text:
Talk:Munich air disaster

Untitled
This article's URL is given in todays issue of the magazine "This is Lancashire" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 August 2003 (UTC)

Minor edit
Just removed "This has also been recorded by Hanky Park http://www.hankypark.co.uk". Obvious advertising, inapropirate on a page as sensative as this.

Perhaps someone ought to add Captain Thain's prosecution by the German authorities which rumbled on for nearly a decade after the disaster. Dbiv 14:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What areas need expansion I will do it.

I have changed the opening para under 'Cause' to reflect that Thain aborted the first two takeoff attempts due to boost surging, not the weather. Quite an important fact to get right! John

 * Just a bit of extra info:

 * The boost surging was a problem with the early Centaurus installation on the Ambassador in which under some conditions the mixture to some cylinders became over-rich leading to a momentary slight drop in power. This was made worse with increasing altitude where the air is thinner and Munich-Riem was (and presumably still is!) at 1,700 ft. Because of this, Thain had to use rather more of the runway than normal and although the runway had been cleared of snow to some extent by previous aircraft landing and taking off, only on the mid section. The surging caused Thain to run into the area of raw, deep slush towards the end of the runway which slowed the aircraft at the critical moment when it was too late to abort the take off, and making it impossible to fly-off due to the lack of airspeed. The Ambassador subsequently ran off the runway a short distance before hitting first a fence and then the house of a Mr Berger, which took off the port wing.

 * BTW, there was a drama-doc on the Munich Air Distaster on BBC 1 about an hour ago. I managed to sit through a few minutes of it and decided to give it a miss! Ian Dunster 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The drama last night could have been very good had it not been for some ignorance in the writing.
 * I do think it is a good idea to create a film depicting the TRUE events. This would require excessive help from the survivors and an entirely BRITISH cast. No ridiculous effects or Hollywood nonsense. And should be released only when EVERYTHING has been accurately portrayed according to the survivors' accounts. All cast must research thoroughly and read about the lives of their characters.
 * It is important for people to understand the tragedy and never forget it. Shaneo619 13:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The documentary did seem a bit 'overdone', the banter just seemed wrong, however, I notice it did mention that someone had taken pictures of people on the fuselage of the Ambassador which seemed to nullify the claims against Captain Thain. Douglasnicol 21:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The current (2012) series of Air Crash Investigation has a much better programme, a very well done one in fact, about the accident which you may find on YouTube if you go looking for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Another minor edit: Although the FlightInternational magazine death notice indicated James Thain died at 53, the Wiki article on him, and his daughter's comment on the Mayday episode on the disaster both confirm he was 54 when he died.105.229.52.126 (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Move page to correspond with precedent?
Hello there! I am working on converting the plane crash articles to conform to the longstanding Wikipedia precedent that the named format is. For example, I would normally just go ahead and rename this article to British European Airways Flight BE609. But, looking at the page history, I see someone has already done that and been reverted? May I ask way?

If there is a big reason to keep the Munich air disaster title, I would like to hear it -- otherwise, I intend to change this article to conform to precedent. Thanks! --Jaysweet 21:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it should be renamed. As WP grows ever larger, standardization is essential and contributes to a professional appearance. Akradecki 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hey there Akradecki, I believe I remember that name from the AfD for the Rochester air crash, where I promised to make a similar name change when the AfD ends ;) Sounds like we are very like-minded on this issue!  The process is frustrating, as it turns out many of the non-standard articles are like that because the flight number is unavailable.  But, slowly I am chipping away...
 * Since this one here was changed and reverted once before, I'm going to wait until tomorrow before moving it, in order to give people a chance to weigh in. I don't want to prematurely start a revert war ;)  --Jaysweet 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hrm, it appears because the redirect has a page history, I can't do the move without an admin's assistance. I just put in the request, but it looks like they have a 10-day backlog on move requests.  Might be a while...  heh... --Jaysweet 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
"Google test" results are worth noting: Results 1 - 10 of about 34,700 for "Munich air disaster". Results 1 - 10 of about 58 for "British European Airways Flight BE609". --Serge 06:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Strong Oppose The Munich air disaster is a historic tragedy in football, and is commemorated under that name, not only on plaques in Manchester and Munich, but also on various commemorative sites . A Google search for "Munich air disaster" creates 35,500 hits, a search for "British European Airways Flight BE609" gives 58. Similarly, a Newsbank search for "Munich air disaster" gives 842 hits, and zero for "British European Airways Flight BE609". And finally, a headline-only search for European news sources on Lexus-Nexus gives 37 for "Munich air disaster", and zero for "British European Airways Flight BE609". This is a standing historical term, and renaming it would be akin to renaming the Hand of God goal to "1-0, 1986 FIFA World Cup quarterfinal Argentina-England". ~ trialsanderrors 04:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Strong Oppose. Adhering to naming conventions that produce contrived titles with names that are rarely if ever (see google test results above) used to refer to the subject of the article should never take precendence over titles that are consistent with WP:NC(CN). --Serge 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment Yikes!!! 8o  I don't feel that strongly about it, so I'm considering withdrawing the move request.  --Jaysweet 15:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Although, I have to say, I'm sort of glad I brought it up -- the first time the move was reverted, no explanation was given.  Now we have a documented reason on the Talk page why this article defies the standard convention.  Actually, I'm satisifed with that.  Withdrawing the request now...

I have relinked "Munich air disaster" to this page in view of above discussion, The Munich air disaster is synonymous with this incident: the 1960 accident is not the Munich air disaster. I will be inserting a link to that accident on main page in a few minutes. ta--Bilbo B 10:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The science behind the crash
It is not mentioned anywhere in the article that the real cause of the crash (which was not realised at the time) is that the drag from the slush increases by the square of the speed. Thus 4x faster = 16x more drag. This is the real reason that G-ALZU failed to become airborne. With the 50th anniversary coming up, this article is likely to feature on the "on this day" section. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

John Lawless

 * John Lawless a footballer has been sacked by his club for mocking the Munich air disaster during a game against Manchester United .(Manchester Evening News)

Is this worth mentioning in the article? Agathoclea (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is really worth a mention, seeing as the match was actually against F.C. United of Manchester. – PeeJay 14:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to how teams travel
I've heard it said that this event made teams realize the "eggs in one basket" risk of putting a whole team on one flight, and it's therefore now normal practice (as a result of the Munich disaster) to book no more than a couple of players on each of several flights. Is this true? It's the first thing I think of in connection with this event. swyves190.45.183.236 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard that suggestion before. In fact, I find it quite unlikely. – PeeJay 09:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * most teams still travel together in one flight. There may be others who did what you said, but i do not think it is as prevalent as compared to the usual all-together flights. Lpjz290 (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition to the TV section
Sky Sports aired a tribute featuring past and present United players and Sir Alex

Steve Bruce, Eric Cantona, Mark Hughes, Gary Neville, Ryan Giggs and Sir Alex and another player who I can't remember off the top of my head were featured talking about the event and how it changed the club and football before talking about the 58 teams as the flowers of English football

Linked here - Flowers of Manchester

Notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.249.149 (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That just looks like a few United icons reading out "The Flowers of Manchester". As I recall, it was broadcast in the lead-up to the Manchester derby on 10 Feb 08. Not notable, IMO. – PeeJay 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How many people died?
The top section has this language

'''23 of the 44 people on board the aircraft died as a result of the crash. The injured were taken to the Rechts der Isar Hospital in Munich where 16 survived.'''

Later on, there is a list of the dead, which gives 23 died, 21 survived. Would it be better if the top section said

'''20 of the 44 people on board the aircraft died as a result of the crash. The injured were taken to the Rechts der Isar Hospital in Munich where 3 more died, resulting in 21 survivors.'''

Any comments? Gorillatheape (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it was actually 21 people who were killed instantly, as is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead, and two more died in hospital. Also, surely all 23 fatalities were as a result of the crash, so to say "20 of the 44 people on board the aircraft died as a result of the crash" would be incorrect on that count too. I do see where you're coming from, though, and a minor re-write would probably be prudent! The facts are that 21 were killed instantly, 21 were taken to hospital where two more died, and two (Harry Gregg and Bill Foulkes) were unscathed. – PeeJay 22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry PeeJay, but according to the article, out of the 23 fatalities, Frank Swift died on his way to hospital, Duncan Edwards survived for 15 days and Kenneth Rayment survived for three weeks. Ergo, 21 cannot have died "instantly". Moreover, is there any evidence that all 20 who died on the plane died instantly? Please explain or fix this apparent contradiction. Viewfinder (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * In Air Disasters, Stanley Stewart states (p74) that "Little did the survivors know that of the 44 souls on board, comprising 38 passengers and six crew, 20 had already lost their lives". He further states (p76) "...on clearing the litter young Ken Morgans was found, unconscious but alive and breathing. That brought the total number of survivors to 24, but sadly not for long. News came through that Frank Swift, the News of the World reporter severely burned in the accident had died of his injuries". Therefore 20 killed in the accident, one died shortly after reaching hospital, Edwards died 15 days after the accident and Rayment died 21 days after the accident. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite right; I'd forgotten about Swifty. – PeeJay 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I just clarify, Frank Swift may have been DoA at the hospital., but he was alive when rescued from the crashed aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The intro text says 23 died and 21 survived, but the lists further down the page itemise 14 deaths and 13 survivors. Anyone have a (properly documented, of course) list of the other people? Ministry (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, there used to be a full list of casualties and survivors in the article, but according to some jobsworth at WP:AATF, we only put notable people in those lists (i.e. those with a Wikipedia article). If you look back through the article history, you should be able to find a sourced list. Otherwise, there are plenty of books on the subject, most of which are cited in the article. – PeeJay 00:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Times archive articles online
In case anyone is interested in checking for extra information, there are a couple of Times articles from 1958 currently online:

Stricken Football Club Aim to Carry On

Manchester United in Air Crash Saint|swithin 18:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll Never Walk Alone
I'm just watching "Secrets of the Pop Song" on BBC2, and they've just claimed that United fans sang You'll Never Walk Alone in tribute to the fallen Babes at one of the first games after the disaster. Can anyone find a source to corroborate this? – PeeJay 21:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll Never Walk Alone is our song! - Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk - September 11, 2004.
 * Good enough?
 * Possibly, but I've just done a bit of research myself, and apparently there's no evidence to corroborate Mrs Hardwick's claim. I can believe that a few of her friends from the operatic society had a sing-song together, but for the entire crowd to start singing a song from a 13-year-old musical seems a little far-fetched. There was a book called "Celtic United" released in 2007 that repeated Mrs Hardwick's claim, but this link suggests that she may have been exaggerating in 2004. With that in mind, is it worth mentioning this if only a handful of people sang it? – PeeJay 21:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that we shouldn't mention it.
 * I was leaning the same way. I won't bother including it. – PeeJay 22:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this not confusing?
Quote: A fund for dependents of victims of the crash was established in March, and chaired by the Chairman of the FA, Arthur Drewry.[70] The fund had raised £52,000 (£1.1 million as of 2015) by the time of its disbursement in October 1958

Should the text not say £1.1 million equivalent in 2015 value. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Munich air disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828030335/http://www.munich58.co.uk/victims/rodgers/index.asp to http://www.munich58.co.uk/victims/rodgers/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Munich air disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219135535/http://www.discoverychannel.ca/episodeList.aspx?sid=12966 to http://www.discoverychannel.ca/episodeList.aspx?sid=12966

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Munich air disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.mikekemble.com/manutd/munich3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110230627/http://www.dudley.gov.uk/welcome/news-in-dudley/2008-news-archive/october-2008/duncan-edwards-way-given-go-ahead to http://www.dudley.gov.uk/welcome/news-in-dudley/2008-news-archive/october-2008/duncan-edwards-way-given-go-ahead

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Billy Whelan last words
See Talk:Billy Whelan. CC. ed g2s • talk 20:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Munich Air Disaster 1958" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Munich Air Disaster 1958. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Harris (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Majestic Hotel
William JE. Please do not unilaterally undo changes I've made. The tour party stayed at the Metropol Hotel as has been evidenced and confirmed by MUFC. My organisation will be making further edits on the memorial section. Contact me at mmmfoundation18@gmail.com if you've any issues. Thanks. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 * You have a Conflict of interest and without a reference this is WP:OR. Read up on these before editing again or I will summon an administrator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

A conflict of interest? How so? Correction to wrong information. I have confirmed the issue re the Metropol and Majestic with numerous sources. See www.mmmf.co.uk. Summon who you want mate. What are you talking about re roofs? Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 * You don't bother to read what I link to. Fine, I will summon an administrator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 * re this edit - the source used says nothing about them staying as guests of the Yugoslavian FA, nor does it mention the piano. Reverting that edit was quite proper and correct. As has already been pointed out to you, you have an apparent conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI. As an administrator, I have the ability to block you from editing the article, or Wikpedia itself. I'd rather not go down that road, but will do so if necessary. I take it that the MMMF has a website. If so, there may be material there which could be used to improve the article. Due to your apparent COI, you should not edit the article, but are free to bring up points for discussion on this talk page. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Mjroots. Funny how none of my subsequent comments on this subject, here in talk, are being published. Censorship in play here? Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the edit history of this page, no one has removed any of your comments. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They've not been published though have they? Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can confirm is that your comments have not been removed by others. If an edit filter had blocked your posting, you would be aware of it. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 * When MMMF refers to not been published, he is referring to his edits here and here, which I reverted because they weren't referenced. Furthermore, admin Mjroots also explained to MMMF why those edits were reverted. This editor has also been informed on two occasions that they have a COI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I thought that when they said "comments" they meant posts on this talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the reversed edits. I'm referring to comments I've made in Talk, invited to do so to generate debate which have NOT been published. I'll not try again. But don't make assumptions you know nothing about. I do not have a COI. I have absolutely nothing to gain. I run a charity fgs. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Piano at Majestic https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/news/0266-1180a8a4814d-775d03badbd7-1000--cherishing-the-memory-of-manchester-united-s-busby-babes/ Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Where Babes stayed, Metropol not Majestic https://mmmf.co.uk/where-did-the-babes-stay-in-belgrade/ Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever the issue with your talk page posting is, it is not recorded in any logs, suggesting the issue is on your end. Do you recall the message you got when you attempted to post them?  Did you do something different than the successful posts you are making here? You do not have to have "something to gain" to have a COI.  Please read WP:COI(or this plain language explanation). 331dot (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I did exactly what I've done here thank you 331dot. At least you have a sympathetic way towards someone who is merely trying to improve the data held without gain. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering your stated connection to the MMMF, I'm loath to include any references from there (you have a clear conflict of interest, as noted by the other more experience editors above). However, I see no reason not to include the information about the hotel where they stayed and the piano that Mark Jones played there. – PeeJay 19:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

PeeJay I note your loathing, pray tell me how does someone with exceptional knowledge and sources manage to make any updates? You're telling me a registered UK charity isn't reputable? Really? Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

And if, on your say so Mr PeeJay, the source of a reputable registered UK charity is not acceptable then this whole subject is denied published source evidence on The 60th anniversary in Munich Memorial bench Memorial showcase Annual memorial ceremony Majestic and metropol hotels in Belgrade tributes Rechts der Isar Memorial tribute. So, you're denying readers access to a vast amount of verifiable source data that adds pure value here? That's what you're saying. Incredible. Bravo. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For one thing, sarcasm is not a tactic that will serve you very well here. Second, we will assess the sources and make a determination as a community about what should be added. It is not for you to add content from a website run by an organisation you obviously have a connection to. – PeeJay 21:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How reliable is that bit about the piano? The person who is making that claim is Pat Burns. It is a quote from him....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, only just saw this. Considering the info was reported by UEFA, even via a quote from Pat Burns, I don't have a problem with repeating it here. – PeeJay 15:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reported? It's a quote from someone. I've worked as a reporter. Claims, unless they are suspicious sounding, are rarely investigated. Even suspicious sounding ones slide by. Ian Bannen claimed in an interview to won an academy award and been offered the lead roles on Hawaii Five-O and The Love Boat. The first is untrue the other two fishy but it was all reported. Burns wasn't in Yugoslavia in 1958 and the persons who were are dead. Bottom line- The piano is trivia and not necessarily true. Remember this is an air crash article, what somebody did before the accident unless it is related to the accident is unimportant....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I've only sat and played it. But dont let facts get in the way. You are the most unwelcoming set of gentlemen I've come across in a while. The fact I run an organisation that does things, fact, seems to be something you cannot abide. UEFA MUFC FC Bayen etc all recognise it but te edit community of Wikipedia seem to question its validity and reputation. You don't want to recognise a registered UK charity adding value to your data. Fine. Good day gentlemen. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I will continue to build on the legacy and history of the event and leave you to concern yourselves with dotting i's and crossing t's of what you deem permissable to pass for genuine proven testimony. My honest endeavours to bring your account up to date, starting with correcting the hotel that was used and the contentious fact that the Majestic still has the piano played by Mark Jones, has clearly failed. What a shame given there is so much more to add. Your assertion that the charity I run isn't regarded as trustworthy for being used to further this account is, quite frankly, both laughable and disgraceful. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@WilliamJE and @Mjroots Don't worry about banning me. I resign my edit status. I clearly do things which preserve and enhance this issue. It's clear you don't want any improvement to this feature using me of the MMMF as a trusted source. I absolutely contest that I have a COI given my SOLE INTENTION is to improve your data. The fact that I am the person to do this because of the things I've done and published is clearly something you take priority over currency value of data. I'll leave others to do their best to meet your criteria. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I might suggest that you read about expert editors. You do indeed have a conflict of interest. This does not mean that you will personally gain something by contributing(that would be paid editing). But as Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view it is relevant if you are attempting to contribute information from yourself.  For example we don't want the Boris Johnson article to be written by Boris Johnson. We want it to summarize what others say about him.  PM Johnson is free if he was so inclined to visit Talk:Boris Johnson and offer his suggestions for changes.  In most cases they would only be accepted if he offered an independent reliable source to support them, not his own words.  This isn't because we don't trust what people say about themselves, is because it is not neutral.  It's not that your organization is not trustworthy, but it isn't neutral on this subject matter.  If you have information from independent reliable sources, it is those sources that should be cited, not your organization. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@331dot. Many thanks for this. Thankfully I am not Johnson. I'm going to leave it to another who will update on the issues I've raised, and intended to raise, using independent citations of the evidence and statements proferred. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 * - you are partly wrong in your comments. It would be better if we could persuade to present what he wants added to the article on this talk page, and evaluate what is presented. Mjroots (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I will not be providing any updates to this account. Fact - There has been a 60th Memorial service. How do I know? I organised and delivered it. Fact. There is now an annual memorial service in Munich. How do I know? I organise, lead and deliver it. Fact. A memorial bench was gifted to the City of Munich in thanks. How do I know? I organised it. Fact. There is now a memorial showcase at Manchesterplatz. How do I know? I helped petition it in Munich. I spoke at the Foundation stone laying ceremony with city of Munich and FC Bayern dignitaries. Fact. A memorial wall was established at the Rechts der Isar hospital. How do I know? I organised it. Fact. A plaque was presented to the Majestic Hotel in Belgrade. How do I know? I organised it. Fact. The party stayed at the Metropol Hotel. How do I know? I established it through UK newspapers articles, backed by the curator of the Manchester United museum. Now, you have no idea what I was going to say but you have judged that because I'm speaking as Chairman of UK registered charity who has done all this I am conflicted. That means someone else could use all my published source evidence and that'd be acceptable. Bizarre. Facts are facts. I run a registered respected charity. It's been commented here that I'm conflicted. I'm not seeking to proffer any data that lauds either Me personally or the charity. Simply facts which are incontrovertible and add value to this litany. I have been saddened by what has been said here quite honestly. I've been judged quite wrongly. I've sought to test how to update information and had both me and my sources questioned and assumptions made. I'll let someone else now provide you with correct and up to date information. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. Surely you understand that we can't just let people add their own original research to Wikipedia, otherwise we'd end up with all sorts of unverifiable claims filling up the place. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is WP:VERIFIABILITY. If the info you're providing has been reported on elsewhere, of course it can be added, but you can't just publish something to the website of an organisation you run and expect us to blindly accept it. – PeeJay 12:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@PeeJay. I've said what I think and I don't particularly care for your attitude. Blindly accept publicly available information on a registered Charity website? The point is if someone else referred to the events I've mentioned and used the mmmf website as their source, you'd accept it. I'm talking about verifiable facts, not opinions or research. Now, I won't bother replying again so save your breath OK. Now, don't bother yourself again pal. I'll not be contributing to this. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 * What attitude are you talking about? I'm doing my best to help you out here, but your contributions have to be in line with Wikipedia policy. Can you point us to any sources that you are not involved with publishing? – PeeJay 12:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Right so, if its me editing and updating you want me to source ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL website that can independently verify everything I've written and had published on mmmf and wish to use to improve this feature? But, if someone else offers this self same information to improve this feature and uses the mmmf as a source, thats fine. And all this without you or any of your editing community knowing exactly what it is I am suggesting is included? From my point of view I will let someone else provide factual details which you can verify through the source of mmmf. I can't be any clearer. I haven't failed to declare who I am, where from, what I do, what I've done. I accept that means Jack to you. You honestly think MUFC FC Bayern or the Charity Commission et al would allow me to print utter garbage and lies? The list of Memorial updates I quoted above are ALL DONE BY ME. Its not opinion or research, its fact. Do you understand that? Yes, they've appeared on UEFA, MUFC, FC BAYERN and other websites. Whoever proffers the information will no doubt be guided by this interminable conversation. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether you or your organization are trustworthy. If it is a recognized, independent authority on this topic, there shouldn't be any difficulty in finding other sources that cite your organization.  We don't want Donald Trump or Joe Biden citing themselves in the articles about them.  This is no different. Please read about neutral point of view and how COI is not just personally profiting or benefiting from an association. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@331dot. I understand all thank, thanks. But I'm not citing me or the charity. I'm talking about events that have happened. I've mentioned other sources that can independently corroborate and whoever provides the updates, if most certainly will not be me, can use them PLUS my own source data. I think that's best. Thanks again for your help. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

If you don't believe Pat Burns isn't here for promotional reasons, see his User page here and then WP:UP. This conversation is a time sink. Maybe its time he is brought to ANI so he be banned from editing this article or WP entirely....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@WilliamJE. So you're calling me a liar? I thought the user page was for people to understand who you are, that's what it says. How dare you, you cheeky...... I'm not anonymous like you. I've said I'm not updating on here so do one pal. And whatever it is you are doing on the roof I suggest you stay there. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I will not be providing any updates to this account. Did you read and understand @WilliamJE? I've asked @Mjroots privately to assist in withdrawing me from here, if I knew how I would. You carry on dotting i's and crossing t's, I'll carry on adding value in the real world. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're dead set on ceasing your involvement here, you could just stop responding. No one is forcing you to carry on the conversation, and you've said multiple times you're leaving. Again, I've tried my best to be charitable within the scope of Wikipedia's policies, so if you have an issue with those policies, either follow through on leaving or challenge the policies in the appropriate place (which is not this page, btw). – PeeJay 18:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Еволюція мозку серця душі
Єднання усього людства землі для вічного о життя у теперішньому часі Тарас Миронюк (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Crew
The pilot and co-pilot are the only crew listed, either in the discussion of the crew or in the lists of fatalities and survivors. It seems odd that there would not have been any flight attendants.Bill (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Munich Tower dissuading from a third attempt
I am a Munich resident and once watched aircraft taking off and landing at the old Munich airport. Around the old Munich airport at Riem there often were flight enthusiasts who had special radios able to receive conversations between tower and pilots. I once talked to one of them. He claimed to have been at the airport during the disaster with the Munich air traffic controllers trying to dissuade Thain from attempting a third take off. Thain would not listen. The gentleman commented that in 1958 Germany had only become a sovereign state three years earlier, and German officials did not enjoy much authority with British and American pilots. He described how he had observed the two aborted take offs. Ontologix (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Munich air disaster


text:
Miyagi

Miyagi may refer to:

Places

 * Miyagi Prefecture, one of the 47 major divisions of Japan
 * Miyagi, Gunma, a village in Japan, merged into Maebashi in 2004
 * Miyagi District, Miyagi, a district in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan

Other uses

 * Miyagi (surname)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Miyagi


text:
Mie

Mie may refer to:

Places

 * Mie, Ōita (三重町), a former town in Ōita Prefecture, Japan
 * Mie District, Mie (三重郡), a district in Mie Prefecture, Japan
 * Mie Prefecture (三重県), a prefecture of Japan
 * Mie University (三重大学), a national university in Tsu, Mie Prefecture, Japan

Other uses

 * Mie (train), a train service in Japan
 * Mie (crater), a crater on Mars
 * Mie (pose), a pose in Kabuki theatre
 * Mie goreng, an Indonesian dish
 * Mie Kotsu, a Japanese public transportation company
 * Mie theory or Mie scattering, a solution of Maxwell's equations for the scattering of electromagnetic radiation

People

 * Mie (singer), Japanese singer and actress, member of the duo Pink Lady

Given name

 * Mie Augustesen (born 1988), Danish handball player
 * Mie Hama (born 1943), Japanese actress
 * Mie Hamada (born 1959), Japanese figure skater and coach
 * Mie Kumagai, Sega video game producer
 * Mie Lacota (born 1988), Danish professional road and track cyclist
 * Mie Mie (born 1970), Burmese democracy activist
 * Mie Sonozaki (born 1973), Japanese voice actress and singer
 * Mie Suzuki (born 1958), Japanese voice actress
 * Mie Uehara (上原 三枝), Japanese speed skater

Surname

 * Gustav Mie (1869–1957), German physicist

title: Mie


text:
Dive bomber

A dive bomber is a bomber aircraft that dives directly at its targets in order to provide greater accuracy for the bomb it drops. Diving towards the target simplifies the bomb's trajectory and allows the pilot to keep visual contact throughout the bomb run. This allows attacks on point targets and ships, which were difficult to attack with conventional level bombers, even en masse.

After World War II, the rise of precision-guided munitions and improved anti-aircraft defences—both fixed gunnery positions and fighter interception—led to a fundamental change in dive bombing. New weapons, such as rockets, allowed for better accuracy from smaller dive angles and from greater distances. They could be fitted to almost any aircraft, including fighters, improving their effectiveness without the inherent vulnerabilities of dive bombers, which needed air superiority to operate effectively.

Method
A dive bomber dives at a steep angle, normally between 45 and 60 degrees or even up to a near vertical dive of 80 degrees with the Junkers Ju 87, and thus requires an abrupt pull-up after dropping its bombs. This puts great strains on both the pilot and aircraft. It demands an aircraft of strong construction, with some means to slow its dive. This limited the class to light bomber designs with ordnance loads in the range of 1000 lb although there were larger examples. The most famous examples are the Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, which was widely used during the opening stages of World War II, the Aichi D3A "Val" dive bomber, which sank more Allied warships during the war than any other Axis aircraft,  and the Douglas SBD Dauntless, which sank more Japanese shipping than any other allied aircraft type. The SBD Dauntless helped win the Battle of Midway, was instrumental in the victory at the Battle of the Coral Sea, and fought in every US battle involving carrier aircraft.

An alternative technique, glide-bombing, allowed the use of heavier aircraft, which faced far greater difficulties in recovering from near-vertical approaches, though it required greater use of sophisticated bombsights and aiming techniques, by a specialised member of aircrews, namely a bombardier/bomb aimer. The crews of multi-engined dive-bombers, such as variants of the Junkers Ju 88 and Petlyakov Pe-2, frequently used this technique. The heaviest aircraft to have dive-bombing included in its design and development, the four-engined Heinkel He 177, also utilised a glide-bombing approach; the requirement that the He 177 be able to dive/glide-bomb delayed its development and impaired its overall performance.

Dive bombing was most widely used before and during World War II; its use declined during the war, when its vulnerability to enemy fighters became apparent. In the post-war era, this role was replaced with a combination of improved and automated bombsights, larger weapons and even nuclear warheads that greatly reduced the need for accuracy, and finally by precision guided weapons as they became available in the 1960s. Most tactical aircraft today allow bombing in shallow dives to keep the target visible, but true dive bombers have not been a part of military forces since the start of the jet age.

Accuracy
When released from an aircraft, a bomb carries with it the aircraft's trajectory. In the case of a bomber flying horizontally, the bomb will initially only be travelling forward. This forward motion is opposed by the drag of the air, so the forward motion decreases over time. Additionally, gravity causes the bomb to accelerate after it is dropped. The combination of these two forces, drag and gravity, results in a complex pseudo-parabolic trajectory.

The distance that the bomb moves forward while it falls is known as its range. If the range for a given set of conditions is calculated, simple trigonometry can be used to find the angle between the aircraft and the target. By setting the bombsight to this "range angle", the aircraft can time the drop of its bombs at the instant when the target is lined up in the sight. This was only effective for "area bombing", however, since the path of the bomb is only roughly estimated. Large formations could drop bombs on an area hoping to hit a specific target, but there was no guarantee of success, and huge areas around the target would also be hit. The advantage to this approach, however, was that it is easy to build such an aircraft and fly it at high altitude, keeping it out of range of ground-based defences.

The horizontal bomber was thus ill-suited for tactical bombing, particularly in close support. Attempts at using high-altitude bombing in near-proximity to troops often ended in tragedy, with bombs both hitting their targets and friendly troops indiscriminately. In attacking shipping, the problems of inaccuracy were amplified by the fact that the target could be moving, and could change its direction between the time that the bombs were released and the time that they arrived. Successful strikes on marine vessels by horizontal bombers were extremely rare. An example of this problem can be seen in the attempts to attack the Japanese carriers using B-17s at altitude in the Battle of Midway, with no hits scored. The German battleship Tirpitz was subjected to countless attacks, many while in dock and immobile, but was not sunk until the British brought in enormous 12000 lb Tallboy bombs to ensure that even a near miss would be effective.

An aircraft diving vertically minimises its horizontal velocity component. When the bomb is dropped, the force of gravity simply increases its speed along its nearly vertical trajectory. The bomb travels a virtually straight line between release and impact, eliminating the need for complex calculations. The aircraft simply aims at the target and releases its bombs. The primary source of error is the effect of wind on the bomb's flight path after release. As bombs are streamlined and heavy, wind has only a slight effect on them and the bomb is likely to fall within its lethal radius of the target.

Bomb sighting becomes trivial, requiring only a straight line of sight to the target. This was simplified as the aircraft was pointed directly at the target, making sighting over the nose much easier. Differences in the path of different bombs due to differing ballistics can be corrected by selecting a standardised bombing altitude and then adjusting the dive angle slightly for each case. As the bomber dives, the aim could be continually adjusted. In contrast, when a horizontal bomber veers offline while approaching the bomb release point, turning to the angle that would correct this also changes the speed of the aircraft over the ground (when there is a wind) and thereby changes the range as well.

In the 1930s and early 1940s, dive bombing was the best method for attacking high-value compact targets, like bridges and ships, with accuracy. The forces generated when the aircraft levels out at the bottom of the dive are considerable. The drawback of modifying and strengthening an aircraft for near-vertical dives was the loss of performance. Aside from the greater strength requirements, during normal horizontal flight, aircraft are normally designed to return to fly straight and level, but when put into a dive the changes in forces affecting the aircraft now cause the aircraft to track across the target unless the pilot applies considerable force to keep the nose down, with a corresponding decrease in accuracy. To compensate, many dive bombers were designed to be trimmed out, either through the use of special dive flaps (such as Fairey Youngman flaps) or through changes in tailplane trim that must be readjusted when the dive is completed.

The Vultee Vengeance, which was mostly used by the RAF and RAAF in Burma, was designed to be trimmed for diving, with no lift to distort the dive. The drawback was that it flew nose up in level flight, increasing drag. Failure to re-adjust trim made the aircraft difficult or impossible to pull out of a dive.

A dive bomber was vulnerable to low-level ground fire as it dived towards its target, since it was often headed in a straight line directly towards the defenders. At higher levels, this was less of a problem, as larger AA (anti-aircraft) shells were fused to explode at specific altitudes, which is impossible to determine while the plane is diving. In addition, most higher-altitude gunners and gunnery systems were designed to calculate the lateral movement of a target; while diving, the target appears almost stationary. Also, many AA mounts lacked the ability to fire directly up, so dive bombers were almost never exposed to fire from directly ahead.

Dive brakes were employed on many designs to create drag which slowed the aircraft in its dive and increased accuracy. Air brakes on modern aircraft function in a similar manner in bleeding off excessive speed.

Origins
It is difficult to establish how dive bombing originated. During World War I, the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) found its biplane two-seat bombers insufficiently accurate in operations on the Western Front. Commanders urged pilots to dive from their cruising altitude to under 500 ft to have a better chance of hitting small targets, such as gun emplacements and trenches. As this exposed the aircraft and crew to destructive ground fire in their unprotected open cockpits, few followed this order. Some recorded altitude at the top and bottom of their dive in log books and in squadron records, but not the steepness of the dive. It was certainly not near-vertical, as these early aircraft could not withstand the stresses of a sustained vertical dive.

The Royal Naval Air Service was bombing the Zeppelin sheds in Germany and in occupied Belgium and found it worthwhile to dive onto these sheds to ensure a hit, despite the increased casualties from ground fire. Again, the angle of dive in these attacks was not recorded.

Beginning on 18 June 1918, the Royal Air Force (RAF), successor to the RFC, ordered large numbers of the Sopwith TF.2 Salamander, a single-seat biplane. The "TF" stood for "Trench Fighter", and the aircraft was designed to attack enemy trenches both with Vickers .303 machine guns and with 25 lb bombs. Of the 37 Salamanders produced before the end of October 1918, only two were delivered to France, and the war ended before those saw action. Whether the Salamander counts in more modern parlance as a fighter-bomber or as a dive bomber depends on the definition of "dive". It had armoured protection for the pilot and a fuel system to attack at low level, but lacked dive brakes for a vertical dive.

Heavy casualties resulting from air-to-ground attack on trenches set the minds of senior officers in the newly formed RAF against dive bombing. So not until 1934 did the Air Ministry issue specifications for both land-based and aircraft carrier-based dive bombers. The RAF cancelled its requirement and relegated the Hawker Henley dive bomber to other roles, while the Fleet Air Arm's Blackburn Skua was expected to do double duty: as a fighter when out of reach of land-based fighter support, and as a dive bomber. It had dive brakes that doubled as flaps for carrier landings. The Hawker Henley had a top speed only 50 mph slower than the Hawker Hurricane fighter from which it was derived. The American and Japanese navies and the Luftwaffe chose vertical dive bombers whose low speed had dire consequences when they encountered modern fighters.

World War I
The Royal Naval Air Service developed dive bombing as a tactic against Zeppelin hangars and formed and trained a squadron at Manchester for this task. On 8 October 1914, a Sopwith Tabloid with two 50 lb bombs attacked a hangar at Düsseldorf after a dive to 600 ft. On 14 November 1914, four Avro 504s attacked the Zeppelin factory at Friedrichshafen on Lake Constance, diving from 1200 ft to 500 ft to ensure hits. As Zeppelins were tethered close to stores of hydrogen, results were often spectacular.

The first use of dive bombing by the RFC, which had been urging its pilots to drop bombs at heights below 500 ft in order to hit within 150 ft of the target since February 1915, was later that year. On 27 November 1915, Lieutenant Duncan Grinnell-Milne arrived in his Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2c over railway marshalling yards near Lys in Northern France, to find the target already crowded by other bombers. He dived from 10000 ft to 2000 ft before releasing his 20 lb bombs. A few weeks later, Lieutenant Arthur Gould dived to just 100 ft to hit buildings near Arras.

The Royal Flying Corps developed strafing with diving aircraft using both machine guns and small bombs as a deliberate tactic. At the Battle of Cambrai on 20 November 1917, 320 Mark IV tanks and 300 aircraft, mostly Sopwith Camels and Airco DH 5s with 20 lb bombs, were used to suppress artillery and machine guns. The cost in pilots was very high, with casualties on some days reaching 30 percent. The initial impact at Cambrai was highly successful. The staff officer to the Royal Tank Corps Lieutenant-Colonel J. F. C. Fuller published findings which were later taken up by Heinz Guderian to form the basis for the blitzkrieg tactics of using dive bombers with tanks employed by the Germans in 1939–40.

Second Lieutenant William Henry Brown, a Canadian from British Columbia serving with the RFC and flying a Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5a, made the first attack on a vessel on 14 March 1918, destroying an ammunition barge on a canal at Bernot near St Quentin, diving to 500 ft to release his bombs. He was awarded the Military Cross for this and other exploits. Brown's technique was emulated by other British squadrons. But the heavy casualties to unprotected pilots cast a pall over the results and influenced RAF thinking for 20 years.

Interwar era
The Royal Flying Corps was initially impressed with the potential of the dive bomber, but was aware of its suicidal nature. It ran a series of tests at the Armament Experimental station at Orfordness in Suffolk. Sopwith Camels and Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5as were used in early 1918 to dive bomb targets from various heights, with different bombs and with and without the use of the Aldis gunsight, which had been invented in 1916 to aid pilots to calculate the deflection required to hit a traversing enemy aircraft. In principle, it obviated the need for a vertical dive. The results showed that a vertical dive into the wind sighting along the top of rather than through the sight was best. But they were not considered good enough to justify the expected casualties. The Royal Air Force, which took over both army and naval aviation in April 1918, retired its Sopwith Salamander dive bombers at the end of the war. Colonel, later general, Billy Mitchell arrived in France with the first US Army and Air Force units soon after 6 April 1917 and began to organise the US Army Air Force flying French Salmson 2s, a spotter plane. The later Salmson 4 was to be a ground attack and dive bomber, but production was cancelled at the end of the war. Mitchell became a strong advocate of dive bombers after witnessing British and French aerial attacks. Mitchell, by now assistant chief of the Air Service United States Army, arranged tests with captured German and obsolete US ships in June and July 1921 and repeated over the next two years using Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5as as dive bombers and Handley Page O/400s and Martin NBS-1s as level bombers carrying bombs of different weights up to 2000 lb. The SMS Ostfriesland was sunk and so later were the USS Alabama, USS Virginia and USS New Jersey.

Opposite conclusions were drawn by the RAF and USAS, from two very different tests regarding the usefulness of dive bombers, with the RAF concluding that the cost in pilots was too high to justify the results and the USAS considering it as a potent anti-ship weapon. Both naval staffs opposed the view taken by the respective airmen.

In 1919, United States Marine Corps (USMC) pilot Lt. L. H. Sanderson mounted a rifle in front of the windshield of his Curtiss JN-4 (a training aircraft) as an improvised bomb sight, loaded a bomb in a canvas bag attached to the aircraft's underside, and made a solo attack in support of USMC troops trapped by Haitians during the United States occupation of Haiti. Sanderson's bomb hit its target and the raids were repeated. During 1920, Sanderson familiarised aviators of USMC units on the Atlantic coast with dive bombing techniques. Dive bombing was also used during the United States occupation of Nicaragua.

As aircraft grew more powerful, dive bombing became a favoured tactic, particularly against small targets such as ships. The United States Navy overcame its hostility to Mitchell's findings and deployed the Curtiss F8C Falcon biplane from 1925 on carriers, while the Marine Corps operated them from land bases as the Helldiver, a name later reused by Curtiss for other dive bombers.

The Imperial Japanese Navy ordered the Heinkel He 50 in 1931 as a floatplane and carrier-based dive bomber and embarked some on new carriers from 1935 in a developed form as the Heinkel He 66, from which the Aichi D1A was further developed in Japan. The Luftwaffe confiscated a Chinese export shipment and ordered more.

Navies increasingly operated carriers, which had a limited number of aircraft available for attack, each with only a small bomb load. Targets were often likely to be small or fast-moving and the need for accuracy made dive bombers essential.

Ernst Udet, a German First World War ace, persuaded Hermann Göring to buy two Curtiss Hawk IIs for the newly reformed Luftwaffe. Udet, then a stunt pilot, flew one in aerobatic displays during the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. Due to his connections with the Nazi party, he became the development director of the Ministry of Aviation, where he pushed for dive bomber development.

Dive bombing would allow a low-cost Luftwaffe to operate effectively in the tactical role. Against small targets, a single-engine dive bomber could achieve four times the accuracy at one tenth of the cost of a four-engine heavy bomber, such as the projected Ural bomber, and it could reach the battlefield well ahead of field artillery. Soon the Luftwaffe issued a contract for its own dive bomber design, resulting in the Junkers K 47, which, following extensive trials, would in turn result in the Junkers Ju 87 Stuka (a contraction of Sturzkampfflugzeug, literally 'diving combat airplane').

Several early Junkers Ju 87 dive bombers, which first flew on 13 September 1935, were shipped secretly from Germany to Spain to assist General Francisco Franco's Nationalist rebels in the Spanish Civil War. Several problems appeared, including the tendency of the fixed undercarriage to sink into soft ground and an inability to take-off with a full bomb load. Condor Legion's experience in Spain demonstrated the value of dive bombers, especially on the morale of troops or civilians unprotected by air cover. The aircraft did not encounter opposing modern fighters, which concealed its vulnerability from the Luftwaffe. Udet was impressed with the Stuka's performance in Spain, so he ordered that the Junkers Ju 88 medium bomber should also be retrofitted as a dive bomber. He also insisted, against the advice of Ernst Heinkel, that the Heinkel He 177 bomber, ordered in November 1937, be able to dive bomb. Lack of a sufficiently powerful, reliable powerplant fatally compromised its utility, it never performed in the dive bomber role, and the requirement was eventually dropped.

Some 23 Breda Ba 65s were flown by Italian pilots also in support of Nationalist forces. First flown in 1935, it was a single-seat dive bomber carrying the same bomb load as the Stuka with a 30 mph speed advantage in level flight. As the Royal Navy again took control of the Fleet Air Arm, it began to receive the Fairey Swordfish from 1936 and Blackburn Skuas from November 1938. The Skua had a secondary function of intercepting attacks by unescorted long-range bombers. With four .303 Browning guns and another rear-facing gun, it was expected to defend against air attack with a top speed of 225 mph at sea level, which was a low-altitude speed comparable with other navies' carrier borne fighters in 1938–39. The Royal Navy's dedicated, pre- and early-war, fleet fighter was the Gloster Sea Gladiator. The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) Mitsubishi A5M and USN Grumman F3F were nominally faster than the Skua but this speed was achieved at much higher altitudes; at low altitudes the Skua was quite comparable in speed and was also better armed. The Swordfish was also capable of operating as a dive-bomber and in 1939 HMS Glorious used her Swordfish for a series of dive-bombing trials, during which 439 practise bombs were dropped at dive angles of 60, 67 and 70 degrees, against the target ship HMS Centurion. Tests against a stationary target showed an average error of 49 yd from a release height of 1300 ft and a dive angle of 70 degrees. Tests against a manoeuvring target showed an average error of 44 yd from a drop height of 1800 ft and a dive angle of 60 degrees. The Fairey Albacore was also designed to act as a dive bomber and was used extensively in this role during World War Two.

The British Air Ministry issued Specification 4/34 in 1934 for a ground attack aircraft with dive bombing capability. The Hawker Henley was a two-seat version of the Battle of Britain-winning Hawker Hurricane. It was fast, at almost 300 mph at sea level and 450 mph in a dive, but development was delayed when Hurricane development took priority. Just 200 were built and it was relegated to target towing. The RAF ordered the US-built Vultee A-31 Vengeance in 1943, but it, too, was similarly relegated to target towing after a brief operation period in secondary theatres. The Curtiss SBC Helldiver was a biplane dive bomber that had been taken aboard the USS Yorktown (CV-5) in 1934, but it was slow, at 234 mph. Fifty ex-US Navy examples were flown to Halifax, Nova Scotia, by Curtiss pilots and embarked on the French aircraft carrier Béarn in a belated attempt to help France, which surrendered while they were mid-Atlantic. Five airframes left behind in Halifax later reached the RAF, which quickly relegated them to the status of ground instructional airframes for the training of mechanics.

The Japanese introduced the Aichi D3A Val monoplane as a successor to the biplane Aichi D1A in 1940, with trials aboard the carriers Kaga and Akagi. It was to prove a potent weapon against surface ships.

Only the Wehrmacht learned from the Battle of Cambrai (1917) in using dive bombers in conjunction with tanks. The writings of Britain's Colonel J. F. C. Fuller, a staff officer, and Basil Liddell-Hart (a military journalist) propounded the concept of mobile tank forces supported by ground-attack aircraft creating a breakthrough. These were eagerly studied by the German army officer Heinz Guderian, who created the combination of Panzers and dive bombers that later proved so potent in Poland and France. The Ju 87 Stuka could be used as aerial artillery moving far ahead of the main forces with Panzers to smash enemy strong points without waiting for the horse-drawn artillery to catch up. It was central to the concept of Blitzkrieg, which required close co-ordination between aircraft and tanks by radio.

The RAF had chosen the single-engined Fairey Battle and the twin-engined Bristol Blenheim as its tactical bombers. Both were level bombers with similar bomb-loads and entered service in 1937. The US Army Air Corps (USAAC) adopted the Douglas A-20 Havoc, first flying in January 1939, for a similar role, although originally ordered by France. Many were also supplied to the Soviet Air Force, which also used the Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik ground-attack aircraft in huge numbers. None of these were dive bombers. No Allied air force operated a modern dive bomber at the outbreak of the Second World War, although both the Royal Navy and the US Navy had shipboard dive bombers.

European theatre

On 10 April 1940, 16 British Royal Navy Blackburn Skuas flying at extreme range from the naval air station at Hatston in Orkney led by Lieutenant Commander William Lucy sank the German cruiser Königsberg in Bergen harbour, whilst trying to prevent the German invasion of Norway. On the German side Stukas augmented or replaced artillery support for the Wehrmacht's lightly armed parachute and airborne troops.

The invasion of Poland (September to October 1939) and the Battle of France (May to June 1940) saw the Stuka used to devastating effect. German blitzkrieg tactics used dive bombers in place of artillery to support highly mobile ground troops. The British Expeditionary Force had set up strong defensive positions on the west bank of the Oise River to block rapidly advancing German armour. Stukas quickly broke the defences, and the Wehrmacht forced a crossing long before German artillery arrived.

On 12/13 May 1940, Stukas flew 300 sorties against strong French defensive positions at the Battle of Sedan. This enabled German forces to make a fast and unexpected breakthrough of the French lines, eventually leading to the German advance to the Channel and the cutting off of much of the Allied army.

The skies over Sedan also showed the Stuka's weakness when met with fighter opposition; six French Curtiss H-75s attacked a formation of unescorted Ju 87s and shot down 11 out of 12 without loss. The Stuka was even more vulnerable to the Hawker Hurricane with its 100 mph speed edge and eight machine guns, which it first met over France and then in larger numbers in the Battle of Britain (July to October 1940). Losses were such that the Luftwaffe rapidly withdrew Stukas from operations over the United Kingdom. A similar fate befell unescorted RAF Fairey Battles over France.

The Stuka had 7.92mm machine guns or 20mm cannons mounted in the wings. Some were modified to destroy tanks with heavy calibre, 37mm Bordkanone BK 3,7 autocannons mounted in gun pods below the wings. They were very successful in this role in the early days (1941) of Operation Barbarossa before the Red Army Air Force countered with modern fighters, such as the Yakovlev Yak-1 and later the Yakovlev Yak-3.

The most successful dive-bomber pilot, Hans-Ulrich Rudel, made 2,530 sorties. He contributed to the sinking of the Soviet battleship Marat at Kronstadt on 23 September 1941 using 1000 kg bombs. Later, flying a tank-buster Stuka with 20mm cannon, he claimed over 100 Soviet tanks destroyed, mostly at the Battle of Kursk in July 1943. The Ju 87G Kanonenvogel, equipped with two 37mm BK 3,7 anti-tank guns, as suggested by Rudel, proved to be a lethal weapon in skilled hands. In the Soviet counter-offensive, Operation Kutuzov (July to August 1943), which concluded Kursk, the Luftwaffe claimed 35 tanks destroyed in a single day. Rudel co-wrote a post-war book about his experiences and consulted with the US Air Force.

When Italy joined the war (10 June 1940) on the Axis side, the Regia Aeronautica shipped Breda Ba.65s to North Africa for use against the British but they also proved vulnerable. By February 1941 British fighters had shot down most of the Italian planes. In Morocco on 11 November 1942, American Curtiss P-40 Warhawks shot down 15 Ju 87Ds in one encounter.

The United States Army Air Forces took delivery of a few North American P-51 Mustangs from a British order but, as there were no funds to buy more fighters, they were modified as dive bombers with a new wing and with dive brakes. First flown in October 1942 as the North American A-36 Apache, they arrived in Morocco in April 1943 to assist with driving the Afrika Korps out of Africa. The aircraft was very fast at low altitude. It was also accident-prone, achieving the highest casualty-rate during training of any USAAF aircraft and was officially restricted to no more than a 70-degree dive. The Apache did not fly with the RAF, but served with US squadrons in Sicily, Italy and, by late summer of 1943, was based in India for use over Burma and China. It proved to be an excellent dive-bomber and a good fighter: one ace in Italy shot down five German fighters. The Royal Navy's Fairey Swordfish and Fairey Albacore torpedo-dive bombers and Blackburn Skua fighter-bombers were replaced by Fairey Barracuda torpedo-dive bombers, which made repeated diving attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz which lay protected by torpedo nets in a Norwegian fjord during 1944. On 3 April 1944, in Operation Tungsten, 42 aircraft flying from the carriers HMS Victorious and HMS Furious scored 14 hits with 500 lb and 1600 lb bombs and put the battleship out of action for over two months.

The Soviet Union Armed Forces deployed the Arkhangelsky Ar-2 from 1940 to 1944 and the Petlyakov Pe-2 from 1941 to 1954.

Pacific theatre

The Vultee Vengeance was developed in the US as a private venture dive bomber for export. It first flew in March 1941. It had a zero incidence wing, which was perfect for vertical dives as there was no lift from wing or tailplane in a dive. But it had to fly in a nose up attitude to maintain level flight, which made landings difficult. Initial orders were 300 for France, but France fell before they could be delivered. The RAF, with the cancellation of the Hawker Henley and having noted the success of Stukas in Poland, took delivery instead. It was considered too vulnerable to German fighters for use in Europe or North Africa, but large numbers flew in Burma from March 1943. It flew close support for General William Slim's Burma campaign bombing Japanese supply routes, bridges and artillery. It operated in the Royal Australian Air Force and Indian Air Force as well as the RAF. Some were held back for the United States Army Air Forces after the attack on Pearl Harbor, but did not see combat.

Both the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) and the United States Navy invested considerable effort on dive bombers. Japan started the war with a very good design, the carrier-borne Aichi D3A ("Val"). As the war progressed, the design became outdated due to its limited speed, due in part to the limited horsepower of its power plant and to the greater drag of its fixed main landing gear (a shortcoming shared by the Stuka).

The main American dive bomber, the Douglas SBD Dauntless, had similar performance to the D3A Val. From December 1942, the Dauntless was replaced with the faster, but more complex and trouble-prone Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. Both American aeroplanes were ubiquitous, with 6,000 Dauntlesses and over 7,000 Helldivers built. Both the SBD and D3A were used at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. The Japanese sent 54 D3A Vals carrying 550 lb bombs to attack parked aircraft at Wheeler Field and Ford Island. A flight of 18 Dauntlesses from USS Enterprise (CV-6) arrived over Pearl Harbor just as the Japanese attacked. Seven were shot down and many others destroyed on the ground at Marine Corps Air Station Ewa At the Battle of the Coral Sea, Dauntlesses sank the light carrier Shoho and damaged the fleet carrier Shokaku together with Douglas TBD Devastator torpedo bombers.

On 5 April 1942, the heavy cruisers HMS Cornwall (56) and HMS Dorsetshire (40) were leaving Colombo, Ceylon to join the British Eastern Fleet, but had been spotted by Japanese reconnaissance aircraft. They were attacked by a large number of Aichi D3As and both were sunk. On 9 April 1942 the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Hermes (95) escorted by the destroyer HMS Vampire (D68) were attacked by more than 32 Aichi D3As and both were sunk shortly before eight defending RN FAA Fairey Fulmars, of 806 Squadron, could reach them. The Fulmars shot down four D3As and damaged two while losing two Fulmars to the more numerous D3As.

At the Battle of Midway on 4 June 1942, after most of the torpedo bombers had been shot down without a single hit, Dauntlesses from USS Yorktown (CV-5) and USS Enterprise (CV-6) found four Japanese carriers, in the vulnerable stage of refuelling and rearming aircraft for a second strike. The Combat Air Patrol of formidable Mitsubishi A6M Zeros had been drawn away, chasing torpedo bombers and escorting fighters, leaving a clear sky. Soryu and Kaga were ablaze within six minutes, while Akagi, hit only once, suffered fatal damage as the single bomb ignited fuel and bombs in the hangar.

Later on 4 June, Yorktown and Enterprise dive bombers inflicted fatal damage on the fourth Japanese carrier Hiryu. Within hours the Imperial Japanese Navy had lost four of its aircraft carriers and many experienced naval airmen, both of which Japan would have difficulty in replacing. Further follow-up raids by SBDs and SB2Us from Midway and SBDs from Yorktown, Enterprise and USS Hornet (CV-8) on 5–6 June sank the IJN heavy cruiser Mikuma and heavily damaged her sister ship Mogami and two escorting destroyers.

The United States Army Air Forces took a version of the Dauntless with a different tailwheel tire and no arrester hook as the Douglas A-24 Banshee. In crates headed for the Philippines, they were diverted to Australia and operated from Charters Towers in Queensland. The Banshee was unable to contend with Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zeros. On 26 July 1942, just seven Banshees were sent to intercept a Japanese convoy supplying forces occupying New Guinea. Six were shot down.

The Japanese Yokosuka D4Y Suisei, code-name Judy, began to replace the Vals after a very troublesome development on surviving larger Japanese carriers from March 1943. With a sleek fuselage, retracting landing gear and a powerful licensed Daimler-Benz 601 engine, it could outpace pursuing Grumman F4F Wildcats. To maximise speed and range, the Japanese had dispensed with armour protection and self-sealing fuel tanks, which proved to be very costly when the US Navy deployed the new Essex-class aircraft carriers, which each carried 36 of the faster Grumman F6F Hellcats. The Battle of the Philippine Sea on 19–20 June 1944 was a failure in terms of Japanese carriers hit, but the losses of Vals and Judies and their crews were enough to destroy the Japanese navy's ability to strike by air ever again.

Henceforward attacks were mostly confined to kamikaze. The Japanese were now on the defensive. Japan's industrial output dropped from a peak in 1942, while that of the US increased by a quarter in two years from 1942 to 1944. Japanese wartime production of bombers of all types was just 16% of the US output.

Decline

When the RAF were attempting to stop the Panzers of Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps in early 1942, a lack of dive bombers proved to be an impediment. However, the British Government's Chief Scientist, Henry Tizard, formed a panel of experts, which recommended using rockets. A rocket has a much flatter trajectory than a bomb, allowing it to be launched with reasonable accuracy from a shallow dive, and could be fitted on existing aircraft. The RAF used them on Hurricanes in June 1942 against Rommel's tanks. The British Army had used rockets against low-flying bombers during the Battle of Britain by enlarging the tube from 2 in to 3 in and fitting high explosive warheads; it became an anti-tank weapon. The more powerful Hawker Typhoon, originally developed as a fighter, proved even more effective, carrying eight RP-3 60 lb rockets and producing a similar effect to a naval destroyer's broadside.

On 23 May 1943, a Fairey Swordfish destroyed U-752 in the Atlantic, and five days later, a Lockheed Hudson of RAF Coastal Command sank U-755 in the Mediterranean, using specialised rockets fitted with iron spikes which were fired at a shallow angle into the sea. Once under water, they curved upwards and punctured the pressure hull below the waterline, disabling or sinking the submarine.

Caltech developed the 5 in High Velocity Aircraft Rocket (HVAR) with a 24 lb warhead for the US Navy. It was rushed to Europe for use on D-Day and later used by Navy aircraft in the Pacific. By January 1943, American pilots who had been flying in RAF Eagle Squadrons before the US entered the war, converted from Supermarine Spitfires to Republic P-47 Thunderbolts to form the USAAF 4th Air Fighter Group. At over 4 LT unladen, one of the biggest single engine fighter bombers of the war, it could carry ten 5 in HVARs.

By late 1944, the RAF was able to hit stationary targets with greater accuracy from greater heights inflicting far more damage with less risk. On 12 November 1944, two 5 LT Tallboy bombs were dropped by Avro Lancasters from 25000 ft and hit the German battleship Tirpitz at supersonic speeds, sinking it. The Tallboy was developed by Vickers designer Barnes Wallis who followed it up with the even larger 10 LT Grand Slam earthquake bomb which was used to destroy railway viaducts and bridges, targets that could previously only be damaged in diving attacks. Wallis also designed a bomb that bounced across water to destroy the Eder and Moehne dams, which needed to be hit repeatedly at the same spot under water to be breached but had nets to protect against torpedoes.

Pilots in the Pacific later developed a technique of skip bombing which required flying at low level and dropping a spherically nosed conventional bomb onto the sea, at a shallow angle, which then bounced back into the air.

Although new aircraft could still dive towards their targets, they were no longer optimised for steep diving attacks. Through the pioneering efforts by the Luftwaffe's Fritz X and the USAAF's Azon, controlled-trajectory bombs evolved into today's smart bombs. A bomb can be dropped far from a target's air defences using a guidance system to hit the target, ensuring greater accuracy and minimising risk to the crew.

Jet engines allowed higher speeds which made "toss bombing" possible, a reverse dive bombing method where an aircraft snaps up from low altitude as a bomb is released, throwing it upwards like a shot put.

title: Dive bomber


text:
G force (disambiguation)

The g-force associated with an object is its acceleration relative to free-fall.

G-force may also refer to:

Arts and entertainment

 * G Force, a 1983 album by Kenny G
 * G-Force (film), a 2009 live-action film by Disney
 * G-Force (video game), a 2009 video game based on the film
 * G-Force, a group from Battle of the Planets
 * G-Force: Guardians of Space, the second English adaptation of Gatchaman, following Battle of the Planets
 * "G-Force", a song by Sonic Youth, from The Whitey Album
 * G-Force (album), a 1980 album by the band of the same name led by Gary Moore
 * G-Force (dance group), a dance group in the Philippines associated with ASAP 2012
 * G-Force (Godzilla), a fictional military organization tasked with the monitoring of Godzilla

Technology

 * G-Force Technologies, a racing car constructor, now owned by Élan Motorsport Technologies
 * G-Force, a guitar effects processor by TC Electronic
 * G Force (Dyson), a vacuum cleaner by Dyson
 * G Force (roller coaster), a roller coaster at Drayton Manor Theme Park

title: G force (disambiguation)