Jump to content

Spitbomber


Recommended Posts

With reference to this post I made a couple of days ago - these "bookazines" are a goldmine for WWII research and enhusiasts.

 

Yesterday I was reading an excellent article in one which demonstrates the testing done for dive bombing in the Spitfire IX - first practised operationally on D-Day, complete with altitudes, speeds, dive angles etc etc - it's a real shame I can't scan and post the relevant diagrams here (copyright) - but I'm sorely tempted to make my own version and post it on my website under the Spitfire guides, though. If I do (highly likely) I'll post the link here.

 

They were called "Spitbomber" - and it was an apt name as apparently, the project really bombed! Arf :doh:

 

Compared to the Typhoon, P-38J, P-47D and P-51D, the Spit IX was considered the worst dive-bomber, mostly due to it's high speed and light payload. Less damage and more likely to "auger in". It also had a dismal range when carrying bombs, compared to the others.

 

Here's a minor eye-opener - 60% of all Spitbomber crashes were due to blown tyres because of the extra weight.

 

Recalling a relevant phrase by Brutus back in Roman times: "You may call a cat a fish, but it cannot swim..." :cry:


Edited by Brixmis

Kneeboard Guides

Rig: Asus B650-GAMING PLUS; Ryzen 7800X3D ; 64GB DDR5 5600; RTX 4080; VPC T50 CM2 HOTAS; SN-1 Pedals; VR = Pico 4 over VD Wireless + Index; Point Control v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With reference to this post I made a couple of days ago - these "bookazines" are a goldmine for WWII research and enhusiasts.

 

Yesterday I was reading an excellent article in one which demonstrates the testing done for dive bombing in the Spitfire IX - first practised operationally on D-Day, complete with altitudes, speeds, dive angles etc etc - it's a real shame I can't scan and post the relevant diagrams here (copyright) - but I'm sorely tempted to make my own version and post it on my website under the Spitfire guides, though. If I do (highly likely) I'll post the link here.

 

They were called "Spitbomber" - and it was an apt name as apparently, the project really bombed! Arf :doh:

 

Compared to the Typhoon, P-38J, P-47D and P-51D, the Spit IX was considered the worst dive-bomber, mostly due to it's high speed and light payload. Less damage and more likely to "auger in". It also had a dismal range when carrying bombs, compared to the others.

 

Here's a minor eye-opener - 60% of all Spitbomber crashes were due to blown tyres because of the extra weight.

 

Recalling a relevant phrase by Brutus back in Roman times: "You may call a cat a fish, but it cannot swim..." :cry:

 

And they used bomb delayed timings, but we still don't have bomb delay setting options in DCS (hope this issue is addressed before the Mosquito arrives), but please someone correct me if I am wrong about that.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Bell_UH-1 side.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I didn't really want to turn it into another ED critique thread, but anyway - I am reading another book atm about the role the RAF played (not just the RAF, but combined arms) in prepping for and supporting D-day 6th June 1944.

 

This bookazine is by a recent spitfire pilot, who was also CO of the BBMF for a while and this opened his eyes to the history of the WWII aircraft and so he did a lot of research in archives and with fellow pilots and personnel and came up with this book.

 

Apparently, the Spitbombers did play a vital role beyond the FEBA, on call to FAC spotters who would call on the Spitbombers and Typhoons for CAS ops, but also operating beyond the lines and harassing lines of comms, trains, convoys, depots and dumps to prevent the enemy from moving reinforcements in, and deny the front line troops of resupply.

 

So pretty much the classic front line ops that we would consider par for the course today, but in 1944. This wasn't the first time such combined operations were used by the allies - that honour fell to the Italy campaign.

 

Incidentally, whilst the aircraft were called in to support the troops, a simultaneous call would go to the artillery batterys, who would shell known AAA positions in the AO.

 

I've also just been watching an interesting British Army training video from the war, where infantry section anti-aircraft tactics are demonstrated.

 

 

So lets not complain about "golden AK" bringing us down! I also read about such a thing happening in Aden to an RAF Strikemaster pilot - brought down by a single 7.62 bullet through his fuel line! It does happen. And then some! :)


Edited by Brixmis
  • Like 1

Kneeboard Guides

Rig: Asus B650-GAMING PLUS; Ryzen 7800X3D ; 64GB DDR5 5600; RTX 4080; VPC T50 CM2 HOTAS; SN-1 Pedals; VR = Pico 4 over VD Wireless + Index; Point Control v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Thank you for that information :)

 

I have read the book: “Normandy '44 D-Day and the epic 77-day battle for France” by James Holland

 

It mentions that, it was roughly from the “Breakout” of the Normandy campaign (1st half of July), for fighter ground attack, the RAF started to adopted new tactics.

Those were, not only marauding far and wide like from the beginning of the Normandy campaign, but also to support specific operation on the ground where precision was so important. This last, was copied from the First Tactical Air Force in Italy.

 

 

 

Now, a completing subject for DCS player

 

Initially, I wanted to build CAS missions in the missions pack “June 12th 1944”.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/fr/files/3307597/

But, wanting to respect the historic environment, I have oriented missions accordingly.

 

 

Belly

Bf 109 K-4 / Fw 190 A-8 / Spitfire LF Mk. IX / P51-D / Normandy 1944 map + ww2 assets pack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Belly - yes, thanks for your efforts, I did download those missions - though they are in my ever-growing list of ops to fly! Have to take an enforced break now, as well, so still can't fly them for a while!

 

I have that book by James Holland, too - very informative and interesting. I also enjoyed his whole set of WWII fiction books (Jack Tanner) and his Battle of Britain book with fictional characters participating in actual historic events.

 

We are lucky to have so much information readily available these days.

Kneeboard Guides

Rig: Asus B650-GAMING PLUS; Ryzen 7800X3D ; 64GB DDR5 5600; RTX 4080; VPC T50 CM2 HOTAS; SN-1 Pedals; VR = Pico 4 over VD Wireless + Index; Point Control v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How fortuitous, that this thread has just been started..

 

I just finished reading a book called "Flying Start" ... great book about a spitfire pilot that started in the UK Aux Squadrons (basically civilians).. flying battle of Britain.. then off to the desert.. then to malta.. then to italy and was promoted to I think group captain at the age of 23! He and his fellow pilots were tasked with how to attach bombs to the spitfire in italy and then work out how to drop them.

 

As I was reading the book he mentioned the technique he used which is the following..

 

“I found that if I flew so that the target passed under my wing just outside the cannon mounting, then held my course until it reappeared aft of my wing, I would be in about the right position to begin my dive. The target would thus be a little to one side and very slightly behind. It was then necessary to turn the Spitfire over on to its back and let the nose drop through the vertical, using ailerons and elevators to position the red bead of the reflector sight on the target and hold it there. The angle of dive would be about twenty degrees off the vertical and this would be held from the starting height of about eight thousand feet to something under two thousand feet. At this point I would decrease the angle slightly to bring the bead ahead of the target, at the same time counting ‘One-and-two-and-three’, then press the button. No doubt the whole procedure sounds thoroughly Heath Robinson, but it worked. In due course I reached the stage where I was most dissatisfied if my bomb burst more than fifty yards from target–and a five hundred pound bomb exploding only fifty yards away can be rather more than an irritant. Usually I succeeded in doing much better than that"

 

So i thought straight from the horses mouth.. I would try it in DCS and well... works really bloody well. After a while I found the aft wing part a bit hard to see the target... I was just making sure I was rolling in at 80 degrees down..(steep dive) with prop and manifold on idle... followed his instructions and I was getting really accurate.

 

I then started at 6000ft as well... seemed to work just less time to line it up

 

Let me know how you guys go, id be very interested to see if this works for you to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From.

 

 

 

Squadron 73, Italy and Yugoslavia. (Similar tactics).

 

 

 

Carrying 2 x 250 lb bombs. the Spitfire made a very fine dive bomber.

 

 

We normally operated in sections of 4 and would fly to the target at 10,000 ft. in finger 4 battle formation.

As the target came into view, I would position it so that it appeared to be running down the line of my port cannon. When the target emerged from under the trailing edge, I would pull the aircraft up, roll it over on its back and let the nose drop until the target was lined up in the gunsight graticule. That way, one got the Spitfire to go down at the correct angle of dive of 60 degrees.

The other aircraft in the section, Nos 2, 3, and 4 would be following me down, still in echelon.

 

When the leader's dive took him to an altitude of 4,000' AGL he released his bombs. I would let go my bombs and call "Bombs gone!" The other chaps in the section released theirs.

 

 

..


Edited by Holbeach

I7 2600K @ 3.8, CoolerMaster 212X, EVGA GTX 1070 8gb. RAM 16gb Corsair, 1kw PSU. 2 x WD SSD. 1 x Samsung M2 NVMe. 3 x HDD. Saitek X-52. Saitek Pro Flight pedals. CH Flight Sim yoke. TrackIR 5. Win 10 Pro. IIyama 1080p. MSAA x 2, SSAA x 1.5. Settings High. Harrier/Spitfire/Beaufighter/The Channel, fanboy..





..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's great Muse - I'll give it a try once I have my 'new' PC installed and let you know how I get on.

 

I'll be trying the 'official' method described in the Aviation Historian book as well.

Kneeboard Guides

Rig: Asus B650-GAMING PLUS; Ryzen 7800X3D ; 64GB DDR5 5600; RTX 4080; VPC T50 CM2 HOTAS; SN-1 Pedals; VR = Pico 4 over VD Wireless + Index; Point Control v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of CAS & interdiction was developed after the trench breakout in WW1, shame we always forget lessons so quickly ( convoys! ). I've also read a book or two covering ( usually in part ) the development of combined arms ops - it's both amazing in the WW2 way how fast things develop and how you want to smack your head against something because of all the delays caused by intransigence & ownership issues...

 

I think a lot of using the Spit for bombing ( in Normandy at least ) was that there wasn't much else for them to do ( relatively ) rather than them being particularily suited for it - especially the older IX when the Griffon engined versions turned up for high-alt work.

Most Wanted: the angry Naval Lynx | Seafire | Buccaneer | Hawker Hunter | Hawker Tempest/Sea Fury | Su-17/22 | rough strip rearming / construction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From "The Online Tank Museum":

 

"All bark, no bite

 

In August 1944, the RAF claimed to have destroyed 135 tanks in the Goodwood area (Battle for Caen). In order to analyze the weapons and tactics employed and to evaluate the damage that was done on given targets, a small team of researchers was usually dispatched to the corresponding battleground, a common practice in most armies of that time. The British “Office of Research and Analysis” conclusion was eye-opening and contradicted the RAF pilots’ over enthusiastic display: Of the 300 examined vehicles, only 10 were actually hit and damaged by the Typhoon’s RP-3 rockets.

 

Mortain is another candidate of such over-claiming, between the 7th and 10th August, the 2nd Tactical Air Force of the 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 120-140 tanks, yet of the 46 Axis tanks lost, only 9 of them could be attributed to aircraft. In fact, in the entire Normandy campaign, the Germans lost no more than 100 tanks to Allied sorties. 13 Tiger tanks were affected, however seven of them lost to massive high altitude bombing on the 18th of July and only 6 of the German heavy tanks could be attributed to the low altitude air raids of the Allied pilots.

 

Another noteworthy case would be Falaise: The tactical and operational conditions in the pocket constrained the German units to “forced march” during daytime. This, along with optimal weather conditions, amplified the RAF’s and USAAF’s chances of success, which resulted merely in a minimal increase of destroyed tanks. In retrospect, traversing open fields did not necessarily result in a high tank loss ratio.

 

Ironically, low altitude attacks could become very dangerous for the attacking aircraft, especially if the strafed tank formations were protected by a serious amount of Flak/AA guns. The 2nd Tactical Air Force lost 829 aircraft and the 9th Fleet lost 897 throughout the whole Normandy campaign, the majority of the casualties being close support fighter-bombers."

 

 

 

Sri to pee on your Cheerios and not withstanding the end of "Saving Private Ryan" in which a Mustang blows up a Tiger tank with a bomb, but tank busting by aerial bombing was ineffective.


Edited by HotTom

Exceptional engineering...and a large hammer to make it fit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've read that elsewhere as well - I'm actually surprised when I see video of those rockets hitting ships given how inaccurate they seem, so I've always taken successful anti-tank with a pinch of salt. Having said that there's a lot of soft vehicle targets in theatre too which near-misses with rockets & 20mm cannonfire are going to be far more effective against.

 

CAS aircraft in queues were at least demoralising the opposition - something else we should have picked up from the Germans earlier. Ironic how much German attack doctrine came from a couple of British staff officers who'd studied the end of WW1 & kept up with new tech....

Most Wanted: the angry Naval Lynx | Seafire | Buccaneer | Hawker Hunter | Hawker Tempest/Sea Fury | Su-17/22 | rough strip rearming / construction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How fortuitous, that this thread has just been started..

As I was reading the book he mentioned the technique he used which is the following..

From.

Squadron 73, Italy and Yugoslavia. (Similar tactics).

I've read a couple of threads on this technique. This one has a diagram. And here is a YouTube video of it being tried out.

 


Edited by keith55
Fix YouTube link.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've read that elsewhere as well - I'm actually surprised when I see video of those rockets hitting ships given how inaccurate they seem, so I've always taken successful anti-tank with a pinch of salt. Having said that there's a lot of soft vehicle targets in theatre too which near-misses with rockets & 20mm cannonfire are going to be far more effective against.

 

Yup. When I fly ground attack (interdiction, actually) missions in the Spit, I hunt for trucks, not tanks.

Exceptional engineering...and a large hammer to make it fit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

air attacks would also make inexperienced crews abandon their vehicles.

only to get killed outside.

 

it takes veterans to stay with the vehicle while aircraft are trying to bomb it.

most people instinctively want to get as far away from it as soon as possible.

 

like the french rout at sedan in the battle of France. the stuka actually killed very few troops.

but they made thousands abandon their bunkers and trenches.


Edited by Quadg

My Rig: AM5 7950X, 32GB DDR5 6000, M2 SSD, EVGA 1080 Superclocked, Warthog Throttle and Stick, MFG Crosswinds, Oculus Rift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...