dive-bombing vs. rockets

[drgslyr]

Initially, air-to-ground attack using rockets was highly innacurate, but it got more accurate as the war progressed. Does anyone have an idea as to the accuracy comparison between late-war aircraft armed with rockets and the dive-bombing tactic used by the Stuka Ju 87s? What were the advantages and disadvantages to each technique?

I am not very familiar with the dive-bombing tactics of carrier-based aircraft either. Did they use essentially the same technique as the Stukas, or did their technique vary significantly? I always assumed their dive was less steep and therefore less accurate, but I'm only speculating.

[von Poop]

Funnily enough I've just read a reference to a succesful dive-bombing attack in the earlier part of the war in a David Fletcher book which he describes as a very surprising success as opposed to later rockets, that intrigued me too. I always thought Stukas et. al. were pretty accurate? Mind you, every time I watch gun-camera footage of ground attacks I'm absolutely astonished they managed to hit anything whatsoever.

[Owen]

I remember reading many years ago the % chance of a hit with a rocket was something like 2% or less.
Has anyone a copy of "Six Armies in Normandy"?
I'm sure I read it in there.

[von Poop]

Interesting article here attempting to assess the many problems inherent in dropping things from aeroplanes with particular reference to dive-bombing in a combat environment.
Post-war but I'm sure much of it still applies:
Bombing Accuracy in a Combat Environment

[spidge]

Check out this list on the first page.

They got a few hospital ships...........suppose a little easier if they are not firing back.

Warship Vulnerability

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by spidge

Check out this list on the first page.

They got a few hospital ships...........suppose a little easier if they are not firing back.

Warship Vulnerability

Cheers for that. Interesting stuff (rest of the website too, got a few aviation problems going off in Oz?),
I never realised the Hs293 and Fritz-X did much damage, I'd always perceived them as too early in the technology to be of any real use... Surely still largely irrelevant when compared to the damage possible from a piloted aircraft though?

[drgslyr]

I came across the following statement in the book Battle Tactics: Tank Warfare, and it gives some clue as to the general inaccuracy of air-to-ground weapons.

"In the early war years the Germans recognized that aircraft might be very effective tank killers if specialist weapons could be developed for them. In the Blitzkrieg years, the Luftwaffe's Stukas had relied on dive-bombing but it proved not to be accurate enough. They then moved to provide their Ju 87 Stukas, and then Henschel Hs 129s, with long-barrel high velocity cannons. These proved very effective on the Eastern Front in 1943. Stuka ace Ulli Rudel alone claimed 518 tank kills during his time on the Eastern Front. The USAAF and the British Royal Air Force on the other hand, turned to rockets as their tank-killing weapon of choice, usually carried in heavy ground-attack fighter aircraft like the P-47 Thunderbolt or Hawker Typhoon. Each 3-inch rocket could be devastating even for the most heavily armored Panther or Tiger. They were fired in volleys to compensate for their accuracy problems. Fewer than one in ten actually found its mark but the paralyzing effect of air attack on German tank movement was considerable."

This statement suggests that the Stukas were generally less accurate than I had imagined. I also pictured them as being fairly accurate, but maybe they were just the most accurate delivery system available in the early war years, when nothing was all that efficient.