horizontal bombing remains more effective on a number static objects and it didn’t require high accuracy.Moreover,this type of bombing requires a complex calculation.During War 2,this critical and time taking calculations for releasing ordnances,performed by Norden bombsight.Usually,after releasing ordnances,horizontal bomber moves head on, maintaining same level. They remains less effective in naval war due to their low rate of accuracy along with other factors,comparing to dive bombers. To destroy Triptiz[in’44,during Operation Tungsten,dive bombers sent Triptiz temporarily out of War] ,a huge number of heavy ordnance spent by the bombers[horizontal],it had taken a lot of precious time too.Early stages of the Battle of Midway,B17 faced a lot of problem during their engagement with Japanese carriers,there,instead of an early killing of the target,strategically. But if we consider Junkers Ju 87 Stuka[Sturzkampfflugzeug] or D2A-Val dive bombers,they remains more effective to disrupt Allieds' naval activity during their operations.They were more accurate [by numbers of kill] and effective in short-medium range operations during War 2.Their steep dives[90-45 degrees],releasing one ordnance and immediate push ups, distinguish them from the previous one. During early years of War 2,they were most troublesome to the Allied during invasion of Poland,Battle of France,Eastern front or in North Africa etc.
Conception of dive bombing originated at USN, much earlier of War 2,probably in ‘30s, I’m not sure about , but it was the Germans who carried in, introduced and operated first by their Luftwaffe units.Primarily it was nothing but to support of Wehrmacht.. The Junkers JU-87 Stukas were only effective if there was minimal or no possible counter attack.But the Dauntless SBD5 had the lowest loss ratio of any USN carrier-born aircraft during its operational days in War 2,provided sunk a very good numbers of IJN ships. It’s fact that SBD5 [1200 hp-895 kW//Oklahoma]was faster with an ability of better payload ,if we look into range ratio, comparing the Stukas there.Up to ’43 it remained main naval dive bomber. About 2000 were made until replaced by Vought F4U Corsairs[One 2000 hp Pratt & Whitney 18-cylinder radial piston//single seat].The 1st USN single engine aircraft to exceed the speed of 400 mph. Approx kill was 2100 + against a sacrifice of 190 F4U.Since it had a greatest role of a fighter during War 2, SBD 5 remains one of my favorites.
I would say the later model Stukas (when they were given the cannons as well as bombs), when flying unchecked they were devastatingly accurate and safe to fly. The Germans actually built an autopilot function so that if the pilot passed out during the almost vertical dive then aircraft could pull up unaided, thus saving the machine, pilot and co-pilot. Also attributed to them was the extreme fear instilled in ground forces when they heard the 'Jericho trumpets' descending on them. Also according to early German military doctrine if they were attacking then the panzers were not far behind, meaning that whilst the enemy were regrouping they would come under further fire from medium to long range artillery and SPGs. All this made the Stuka one of, if not the finest 'dive bomber' of WW2
No great science there, the USN developed in the early 1930's (long before the Ju87 was even a gleam in the Luftwaffe's collective eye) a device to automatically bring a dive bomber out of a dive and successfully tested same. Pilots, on the other hand, detested the thing, preferring to maintain their own control. In the end, it was never installed in active service aircraft. Not saying the Ju87 was not a good dive bomber, it was, but it was no technical marvel and certainly broke no new ground in the concept. Don't suppose anyone would want to guess where the Luftwaffe got the idea for a dedicated dive bomber? Also, Ju87's didn't have a co-pilot . . . a rear gunner, sure, but not a co-pilot.
The d3a val sank more ships during ww2 than any other aircraft.I believe their hit ratio was near 90% during the indian ocean operations.
Well,as far as my knowledge goes,Val been maintained its potentiality for IJN,up to the Battle of Coral Sea.It simply been outclassed by USN in Pacific Theater in later years.Its last engagement could be seen at Leyte or Okinawa,in a role of Kamikaze. Incident of Pearl Harbour wasn't a surprise attack by Val? Obviously it successfully disrupted more Allies shipping activities than the Luftwaffes', but hardly faced any 1st line confrontation,I think so. One more important thing that SBD5 was more powerful than Val /:/a 1000 hp-570kW Mitsubishi-Kinsai 43 radial piston provided better maneuverability,cowling and improved dive breaking system,but outclassed to SBD5,if you compare payload and range-ratio,which was more strategically required there for carrier borne operations in the Pacific.
