In an air-to-sea battle, with enemy flak exploding all over the place, is it better to be at low altitude...?

Question

or high altitude?

Answer 1

During the Second World War, many aircraft would attack ships are low altitude. Torpedo bombers had to have an attack run at low altitude, but other bombers would also come in at low level and use a "skip bombing" technique. It was thought that a low level attack on a large ship (battleships, aircraft carriers, some cargo ships) was safer, as the ships' anti-aircraft batteries could not depress low enough to shoot that the aircraft.

Divebombers attack from a higher altitude, plunging down to attack from where the flak batteries could not elevate to. Dive bombing was far more accurate than high altitude level bombing, especially against manuevering ships.

Answer 2

Most US torpedo planes had to drop at 200 feet and low speed, US torpedo were really bad and most would not work, skip bombing by B-25 and B-26 would fly around 25 feet and with time delay fuses, BOmbs could do more damage under water than on top, Most guns could not depress low enough to hit targets,

Answer 3

Where the flak is not.
Air attacks try to come from all atitudes and directions at the same time to spread the enemy fire.

Answer 4

low altitude is better to get under them and some flank will hit the water.

Answer 5

Either below it or over it.