Allied version of v1

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[gamesguy2]

well this is COH logic, where recon pilots fly a few metres from the ground. and bombers fly a few metres more higher.

Dive bombers like the P47 flies low yes.

High altitute bombers dont.  In fact the 88 in coh can't shoot down the transport plane that drops the airborne, so there is no way it can shoot down a real bomber.

[Demon767]

oh yea thats true.

[AmPM]

P47.....dive bomber?

No...just no....

Fighter/Bomber, CAS...yes

Dive Bomber no....

[Malevolence]

Dive bombing is a tactic, not a plane. Some planes are better at it than others.

[NightRain]

Dive bombing is a tactic, not a plane. Some planes are better at it than others.

That is why they are called Dive bombers. They are designed for that purpose. For example Junkers 87 Stuka was designed for dive bombing tactics. Clever Germans added a Horn in it to make the ear screeking sound to cause fear along the masses when those bombers dive. Although even Stuka can be considered as Figher/Bomber. It didn't perfom too well in a role of a fighter due to its slower speed but it could take out aircraft that were old designs from World War 1 and maybe even few passanger planes. Though its main role was bombing.


An Allied V1? Guys smoking crack already? I mean that thing would be worser than Axis V1... So far Axis V1s are used to take out Howizers and Triage Centers. Howizers because they bomb defenders build ups and Triages because they heal the infantry that just keeps coming back wave after wave.

If allied players had those V1s they would 1 shoot City defences or 88s at ease. I'd say it wouldn't work too well because of balance. Use the nuclear bombing run to clear out city and 88s. Flak Gun is easy to take out in most cases, it only depends where it is placed and where it can be approached. It is not like it is in a middle of an open ground with full range on every side without any hedgerow or anything nearby it so that it can be taken out with mortars. There is always something a weak link that is well defended. Everything has a weak spot to exploit and usually its not the easiest one. For example- why let a motorbike or a Storm squad sneak up to that 88? Weak spot without any spotter was exploited and the artillery piece got destroyed. Tactics lads, tactics

[Tymathee]

^ What he said, there were planes on both sides that were made on the assembly line as dive bombers.

Like the stuka above, it was made AS a dive bomber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

Heck, the name Stuka is short for the name "Dive-bomber" in German. or drop- fight plane

The Junkers Ju 87 or Stuka (from Sturzkampfflugzeug, "dive bomber") was a two-seat (pilot and rear gunner) German ground-attack aircraft

Or the Japanese Val

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichi_D3A

Or Suisei (comet)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_D4Y

The American Dauntless
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBD_Dauntless

and the American hell diver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB2C_Helldiver

[AmPM]

Dive Bombers have a built in Dive Break to prevent their speed in a dive from getting to high and causing the pilot to black out.

It controls their speed so they can go into a vertical or near vertical dive to drop a bomb accurately.

Without said Dive Break, attempting to dive bomb results in crashing into the ground.

Low altitude ground attack is different.

Diving to gain energy to make a pass is different.

The Jug (p-47) could get to extreme speeds in a dive, it was used mainly as ground support, tank killer and anti-bomber. Something to do with the 8 .50 cal guns and large bomb/rocket load.

[thaelmann]

i'd say let's give the allies this guy as a t3:



obviously it will be one use only 

[simpson02]

Just give this super bomb to the brits and all will be cool, it will also be historically accurate, lancaster bombers were used to drop these bombs.

[EliteGren]

Not more offmaps for either side plz.

[Malevolence]

That is why they are called Dive bombers. They are designed for that purpose. For example Junkers 87 Stuka was designed for dive bombing tactics. Clever Germans added a Horn in it to make the ear screeking sound to cause fear along the masses when those bombers dive. Although even Stuka can be considered as Figher/Bomber. It didn't perfom too well in a role of a fighter due to its slower speed but it could take out aircraft that were old designs from World War 1 and maybe even few passanger planes. Though its main role was bombing.

Yes I am aware there are such things as specific dive bombing planes, however a CAS plane would reasonably be expected to use dive bombing as a method of providing CAS. Almost all CAS planes and light bombers could (and would) use dive bombing as a method of attack, thus I assumed Gamesguy was just referencing dive bombing as a method of CAS, as opposed to level-bombing which was mostly certainly almost never used as a CAS bomb-release method.

What he said, there were planes on both sides that were made on the assembly line as dive bombers.

Like the stuka above, it was made AS a dive bomber.

The P47 could act as a dive bomber, even if it was not designed as one. Almost all planes that could run CAS effectively could also dive bomb effectively.

Dive Bombers have a built in Dive Break to prevent their speed in a dive from getting to high and causing the pilot to black out.

It controls their speed so they can go into a vertical or near vertical dive to drop a bomb accurately.

Without said Dive Break, attempting to dive bomb results in crashing into the ground.

The SB2C was not fitted with a dive brake. Us silly Americans must've had several hundred of those all crash right into the ground before we realized our mistake!

I've dive bombed in simulators dozens of times with planes that don't have dive brakes, all it does is result in increased speed, which is a decreased bombing window which means less accuracy. Dive brakes are nice, but they are not necessary to dive bomb as long as you don't wait so long to pull up as a Stuka would, nor start from so high a height as a Stuka would. As evidence of this, a prototype of the SB2C had most of its tail and starboard wing snap off as it pulled out of a dive that was obviously too steep for its airframe to handle. Don't be retarded with your plane and you can divebomb in almost anything.

Low altitude ground attack is different.

Diving to gain energy to make a pass is different.

The Jug (p-47) could get to extreme speeds in a dive, it was used mainly as ground support, tank killer and anti-bomber. Something to do with the 8 .50 cal guns and large bomb/rocket load.

Note the large bomb load. Ground support bombers almost always angled steeply to get more accuracy out of their bombs, hence "dive" bombing...

Level-bombing is almost impossible without a bomb sight and an experienced bombardier unless you are so low that you risk damaging your own aircraft if you do not have self-guided munitions like we do today.

[AmPM]

Damn those SB2Cs and their having dive breaks!

"The Beast has probably one of the most complicated hydraulic systems of any single-engine World War II plane. The system operates the landing gear, flaps, dive brakes, cowl flaps, oil cooler doors, bomb bay doors and wing fold mechanism, and has a primary and secondary circuit, and valves designed to help isolate combat damage. The landing flaps and dive brakes take some getting used to, as they are operated by the same lever – moved back for flaps and forward for dive brakes."

Anyway, especially at this point in the war, you would be seeing more rockets and guns used vs tanks and infantry than bombs.

[Malevolence]

"The Beast has probably one of the most complicated hydraulic systems of any single-engine World War II plane. The system operates the landing gear, flaps, dive brakes, cowl flaps, oil cooler doors, bomb bay doors and wing fold mechanism, and has a primary and secondary circuit, and valves designed to help isolate combat damage. The landing flaps and dive brakes take some getting used to, as they are operated by the same lever – moved back for flaps and forward for dive brakes."

I've searched two dozen websites, not a single one mentioned the plane having dive brakes. Source please.

Furthermore, whether or not the SB2C has dive brakes or not is inconsequential, as the first dive bombing attempts were made without them in 1918 and 1919, thus leading to the tactic. Obviously it can be done without them, or those planes would have crashed, and thus we would not have ever developed dive bombing from their dive bombing runs.

[Tymathee]

I've searched two dozen websites, not a single one mentioned the plane having dive brakes. Source please.

Not looking very well, took me 1 minute.

http://www.historynet.com/curtiss-sb2c-helldiver-the-last-dive-bomber.htm
http://www.historynet.com/curtiss-sb2c-helldiver-the-last-dive-bomber.htm/2

type in sb2c and dive brakes and boom thats the 1st thing up on google.

then ther's this page

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/curtiss_hell.php

© From the SB2C-4 model onwards both the upper and lower wing dive-brakes were perforated. This reduced buffering during the dive.

[Malevolence]

Tym, I had thought that was a one page article, and on the first page it made no mention.

Upon further inspection it was actually a two-page article as you point out, and it is on the second page.

Every other article I looked at made no mention of dive brakes outside a general context of dive bombers usually having them.

Which, as I mentioned, turns out to be completely irrelevant, as dive bombing was originally developed before air brakes of any sort actually existed thereby obviously disproving the notion of "needing dive brakes" to dive bomb.

[Tymathee]

Tym, I had thought that was a one page article, and on the first page it made no mention.

Upon further inspection it was actually a two-page article as you point out, and it is on the second page.

Every other article I looked at made no mention of dive brakes outside a general context of dive bombers usually having them.

Which, as I mentioned, turns out to be completely irrelevant, as dive bombing was originally developed before air brakes of any sort actually existed thereby obviously disproving the notion of "needing dive brakes" to dive bomb.

agreed, I read that as well. Dive brakes aren't needed but they make it easier to pull out of dives and also to not black out when you're pulling back up and getting all those neg g's.

[Malevolence]

Yes, dive brakes do enable a much more extended dive time which results in more accurate bomb placement.

They are not a prerequisite of dive bombing, which can be done as long as you do not overexert your plane or your pilot.

Generally dive bombing in planes without air brakes should be done at about 40-60 degrees from the vertical, the dive should be from around 1500 feet max to around 250 or 300 feet minimum, assuming 250 pound bombs. Doing that gives a lot more accuracy than level bombing during CAS, even for planes like the Mosquito, which have a bombardier and bomb sights. Preferably it should be begun with a lot of speed bled off the plane so that the dive does not overaccelerate the aircraft.

With air brakes dives can go closer to 70 or even 80 degrees from I believe around 1000 feet to 200 feet with 250 pound bombs, though that's from memory, not wikipedia, so I may be mistaken.

[AmPM]

I miss dive bombing in my Stuka in IL-2. Such a fun thing to do. I always found it interesting that the bottom of that plane actually had a hole in it lol.

[Mysthalin]

However - more speed = moar boom. Basics of kinetics ^^.

If you're gonna try and do a super-sonic megaboom by starting to dive from a retarded altitude, and pulling up at what's the standard starting dive bomb height .

[Skaevola]

I do not believe the allies had any dedicated dive bombers in the European Theater, their roles better used in the Pacific against Naval targets. Later versions of the P-38 however were equipped with dive breaks (j or l series) and could carry a decent amount of bombs. As mentioned, P-47's were also used as close air support, and were very effective due to their absurd amount of armor. P-38's were less survivable but had two engines, and could RTB with an engine out.

Dive brakes aren't needed but they make it easier to pull out of dives and also to not black out when you're pulling back up and getting all those neg g's.

I'm not sure how you think gravity works, but pulling out of a dive does not give you negative g's (unless you do it backwards in which case you're more likely to splat into the ground  )