F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

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

"DeepSea" wrote in message
. 136...
Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

snip


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).



The topic as been 'done to death' and You'll (Dep Sea) are probably
regretting the assertion that 'England was mostly sunjected to attack using
Dive-bombers .
I can somewhat understand your inference as (apparently) you've only ever
experienced a talk from _one_ person that had endured aerial attack ( in
England?).
I'm a mid-War 'baby'. [My mother and her neighbours _might_ have been the
female ordnance workers clustered around the weapon shown on the Liverpool
Blitz website ... as they all were 'conscripted/drafted' for war work into
the Royal Ordnance Factory which was at Kirkby!]. I know and have been
exposed to primary source material off hundreds of relatives / neighbours
that survived the Blitz.

My playgrounds were the bombed sites (called Debris, pronounced deb-ree)
that surounded our homes. I can still 'hear' the cries of neighbours,
mothers and scuffers yelling 'Gerr'off that deb-ree!' to us kids.

Later whilst serving in the RAF, I was exposed to primary source material
from Pilots that had survived 'The War'. I was privileged to serve
with -that's probably best described as 'at the same station, during the
same time' - with 'Ginger Lacey'.

http://www.battle-of-britain.com/BoB.../RAF/lacey.htm

One of the nicest man that one could encounter. (then) Flt. Lt. Lacey was
serving his 'last tour' as a (Master) Fighter Controller at RAF Buchan.
During the long midnight watches -as we anticipated the outbreak of WW1II -
we youngsters would listen enthralled to Flt. Lt. Lacey's recounting his
engagements. { I must stress that he was incredibly modest and
unassuming -it was we, youngsters, who pushed him into telling 'War-ies'. I
had a feeling of watching an updated 'Boyhood of Raleigh' scene with
'Ginger' playing the part of the oldster and the audience, the youngsters,
cluttered about the feet: albeit everybody was wearing air-force blue, and
the light was emanating off the Tote Board, Display Table and flickering
consoles.

This is the reason I felt that the original statement 'most ... dive
bombing' needed clarification.

--

Brian