Adrian, I agree with you about the effect of dive-bombing in naval action. Harvey seems to taking a very narrow look at the use of the Stuka, and dive bombers in general. In fact, the use of the Stuka in Channel may lead one to believe that it wasn't very effective against shipping. However, this was more to do with tactics, and the constant intervention of the patrolling RAF than the ineffectiveness of the aircraft.
The effect of level bombing against dive-bombing in the French campaign is though, debateable. First off, how does one measure effectiveness? Quantity of disruption per aircraft load, actual destruction of men and equipment, effect on logistics and movement etc?
A German level bomber carried a heavier load, and in the circumstances of the withdrawal it played a significant part in disrupting the clogged roads that were full of soldiers and civilians. However, in conjunction with the Panzers, the Stuka was able to destroy significant anounts of equipment, especially artillery hidden in woods and copses. The German tactics involved the Stuka playing the role of mobile artillery, not as a bomber. As a close support weapon, it was never intended to be used in any position too far forward of the front-lines, and was expected to shielded from enemy aircraft by their own fighters.
I found this aricle very informative, and a lot more balanced:
DIVE-BOMBERS: Trial by Fire Sea Classics - Find Articles Quote:
|
In its 20-year evolution the diminutive single-engine dive-bomber managed to write a most profound history that saw their type credited with sinking more than 60-percent of all Naval tonnage lost to aircraft attack, indeed a most impressive feat.
|