Challenge: RAF 'Udet'

Opinions of which OTL RAF officer could have become an RAF 'Udet' in the sense of advocating 'Dive-bombing'.
Rather than as in OTL, a RAF that stubbonly refused to take it seriously.

Bonus points for plausible scenairos, for it to be Leigh-Mallory!!
 
The RAF policy wasn't likely to espouse dive-bombing before it adapted to Combined Operations as a policy. It took a slap in the mouth and a slug from a .45 to change established dogma. Combined Operations found their British origins in the western desert under "Mary" Coningham and in the origins of the fighter bomber, mostly because of the availability of Tomahawks. The subsequent success of fighter bombers precluded the need to develop dive bombers. The development of a dive bomber in RAF service will require a sharp alteration in the way the powers-that-be think with regards combined operations, long before the war, at a time that they didn't give it a thought. The British Establishment would never accept a change in dogma, until pinned to the ground. It's about as likely that the FAA will receive effective equipment. They, at least, had a dive bomber, the Skua.
 
i don't know which officer, but I've an idea how someone could get converted intoa Dive Bomber enthuseast, and a plausable suggestion on how things could progress.

Prior to the formsation of the Fleet Air Arm in the late 30s the RAF provided all the aircrew for the RN carriers. Say that our potential Udet was one of the group hat test flew/bought into service the Skua (the RN's first modern monoplasne divebomber), and that this convinced him that the divebomber had a role to play.

His enthuseasm on the subject doesn't convince the "Bomber Barons" in the Air Ministry to abandon the strategic Bomber idea, but he is persuasive enough for them to increase the number of Skuas on order, and include a couple of squadrons of Skuas (replacing Blenheims) in the RAF force that accompanied the BEF to France.

The Skuas get roughed up by the Luftwaffe (same as the Battles did), but their accuracy and abiluity to take down pimnpoint targets (like bridges) does convince the powers that be that there is a role for the Dive Bomber in ground support.
 
I've read that Leigh Malory was one of the few RAF officers interested in Army Support.

Leigh-Mallory was in the Middle-East before he was promoted to Fighter Command. So, maybe when the Aussie fact finding mission to Europe & the US to find a replacement for the Hawker Demon (which in OTL results in the Wirraway), stop off in the Middle-East - a meeting takes place.
The Australians recount with pride the destruction of the Turkish 7th Army as a fighting force in 1918 at Wadi el Far'a, by Australian aircraft.
The discussion turned to how more difficult that would be now, with AAA - 'Not if you dive down, rather than at low-level. It's easy to swivel your weapon from side-to-side than it is to track a target descending at speed'.
Curious, LM set up some tests, and found the comment was valid. And thought 'I'm on to something here'. So collecting some interested Squadron leaders together, they set out some rigorous target practise - they had the space.
Tests, were done, with level bombing at various altitudes, shallow dive bombing, and as the crews got more confident dive bombing. Even a visiting FAA Squadron had a go. The results were impressive, the FAA pilots were the best - done it before, but even the RAF pilots found that dive-bombing gave them much better accuracy than any other method.
LM sent off the report with detailed statistics - which created an indignant shelving of the report. But LM had sent copies elsewhere, and when comments and questions were made, repercussions began ......

Well it's one way to keep him out of Fighter Command, and to get the Henley used for what it was designed for!!
 
Top