F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

Now, take your engineering prowess and consider the geometry of level
versus high angle release of a bomb--by diving at the target (in the
simplest iteration) you reduce the aircraft's travel over the ground
and hence increase the accuracy.

If you wish to go to higher levels of math, you need to consider dive
angle, airspeed, bank, sight depression from flight path, wind drift
both before and after release (aircraft first then bomb),
accelerations (g-loads), aerodynamic drag of bomb and a few other
things to begin to get what dive bombing is about.

But, don't ask corporals--they may know something about their
particular field, but it may not be dive bombing.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

So you extrapolated from one man's experience the assumption that _most_
bombing of England(sic) was performed bt _Dive-bombers_?


OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

Now, take your engineering prowess and consider the geometry of level
versus high angle release of a bomb--by diving at the target (in the
simplest iteration) you reduce the aircraft's travel over the ground
and hence increase the accuracy.

If you wish to go to higher levels of math, you need to consider dive
angle, airspeed, bank, sight depression from flight path, wind drift
both before and after release (aircraft first then bomb),
accelerations (g-loads), aerodynamic drag of bomb and a few other
things to begin to get what dive bombing is about.

But, don't ask corporals--they may know something about their
particular field, but it may not be dive bombing.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


I concur with Ed Rasimus's comments above...
It could be that the 'British Army Courier Corporal' - interesting that no
Regiment or Corps was cited - did actually experience situations where
_most_ of the _bombing_
was by dive-bombers. This was not the experience of the majority (=
significantly more than half) of the British population suffering from the
'Blitz' on cities. {Isn't there a saying about one swallow not making a
summer? Perhaps one Corporal's anecdotes do not a form a basis for a
deduction}.

The experiences endured by my mother and her neighbours {most of the menfolk
were on active service} is summarised on the Liverpool blitz web-site
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/nof/blitz/index.html

extract
The seven nights of the 1941 May Blitz (1st-7th May) were the heaviest
consecutive nights of bombing experienced by Liverpool during the whole of
the Second World War. In those few nights around 681 planes dropped 870
tonnes of high explosives and over 112,000 incendiaries (firebombs) on the
area, killing over 1,700 people and making around 76,000 homeless.

/extract

Not much mention of Dive Bombers there! The Luftwaffe _did_ have
Dive-Bombers, these were aircraft specifically designed for
Close-Air-Support of advancing troops and AIUI such aircraft were directed
by their pilots along a line-of-sight towards their target; the aircraft's
systems automagically performed a J-curve manoeuvre which had the effect of
taking the aircraft away and above the target while the ordnance continued
along the line-of-sight to impact. Such aircraft were tasked against known
targets, predominantly the Chain Home stations and airfields. AIUI, the
aircraft-weapon systems was a success but not many Teutonic aircrew made a
second sortie.

--



Brian

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in
:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the
US Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

So you extrapolated from one man's experience the assumption that
_most_ bombing of England(sic) was performed bt _Dive-bombers_?

When that and a few pictures/supporting text of the BoB found in US
history books are all you have to go on, its not that far of a reach.


OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

Now, take your engineering prowess and consider the geometry of level
versus high angle release of a bomb--by diving at the target (in the
simplest iteration) you reduce the aircraft's travel over the ground
and hence increase the accuracy.

If you wish to go to higher levels of math, you need to consider dive
angle, airspeed, bank, sight depression from flight path, wind drift
both before and after release (aircraft first then bomb),
accelerations (g-loads), aerodynamic drag of bomb and a few other
things to begin to get what dive bombing is about.

But, don't ask corporals--they may know something about their
particular field, but it may not be dive bombing.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


I concur with Ed Rasimus's comments above...
It could be that the 'British Army Courier Corporal' - interesting
that no Regiment or Corps was cited - did actually experience
situations where _most_ of the _bombing_
was by dive-bombers. This was not the experience of the majority (=
significantly more than half) of the British population suffering from
the 'Blitz' on cities. {Isn't there a saying about one swallow not
making a summer? Perhaps one Corporal's anecdotes do not a form a
basis for a deduction}.

Apparently not.



The experiences endured by my mother and her neighbours {most of the
menfolk were on active service} is summarised on the Liverpool blitz
web-site http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/nof/blitz/index.html

extract
The seven nights of the 1941 May Blitz (1st-7th May) were the heaviest
consecutive nights of bombing experienced by Liverpool during the
whole of the Second World War. In those few nights around 681 planes
dropped 870 tonnes of high explosives and over 112,000 incendiaries
(firebombs) on the area, killing over 1,700 people and making around
76,000 homeless.

/extract

Not much mention of Dive Bombers there! The Luftwaffe _did_ have
Dive-Bombers, these were aircraft specifically designed for
Close-Air-Support of advancing troops and AIUI such aircraft were
directed by their pilots along a line-of-sight towards their target;
the aircraft's systems automagically performed a J-curve manoeuvre
which had the effect of taking the aircraft away and above the target
while the ordnance continued along the line-of-sight to impact. Such
aircraft were tasked against known targets, predominantly the Chain
Home stations and airfields. AIUI, the aircraft-weapon systems was a
success but not many Teutonic aircrew made a second sortie.


That would explain the British complaint with the early P-51's lack of
high altitude performance. Based on the information I had, I (apparently
incorrectly) assumed that there was no need for a fighter with good high
altitude performance - I thought that most of the action during the BoB
was down low where the early P-51 was actually pretty capable.

Thanks for the education - and that weblink.

DS

In article , DeepSea
wrote:

Not much mention of Dive Bombers there! The Luftwaffe _did_ have
Dive-Bombers, these were aircraft specifically designed for
Close-Air-Support of advancing troops and AIUI such aircraft were
directed by their pilots along a line-of-sight towards their target;
the aircraft's systems automagically performed a J-curve manoeuvre
which had the effect of taking the aircraft away and above the target
while the ordnance continued along the line-of-sight to impact. Such
aircraft were tasked against known targets, predominantly the Chain
Home stations and airfields. AIUI, the aircraft-weapon systems was a
success but not many Teutonic aircrew made a second sortie.


That would explain the British complaint with the early P-51's lack of
high altitude performance. Based on the information I had, I (apparently
incorrectly) assumed that there was no need for a fighter with good high
altitude performance - I thought that most of the action during the BoB
was down low where the early P-51 was actually pretty capable.

The RAF were understandably further ahead of the power curve than USAAC
with regards to what equipment was needed for the air battle.
They had the recent experience of BoB and previously BoF.

The German bombers came over in the mid-teens (probably due to oxygen
issues) with fighter cover that started out in the high teens, but as the
battles
progressed and each side sought the advantage, the fighter cover started
coming over in the low to mid-twenties.

Thus the race for better performing fighters at "high" altitude.

The USAAC was still stuck in the opinion that fighter battles would take place
in the mid-teens. This didn't change until the US entered the war.
That's why NAA had shown the Mustang I to the AAC with the Allison engine.
It performed well at the mid-teens. It's what the AAC asked for, and you
have to offer the customer what he wants.
The British took them that way out of necessity, with their eyes open, and
assigned them to roles that didn't require high altitude, until a fix
could be found.

The USAAC wan't that interested in the Mustang at first because they already
had several figher projects well underway (P-38, P-47).

WRT German dive bombing: the type most used for that was the JU-87 Stuka
and they were such dead meat for the RAF that the Luftwaffe stopped sending
them over early on in BoB.

cheers

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

WRT German dive bombing: the type most used for that was the JU-87 Stuka
and they were such dead meat for the RAF that the Luftwaffe stopped sending
them over early on in BoB.

cheers

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

I know this not what you are really implying, but eneogh people will
read into this statement that I feel it should be mentioned.......
JU-87 & Dive bombing = TACTICAL CAS
Battle of Britain = STRATEGIC bombing
While an improved ability to survive fighters was found to be desirable
for CAS aircraft, useing the BOB as an example of why not to build
dedicated CAS aircraft (don't laugh, the USAF has done exactly that
multiple times) is BOGUS. Stukas did poorly in the BOB after doing well
in the low countries becouse it was a completly differnt mission and
tactical environment then one for which it was designed and trained
for, not becouse it was newly obsolete to the mighty british technology
advancements.
Reed

DeepSea wrote:

snip

That would explain the British complaint with the early P-51's lack of
high altitude performance. Based on the information I had, I (apparently
incorrectly) assumed that there was no need for a fighter with good high
altitude performance - I thought that most of the action during the BoB
was down low where the early P-51 was actually pretty capable.

The Mustang didn't arrive 'til well long after the Battle of Britain, so the
point is moot anyway. Requirements would have moved on.

Graham

In article ,
(Brian Sharrock) wrote:

Not much mention of Dive Bombers there! The Luftwaffe _did_
have Dive-Bombers, these were aircraft specifically designed
for Close-Air-Support of advancing troops

Just about all the Luftwaffe bombers including the He177 were
theoretically capable of dive bombing (stressed for it plus dive
brakes) however it seems that actual dive bombing was confined to
Stuka units due to the specialist training required.

Ken Young

Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the
US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

The discussion was not about "what dive bombing is all about", the
technicalities or merits of dive bombing, nor was the talk. Simply that
in his experience, he mostly saw dive bombing. This was important to my
point of view because his talk was my only exposure to primary source
material on the subject (at least until Brian posted the weblink).




Now, take your engineering prowess and consider the geometry of level
versus high angle release of a bomb--by diving at the target (in the
simplest iteration) you reduce the aircraft's travel over the ground
and hence increase the accuracy.

If you wish to go to higher levels of math, you need to consider dive
angle, airspeed, bank, sight depression from flight path, wind drift
both before and after release (aircraft first then bomb),
accelerations (g-loads), aerodynamic drag of bomb and a few other
things to begin to get what dive bombing is about.

But, don't ask corporals--they may know something about their
particular field, but it may not be dive bombing.

The question was never posed - to the corporal or this group (at least
by me). Again, my discussion with Ricardo had nothing to do with how
dive bombing was supposed to work, or even if it worked; only that it
did occur and in what relative proportion to other types of bombing
procedures used by the Germans during the Battle of Britain. I'm
reasonably certain that an expert's knowledge and experience was not
required to tell the difference between dive bombing and high altitude
"level" bombing, at least as practiced during the Battle of Britain. In
any event, your input of related information is noted and appreciated.

DS








Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:36:52 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the
US Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

The discussion was not about "what dive bombing is all about", the
technicalities or merits of dive bombing, nor was the talk. Simply that
in his experience, he mostly saw dive bombing. This was important to my
point of view because his talk was my only exposure to primary source
material on the subject (at least until Brian posted the weblink).

My point was the unusual nature of taking a general conclusion from a
very limited anecdotal sampling and one that was arguably not an
expert observer. It would be similar to taking testimony regarding an
individual who has been shot and extrapolating their experience to
some level of expertise in firearms.

If you were in attendance at "the US Army's General Staff College"
(can I assume you mean C&GSC?), then I would further assume a
professional military background and some exposure during your
educational background to some coverage of the Battle of Britain, the
blitz, and the bombing of London.

One could go a step further and, as Harry Andreas has pointed out,
"high speed/low altitude" is probably not the best characterization of
dive bombing either. Lay-down or skip-bombing display those attributes
more accurately.

Other than the oral history aspect of seeing a real live WW II British
Tommy, what was the point of his presentation at C&GSC? Was this part
of some larger program? Inquiring minds, etc. . . .

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

SNIP


My point was the unusual nature of taking a general conclusion from a
very limited anecdotal sampling and one that was arguably not an
expert observer. It would be similar to taking testimony regarding an
individual who has been shot and extrapolating their experience to
some level of expertise in firearms.


I'm in trail with your point - and I agree with it, but in the absence
of everything else, you go with what you've got. The last few exchanges
have been an education. I disagree with your discounting a non-"expert
observer" in this case. I drive submarines for a living, and I'm certain
I can tell the difference between dive bombing and high altitude level
bombing when I see it; no reason to expect anything different from
anyone else.


If you were in attendance at "the US Army's General Staff College"
(can I assume you mean C&GSC?), then I would further assume a
professional military background and some exposure during your
educational background to some coverage of the Battle of Britain, the
blitz, and the bombing of London.

The Battle of Britain was not covered at CGSC in any great detail as
part of the general course - you had to take an elective to get that,
one I was not able to take due to other requirements. The course is
joint oriented, and therefore is very effects based centric, especially
for those working out of rate, ie: a Navy guy like me working on an Army
staff in a traditionally green suiter role. We didn't really discuss the
technical aspects of various types of bomb delivery, and the effects of
the bombing, regardless of type, were more relevant to our discussions.
One of the lessons learned from Vietnam is that those kinds of details
are best left to the experts. During exercises/war-games, while acting
as the S3 of a joint staff, I wouldn't dream of requesting a certain
type of bomb delivery. I would discuss the effect I was trying to
achieve with the Strike Cell. The pilots, missileers and artillerymen
assigned to the cell would put the details together to create the
effect. While I can do the math and physics on a wide variety of
ordnance targeting and delivery, I don't have a good feel for what it
takes for the crews (at least air crews) to make it happen. While I'd
like to learn some of those details simply for professional development,
I much prefer the effects based planning, and I bet you would as well.
How would you like to be leading a squadron of your 105s on a strike
that had been planned by somebody who's complete exposure to the details
of air warfare included being certified as a private pilot, and had
numerous briefings and rides in a variety of tactical aircraft over the
course of his career?




One could go a step further and, as Harry Andreas has pointed out,
"high speed/low altitude" is probably not the best characterization of
dive bombing either. Lay-down or skip-bombing display those attributes
more accurately.

Agreed.



Other than the oral history aspect of seeing a real live WW II British
Tommy, what was the point of his presentation at C&GSC? Was this part
of some larger program? Inquiring minds, etc. . . .

It was one part of a larger program - but one involving military history
- the recording of and study of, rather than any strategic, operational
or tactical application. The US Army has a rather rigorous approach to
history. They even have an officer skill designator for 'historian'.

DS





Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com