Danny
Thanks for the review and your interesting thoughts. You've spurred me to do a bit more checking.
Yup... you're right about the bombing... practice bombs were employed. According to Arthur's log, mostly 11.5 lb and some 20 lb, very rarely full-weight weapons. Also checking through the log, no sign of 'reconnaissance sweeps', as you speculated. Hold on to your hat (there was very little faffing-about)... here's a selection of Arthur's log book entries from:
May/June '43
Dambulla and return. Formation low-level dummy attack; ARP Exercise.
Low-level local flying
Ramrod I Low-level 'attack' on Puttalam aerodrome by 11 Vengeances escorted by 30 (F) Sqdn
Dives 10,000' to sea level
Formation 'fly-past' over Queen's House Colombo - United Nations Day
Exercise 'Fog' (RAF and Southern Army manouvres). 'Raid' on St Thomas Mount
Low-level 'attack' on defile to block 'Jap' advance. Very successful.
Low-level 'attack' on bridge at Chaudepaulle
'Raid' on Tirravallur aerodrome. 'Jap' aircraft dive attack from 12,000'
July/August '43:
2x 11.5lb dive from 10000' One direct hit, one 10 yds error on target.
[With a Major in the back:] Full war-load test 1500lb bombs 5000 rds .303. 6 guns
Bombing 2 x 250lb 50 yds line error. Gongala rock bombing 2x 11.5lb LL
Dive attack and ground strafing Colombo Harbour and oil refineries
Exercise Cax Attack by 6 VVs on HMS Newcastle.
Exercise Thunderbox. Attack on HMS Scout
Bombing dive 10,000' Direct hit on Gongala rock 1x 11.5lb bomb
Bombing low level 1,000' 2x 11.5lb One direct hit, one 30 yds Front and rear guns firing practice.
In September they were working with the Army at Ranchi, trialing target-indication, bombing pill boxes, and more use of practice bombs, then December with the Chindits doing target indication trails with smoke, and live bombing demonstration: 6 aircraft with 500lb bombs. In February '44 they moved to Kumbhirgram and began ops against the Japanese, supporting both the 14th Army and the Chindits.
Interesting what you say about Naval ships zig-zagging and how pointless that would be. In truth, that was my speculation that they did this! Maybe they didn't as a defence against air attack... maybe just for submarines where there was a decent chance of dodging a torpedo or spoiling an aim.
Again you've caught me out! I wrote:
... By that time, word had got out that the Vengeance was a formidable aircraft well-suited to close air support of ground troops and the soldiers were very keen to learn how to employ it operationally...
You replied:
Not "By that time". The VV couldn't even find the Japs in the field in the fluid fighting of '42/'43, which meant that we'd to go down to Akyab (miles from the land battle) for targets.
What Arthur actually wrote was:
[At Ranchi, Sep '43]
..a stream of senior Army officers asked to visit and talk about the RAF's new dive-bomber. Many had experienced the Stuka in Europe...The officers of 15 Corps were very keen to see the results of our bombing and whether or not 84 Squadron was as good as they claimed to be. In the past they had not been well supported by the RAF and had little faith in our abilities. This was due to a shortage of suitable aircraft at the time and the wrong use of the types of aircraft available. Here at last was an aircraft which the RAF claimed was ideal for the close support of the Army.
He went on to say that they demonstrated the effectiveness of the Vengeance on a target of bunkers built by the Army, and they were suitable impressed.
Regarding your statement that Vengeances weren't used in 1945 because 'we couldn't be seen to be successful, you see - it wasn't in accord with Official Policy'. This isn't really so is it? All the Vengeance squadrons had been scheduled to re-equip with the Mosquito, which presumably, when the decision was made, was thought to be more effective than the Vengeance. Certainly it was, where there was low-level cloud that precluded the Vengeance's highly accurate vertical dive.