Talk:Dive bomber

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	World War II task force

Sturzkampfflugzeug[edit]

Does Sturzkampfflugzeug indeed translate to "diving fighter airplane" or is it rather "dive-fighting airplane"? - Saruwine 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct translation is "dive bomber". If you translate each word seperately you get "collapse/downfall/fall combat airplane". A phrase that makes no senese. By the way, I removed the reference to "vulnerable, slow-flying dive bombers". They were fast and difficult targets for AA and fighters. Just compare the fate of American dive and torpedo bombers at Midway. The former hit hard, the latter were wiped out.Markus Becker02 14:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-36 and Pe-2[edit]

Both the North American A-36 and the Petlyakov Pe-2 were as fast as any contemporary fighter aircraft, and were highly-efficient in their designed role as dive-bombers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.105.8 (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pe-2/Pe-3[edit]

Oddly, the most popular dive bomber (Russian Pe-2, 10 000+ made) is not mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiggestmac (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but the Pe-2 was coming into service at the time of Operation Barbarossa, so the note about no Allied air force having dive bombers at the outbreak of the war seems a bit off. - 109.252.150.55 (talk)

Dive Bomber movie[edit]

The movie has nothing about dive bombers at all. It deals with high altitude oxygen equipment tests. The name is just misleading.

Thebiggestmac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.98.111 (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Dive bombers[edit]

The article refers to Stukas being used in the Battle of Britain though the main Battle of Britain article does not mention the Stuka; the reference to the Stuka's vulnerability becoming apparent should probably be to the Battle of France. The Stuka is not a Dive bomber anyway! Likewise the Sturmovik and similar Ground-attack aircraft. The article could have something at the beginning saying that Stukas etc are not Dive bombers, and referring to the Close air support article. Hugo999 (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the souce of your claim that the Stuka was not a dive-bomber? The Junkers Ju 87 article contradicts that claim completely. It also has a cited section on the Stukas use in the Battle of Britain. - BilCat (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was thinking of the Iluyshin Sturmovic, which like British close-support fighters was cannon or rocket equipped. But it appears that the Stukaswere not much used over Britain, and their vulnerability to modern fighters must have been apparent in the Battle for France Hugo999 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dauntless Doppelganger[edit]

As great as that Dauntless picture is, is the duplicate really necessary? XJ90 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another wonderful contribution from the great IP editors on WP. Thanks for spotting it, as I had missed its addition. In such cases, feel free to remove it next time, but asking if you have doubts is fine too. - BilCat (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal bombing[edit]

Currently there is a great deal of detail on the problems of horizontal bombing, and the discussion on dive bombing comes late in the article. Should we not summarize the accuracy problems and then discuss dive bombing's advantages, the techniques used, and its eventual replacement? Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section does seem long and not very relevant. Could it be shortened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.79.124.13 (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pe-2 and Tu-2 missing[edit]

The article is incomplete without Pe-2 and Tu-2 (especially Pe-2). —46.242.13.224 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, neither was used much in the dive bomber role, serving as light bombers instead (as well as in other capacities). That said, I do agree that they should be mentioned - Jagtai2 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dauntless vs Stuka[edit]

While I am very fond of the Dauntless picture currently serving as the top-most picture, when you say "dive bomber", most people will think of the Stuka. As such, I feel that the Stuka would better represent the topic "dive bombers" than the Dauntless. - Jagtai2 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...most people will think of the Stuka." A statement that is somewhere between a wild-assed guess and an opinion.173.62.25.244 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]