Late game fighter-bombers

[dontmajorchem]

As far as I understand, dive bombers remain viable and even necessary in the late game but fighters can only glide bomb. IRL however, the idea of a dedicated dive bomber was given up on by the end of WW2 in favor of fighter-bombers such as the F4U Corsair (To be fair, the USN loved torp bombers and I think they preferred them over dive-bombers even after midway).


I think it would be cool for fighters to take up the dive bombing roll around the mid 40s and therefore completely obsoleting the dive bomber. This could be done with a simple tech allowing fighters to dive bomber or several techs that gradually increase fighters' ability to attack naval targets.

What are your thought?

Edit: After reading comments, I realised that the same thing can pretty much be said for torp bombers aswell

 

[holoween]

Id agree with you if fighters werent already more usefull than divebombers in the late 40s.

[oldpop2000]

Nov 24, 2020 7:06:41 GMT -6 dontmajorchem said:

As far as I understand, dive bombers remain viable and even necessary in the late game but fighters can only glide bomb. IRL however, the idea of a dedicated dive bomber was given up on by the end of WW2 in favor of fighter-bombers such as the F4U Corsair (To be fair, the USN loved torp bombers and I think they preferred them over dive-bombers even after midway).


I think it would be cool for fighters to take up the dive bombing roll around the mid 40s and therefore completely obsoleting the dive bomber. This could be done with a simple tech allowing fighters to dive bomber or several techs that gradually increase fighters' ability to attack naval targets.

What are your thought?

 

First of all, the USN never loved torpedo bombers, they loved dive bombers because they were more accurate and could survive bombing missions better. They used the dive bombers also for inner patrols and once in a while to guard against torpedo bombers.  The USN had two dive bomber squadrons, a VS and a VB. The first was for scouting but it still carried a 500 lbs. bomb. The second was primarily for dive bombing attacks at either 60 degree or 30 degree glide bombing attacks.  As the war progressed and the USN began to support island hopping and the amphibious landings, the USN increased its fighter squadron strength from 18 at Coral Sea to well over 60 by the end of the war. There were four 18 plane squadrons at the end of the war. The planes were equipped to carry bombs to be used to attack land based targets primarily because of the lack of Japanese ships due to their losses. This information comes from reading AAR and all Naval reports over the last 50 years and my father's experience in a carrier dive bomber squadron. 

[nimrod]

Nov 24, 2020 9:54:31 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

First of all, the USN never loved torpedo bombers, they loved dive bombers because they were more accurate and could survive bombing missions better. They used the dive bombers also for inner patrols and once in a while to guard against torpedo bombers.  The USN had two dive bomber squadrons, a VS and a VB. The first was for scouting but it still carried a 500 lbs. bomb. The second was primarily for dive bombing attacks at either 60 degree or 30 degree glide bombing attacks.  As the war progressed and the USN began to support island hopping and the amphibious landings, the USN increased its fighter squadron strength from 18 at Coral Sea to well over 60 by the end of the war. There were four 18 plane squadrons at the end of the war. The planes were equipped to carry bombs to be used to attack land based targets primarily because of the lack of Japanese ships due to their losses. This information comes from reading AAR and all Naval reports over the last 50 years and my father's experience in a carrier dive bomber squadron. 

Oldpop2000,

I think the reference to TB's being "loved" by the USN was in regards to the A-1 Skyraider which was a multi-role aircraft which carried torpedoes to strike the Hwacheon Dam in the Korean War and also served in the Vietnam war as a ground pounder. I agree the USN does not "love" torpedo carrying air-craft, but they did and do seem to like outfitting aircraft to be torpedo capable. I'm sure you are familiar with the Korean War strike and as far as I can tell it was the last war fired torpedo from a fixed wing aircraft that was launched from a CV.  www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/skyraiders-torpedo-the-hwachon-dam/

Personally, I think the historical answer to the OP post is seen with the the rise of multi-role attack aircraft in the 40's; like the A-1 which had dive brakes along with torpedo launching capacity. Rather than trying to force fighters into an expanded ground attack role - which they ultimately have mostly taken over due to advancements in weapons technology rather than suitability of the air-frames or doctrines. I would like to see the rise of multi-role attack aircraft in the 40's, with them carrying guided munitions (like the in-game MBs) in the early 50's. If the game was expanded into the 60-70's, than your multi-role fighters (F-4) and dedicated attack aircraft (A-6) could be outfitted with guided munitions...

Edit: I voted for the option to keep DB and fighters separate. Personally, I would vote to combine TB and DB in the 40's if I had the option.

[oldpop2000]

Nov 24, 2020 11:11:36 GMT -6 nimrod said:

Nov 24, 2020 9:54:31 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

First of all, the USN never loved torpedo bombers, they loved dive bombers because they were more accurate and could survive bombing missions better. They used the dive bombers also for inner patrols and once in a while to guard against torpedo bombers.  The USN had two dive bomber squadrons, a VS and a VB. The first was for scouting but it still carried a 500 lbs. bomb. The second was primarily for dive bombing attacks at either 60 degree or 30 degree glide bombing attacks.  As the war progressed and the USN began to support island hopping and the amphibious landings, the USN increased its fighter squadron strength from 18 at Coral Sea to well over 60 by the end of the war. There were four 18 plane squadrons at the end of the war. The planes were equipped to carry bombs to be used to attack land based targets primarily because of the lack of Japanese ships due to their losses. This information comes from reading AAR and all Naval reports over the last 50 years and my father's experience in a carrier dive bomber squadron. 

Oldpop2000,

I think the reference to TB's being "loved" by the USN was in regards to the A-1 Skyraider which was a multi-role aircraft which carried torpedoes to strike the Hwacheon Dam in the Korean War and also served in the Vietnam war as a ground pounder. I agree the USN does not "love" torpedo carrying air-craft, but they did and do seem to like outfitting aircraft to be torpedo capable. I'm sure you are familiar with the Korean War strike and as far as I can tell it was the last war fired torpedo from a fixed wing aircraft that was launched from a CV.  www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/skyraiders-torpedo-the-hwachon-dam/

Personally, I think the historical answer to the OP post is seen with the the rise of multi-role attack aircraft in the 40's; like the A-1 which had dive brakes along with torpedo launching capacity. Rather than trying to force fighters into an expanded ground attack role - which they ultimately have mostly taken over due to advancements in weapons technology rather than suitability of the air-frames or doctrines. I would like to see the rise of multi-role attack aircraft in the 40's, with them carrying guided munitions (like the in-game MBs) in the early 50's. If the game was expanded into the 60-70's, than your multi-role fighters (F-4) and dedicated attack aircraft (A-6) could be outfitted with guided munitions...

Edit: I voted for the option to keep DB and fighters separate. Personally, I would vote to combine TB and DB in the 40's if I had the option.

I can go along with your observations and comments. The Navy used the torpedo bomber more as a level bomber than a torpedo bomber. Multi-role aircraft did arise during WW2 as even the F6F-5 could carry a torpedo. I am familiar with the strike on the dam. Eventually, the multi-role aircraft eliminated the role of the torpedo bomber and dive bomber mostly because its primary targets went away with the end of the war and advent of rockets and missiles. Good comments.

[andrewm]

Last attempt to use a Torpedo bomber the Falklands war, Argentina modified a Pucera attack aircraft to drop a torpedo. Never actually used in combat but they had it ready just before the end of the war, using american WW2 Torpedo's

[elouda]

Late fighters can already carry a respectable bomb load, so I dont really know what is being asked for here? They use a glide attack profile, which is the best fighters can do - without dive brakes you are not really able to do 'true' dive bombing attacks. That said glide bombing is still pretty accurate.

The only point I've seen here that does make some sense is the arrival of the multi-role 'attacker' ala the AD, B7A, etc. which is capable of both torpedo attacks and dive bombing. That could very well have a place in the 40s.

[oldpop2000]

Apparently, the P-8 Poseidon is getting winged torpedoes as of 2016. www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3582/the-p-8-poseidon-will-get-winged-torpedoes-to-kill-subs-at-long-range

[dontmajorchem]

Nov 25, 2020 8:15:18 GMT -6 elouda said:

Late fighters can already carry a respectable bomb load, so I dont really know what is being asked for here? They use a glide attack profile, which is the best fighters can do - without dive brakes you are not really able to do 'true' dive bombing attacks. That said glide bombing is still pretty accurate.

The only point I've seen here that does make some sense is the arrival of the multi-role 'attacker' ala the AD, B7A, etc. which is capable of both torpedo attacks and dive bombing. That could very well have a place in the 40s.

Yeah, I don't have a lot of experience in the late game, but I'll load up one of my 50s saves and do some testing

[rimbecano]

Nov 25, 2020 8:15:18 GMT -6 elouda said:

Late fighters can already carry a respectable bomb load, so I dont really know what is being asked for here? They use a glide attack profile, which is the best fighters can do - without dive brakes you are not really able to do 'true' dive bombing attacks. That said glide bombing is still pretty accurate.

You can fly a fairly decent dive bombing profile in a 1940s fighter. Your higher structural limits for speed and G-loading allow you to pull into and back out of a vertical dive, though you have less time to aim and a higher pullout without dive brakes, so accuracy will suffer somewhat.

[brygun]

One important question is: In this game's rules do later fighters actually use 'dive bombing' game mechanics or do the say on IIRC glide bombing?

I agree that later on real life fighters can have dive brakes, which is a major part of dive bombing designs. The question is about the game mechanics.

[oldpop2000]

Dive bombers did not pull out of their dives, they leveled out after releasing the bomb or bombs, then flew straight and level because they had accumulated airspeed and wanted to use it to exit the area quickly. Now once they had cleared the area, then they climbed out and joined the rest of the squadron.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sb.htm



When you hit the release altitude, you also retract the dive brakes. You should be going about 240-250 Knots. You then level off and get the heck out of Dodge as fast as possible.

[brygun]

When a dive bomber "pull's out" he is hoping for more than splash damage. <wink>

[oldpop2000]

Nov 29, 2020 18:04:42 GMT -6 brygun said:

When a dive bomber "pull's out" he is hoping for more than splash damage. <wink>

Yup, and he had better not drop it too low or he will be caught in the blast. Happened more times that anyone cares to remember.

[jwsmith26]

You didn't have to have dive brakes to execute a dive bombing attack. The F4U was able to partially lower its landing gear to slow a dive, though I have read that pilots disliked the tactic and seldom used it. As with many WW2 issues it's somewhat unclear about how the technique was used and whether it was used consistently (probably not) but it appears that the use of landing gear as dive brakes was a feature of the plane and was described in the plane's manual.

Here's a link to a discussion of the tactic on WW2aircraft.net: ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/corsair-as-dive-bomber.45905/