# SBD vs. JU-87 vs. Aichi D3A



## Velius (Dec 29, 2007)

Regarding their role as a dive bomber- which would emerge as the champion?

- SBD Dauntless
- Ju-87 Stuka
- Aichi D3A Val

I'll admit that I don't know much about dive bombers, but to what I know all were quite effective. What are ya'lls opinion?

Thanks8)


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 29, 2007)

My heart is with the Dauntless....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ToughOmbre (Dec 29, 2007)

The SBD was an effective dive bomber right up until the end of the war, even after it was "replaced" by the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. Can't say that about the Ju-87 Stuka and the Aichi D3A Val.

Dauntless easy.

TO


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 29, 2007)

My all around pick would be the Dauntless as mentioned in the Why Ju-87 built? thread. It was a fast, reasonably agile plane and durable. (it was used initially as an anti-torpedo bomber fighter by the USN as a secondary role and didn't do badly at the role though the practice was ceased because it made them vulnerable to marauding fighters.)

The Stuka would appear to hold the crown for best platform on which to conduct an accurate dive bombing attack while i've heard that the D3A had similar properties and was quite a nimble plane as well. Having no armor or self sealers though, it was also vulnerable to increasingly well armed fighters so falls behind the Dauntless as my all -round pick. The Stuka is often cited as being the most vulnerable to enemy fighters.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 29, 2007)

Not knowing too much about the others I would make a vote for the Stuka. Once its role as a divebomber was made a moot point without air superiority, it was adapted to another role - tank busting - which it did with good results. It created a whole new type of bomber which can still be seen in the A-10 today.

Control of the air was what made alot of these planes successful or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## V-1710 (Dec 30, 2007)

SBD. The fact that the Dauntless had the lowest combat air loss ratio of any U.S. Navy carrier aircraft is remarkable, particularly considering the SBD was a dive bomber. The Dauntless contributed more to the victory at Midway than any other aircraft involved, and could be a nasty surprise to the unsuspecting Zero pilot. The Stuka and D3A were only effective if there were no opposing fighters in the area.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 30, 2007)

Dauntless, hands down.... Try and pull 9 G's in a Stuka..... HA!

Oh and for the record, check out the Official Dive Bomber Thread here..... Its for Carrier born aircraft..

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/greatest-carrier-born-dive-bomber-ww-ii-7615.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2007)

Aircraft wise I have to go with the SBD for reasons stated above.

As a platform for dive bombing however I go with the Stuka.



V-1710 said:


> SBD. The fact that the Dauntless had the lowest combat air loss ratio of any U.S. Navy carrier aircraft is remarkable, particularly considering the SBD was a dive bomber. The Dauntless contributed more to the victory at Midway than any other aircraft involved, and could be a nasty surprise to the unsuspecting Zero pilot. The Stuka and D3A were only effective if there were no opposing fighters in the area.



While everything you say above is true, without the US having air superiority in the Pacific the Dauntless would not have been effective either. Just like all dive bombers.


----------



## B-17engineer (Dec 30, 2007)

I believe that a SBD would come out victorious just due to its durability. The Stuka was slow and the SBD would probably turn it and the Val forget it.......actually if u got into a turning fight u were doomed. But it was so lightly armoured and a squirt from the SBD's guns it was doomed

My overall opion the SBD would win.......If u saw Swede a SBD pilot on dogfights you could probably see for urself


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2007)

I would also go for the SBD for its durability. All three proved themselves as accurate dive bombers but the Ju87 and Val did suffer heavy losses in their original role as dive bombers.
So the SBD has the vote


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 31, 2007)

Nikademus said:


> The Stuka is often cited as being the most vulnerable to enemy fighters.



Hardly the case - the Stukas are probably the best armored of all three, with a good defensive gun suite - _a twin_ MG81 is a nasty thing with 3200 rounds/min...

Looking at the specs, the Ju 87D seems to be a clear winner of the three; it has the same speed as the Dauntless, it`s heavily armored, the D-5 is heavily armed and also the Dora carries a heaviest bombload of all three, bombs as big as 1800 kg can be carried. As naval bombers for the Pacific, the other two generally has the advantage of range, though I am not sure how this would play out with a variation of ordonance - droptanks/bombs.

The Val was a nice dive bomber when the war started, but the lack of development simply made it fall behind against newer types of dive bombers.


----------



## Thorlifter (Dec 31, 2007)

My heart says Dauntless, but if I had to pick just one, I'd go with the Stuka for it's versatility.


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 31, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Hardly the case - the Stukas are probably the best armored of all three, with a good defensive gun suite - _a twin_ MG81 is a nasty thing with 3200 rounds/min...
> 
> Looking at the specs, the Ju 87D seems to be a clear winner of the three; it has the same speed as the Dauntless, it`s heavily armored, the D-5 is heavily armed and also the Dora carries a heaviest bombload of all three, bombs as big as 1800 kg can be carried. As naval bombers for the Pacific, the other two generally has the advantage of range, though I am not sure how this would play out with a variation of ordonance - droptanks/bombs.
> 
> The Val was a nice dive bomber when the war started, but the lack of development simply made it fall behind against newer types of dive bombers.




I had read that the Ju-87D received additional armor to assist it in it's ground support role. This didn't appear to increase the plane's survivability vs. fighter planes much judging by what i've read. Certainly so if equipped with the anti-tank gun packs which impacted it's preformance increasing it's vulnerability. 

That said, I am a fan of the big bombload the Stuka can lug around and it does have claim to being the best platform for a dive bombing attack. I'll confess that I do wonder how much the Stuka's vulnerability is due to the combat environment as well as it's flight characteristics. Would an SBD group fair any better operating over land? Certainly it too would need escort. Facing cannon armed opponent's from the Luftwaffe would certainly increase it's vulnerability as well. Tough call. I'm still of the mind that defensively the Dauntless was more survivable....but i'm willing to be convinced.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2007)

The SBD was operated on land by a few Marine units. I'm wondering if they exceeded the 1,200 pound bomb load when land based?


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 31, 2007)

It could just lug a converted 1400lb AP bomb off of a carrier if the rear gunner was left behind and the plane operated at a reduced radius.


----------



## V-1710 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ever seen a Dauntless in person? They are not very large.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> It could just lug a converted 1400lb AP bomb off of a carrier if the rear gunner was left behind and the plane operated at a reduced radius.


So factory that into a 3000' strip at sea level - I bet you could get airborne with another 500 pounds.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

I see what you are saying but, the Stuka was accurate but very obselete after France, Britain, NOrway, and the Spanish CIvil war it was effecrive. WHat i am saying though is that the SBD although it was becoming obselete could still get the job done. Were as the Val and Stuka were already obselete by 1942 and the just weren't good enough.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 1, 2008)

There`s absolutely nothing supporting the Stuka being especially vulnerable as a dive bomber. It shared the defiences of all dive bombers - namely, a relatively small plane with limited defensive armament, and more importantly, the difficulty of maintaining a mutual defensive fomation with each other the escorting fighters immidiately after the dive attack was made. In short, the formation broke up after the dive bombing, and in this period the dive bombers were vulnerable to fighter attacks. But such weakness is equally true for any other dive bomber. For a dive bomber, the Stuka was solid - as fast as the best, rugged, well armored and armed. It continued to operate successfully until the Allied air superiority was such that even fighters found it difficult to operate in the daylight.

Other than that, there`s nothing to support it had some 'special vulnerability'. The claim is largely based on British propaganda stemming from the BoB, but even that is just that - propaganda.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> I see what you are saying but, the Stuka was accurate but very obselete after France, Britain, NOrway, and the Spanish CIvil war it was effecrive. WHat i am saying though is that the SBD although it was becoming obselete could still get the job done. Were as the Val and Stuka were already obselete by 1942 and the just weren't good enough.



How was it obsolete after the BoB? It was far from obsolete and even became and extremely effective tank killer throughout the war.

The Stuka was not obsolete, however like all dive bombers it required aerial supremacy to be 100 percent effective.

You also say the Stuka was too slow. 

The Ju-87D had a top speed of approx. 408 kmh (254 mph).

The SBD Dauntless had a stop speed of approx. 410 kmh (255 mph)

Not much of a difference there is it.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

It was obselete because AMericans and British had superior aircraft, Plus in the BoB its losses were so high it had to withdraw, the SBD never withdrew from any battle, and the 254 mph who cares it was still slow enough that american fighters could blast it out of the sky when ever. THe SBd could pull a 9 G turn atleast if a Zero pulled behind it it could turn, If the Zero did that its wings would rip off, My point being the SBD could Turn better defend its self better and never had to be WITHDRAWN from battle.

The tank killing wasn't even dive bombing. I will say that Hans-Ulrich RUdel was the best dive bombing pilot ever: 512 soviets tanks destroyed, Sank the Battleship Marat, 11 fighters shot down, he bailed out 13 times and he destroyed 13 locamotives. All in the Stuka with his 37mm anti-tank gun

I understand both what your saying, I am just supporting that the SBD proved itself and never had be withdrawn, one reason it was superior cause french pilots weren't prepared and there aircraft were just as good as British planes, the British knew they were going to attack and were prepared.

The part of the French planes is reffering to the Stuka.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> It was obselete because AMericans and British had superior aircraft, Plus in the BoB its losses were so high it had to withdraw, the SBD never withdrew from any battle, and the 254 mph who cares it was still slow enough that american fighters could blast it out of the sky when ever. THe SBd could pull a 9 G turn atleast if a Zero pulled behind it it could turn, If the Zero did that its wings would rip off, My point being the SBD could Turn better defend its self better and never had to be WITHDRAWN from battle.
> 
> The tank killing wasn't even dive bombing. I will say that Hans-Ulrich RUdel was the best dive bombing pilot ever: 512 soviets tanks destroyed, Sank the Battleship Marat, 11 fighters shot down, he bailed out 13 times and he destroyed 13 locamotives. All in the Stuka with his 37mm anti-tank gun
> 
> ...




Oh boy.... 

Oh and please from now on use the Edit Button instead of making 4 or 5 different posts.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

Sorry


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2008)

No dont be sorry.

I am just trying to figure your posts out. I dont think you are understanding why the Ju 87 had problems. Either that or you are letting national pride cloud your judgment (dont take me wrong I am an American as well).

The Ju 87 was like any other dive bomber. Without air superiority she was going to sustain heavy losses and not be as effective.

The reason the SBD enjoyed better success is because for most of the war in the Pacific the US had air superiority. If the US had not enjoyed such superiority the SBD would have taken heavier losses as well.

I am a firm believer the SBD was a better aircraft overall but the Ju 87 was a better dive bombing platform.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

Now i understand.....okay yea see.


----------



## Nikademus (Jan 1, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So factory that into a 3000' strip at sea level - I bet you could get airborne with another 500 pounds.



maybe. The impression i got was that it the plane needed every bit of speed the carrier could generate over the flight deck to produce the needed windflow. It was never attempted in wartime though. Too much work most likely....that and only Enterprise had any of the converted shells in her magazines at the time. The 1000lber's proved advantagious enough vs. Japanese carriers in the end. By the time the Marines were using them they'd have been lugging standard army land bombs of the 500lb HE type.

In the early days though the army had a land version of the SBD.....designated A-24. I don't have much info on their history of ops but what little i have suggested they wern't very successful though this may have had more to do with the rugged conditions in New Guneau than anything else. Also believe they may have been an early conversion so didn't sport armor or self sealers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> In the early days though the army had a land version of the SBD.....designated A-24. I don't have much info on their history of ops but what little i have suggested they wern't very successful though this may have had more to do with the rugged conditions in New Guneau than anything else. Also believe they may have been an early conversion so didn't sport armor or self sealers.


Very true - by the time the A-24 was entering service the AAF was all but out of the dive bombing business in the traditional sense.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> Now i understand.....okay yea see.



The key is control of the skies. If you can fly free and roam over your targest you are going to have success.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 1, 2008)

Comparing the Stuka's total operational life is not very effective either. You must seperate from the B / D model and later models. Early models were for dive-bombing purposes, the latter with the pods for tank-busting. Different operations. 



> The tank killing wasn't even dive bombing. I will say that Hans-Ulrich RUdel was the best dive bombing pilot ever: 512 soviets tanks destroyed, Sank the Battleship Marat, 11 fighters shot down, he bailed out 13 times and he destroyed 13 locamotives. All in the Stuka with his 37mm anti-tank gun



Most of those stats are for the later models he used as ground attack, not dive-bombing. What was his early scores without the 37 mm gun? When he was only dive-bombing? More accurate for this thread.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 2, 2008)

Yea i know that wasn't dive bombing...........he had a 37mm gun i just was saying.......


----------



## proton45 (Jan 2, 2008)

I would have to agree with the comments in reference to "air superiority"...one could compare HP stats, kill ratio's, years of service or combat losses and draw whatever conclusions one wanted to about which dive bomber was "better"...but the over all success of any bombing campaign has more to do with who controls the sky then which bomber was designed first (oldest) or whatever...


----------



## seesul (Jan 3, 2008)

SBD


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 3, 2008)

proton45 said:


> I would have to agree with the comments in reference to "air superiority"...one could compare HP stats, kill ratio's, years of service or combat losses and draw whatever conclusions one wanted to about which dive bomber was "better"...but the over all success of any bombing campaign has more to do with who controls the sky then which bomber was designed first (oldest) or whatever...



It`s just so true I will spam the thread with it.... Look at what happened to unescorted B-17/B-24s.. Look how they fared when they were well escorted in contrast.

A better pilot beats a better plane, and better tactics will beat a better pilot..


----------



## Velius (Jan 28, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The key is control of the skies. If you can fly free and roam over your targest you are going to have success.




I guess the Val had it's time in the sun only when it was accompanied by zeros to deal with the fighters and provide air supierority. The stuka was much the same way right?

I might be wrong on this one but was the Dauntless able to hold it's own without the aid of fighters?


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 28, 2008)

More so, but it still helped to have some cover. Remember, the Val, like most Japanese planes, had no armor or self sealing fuel tanks. It's didn't take too many hits from a .50 cal to turn it into a fireball. The Dauntless could take some punishment and keep flying.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 28, 2008)

>I might be wrong on this one but was the Dauntless able to hold it's own without the aid of fighters?

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/ju-87-stuka-vulnerability-fighter-attack-11124.html


----------



## renrich (Jan 28, 2008)

The SBD had some maneuverability, had two forward firing 50 cals and was even used as a CAP against VTs early on but it would not have a good chance unescorted against enemy VFs. However it served and served well during the whole war.


----------



## Udet (Jan 28, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> It was obselete because AMericans and British had superior aircraft, Plus in the BoB its losses were so high it had to withdraw, the SBD never withdrew from any battle, and the 254 mph who cares it was still slow enough that american fighters could blast it out of the sky when ever. THe SBd could pull a 9 G turn atleast if a Zero pulled behind it it could turn, If the Zero did that its wings would rip off, My point being the SBD could Turn better defend its self better and never had to be WITHDRAWN from battle.
> 
> The tank killing wasn't even dive bombing. I will say that Hans-Ulrich RUdel was the best dive bombing pilot ever: 512 soviets tanks destroyed, Sank the Battleship Marat, 11 fighters shot down, he bailed out 13 times and he destroyed 13 locamotives. All in the Stuka with his 37mm anti-tank gun
> 
> ...



This is utter non-sense.

The Americans and British "had superior aircraft"? How come? To what type of superior aircraft you´d be referring to?

Fighters perhaps? Non-sense again. The Stuka was not designed to engage in air-to-air combat, something i think you should know.

If referring to dive bombers, which i believe should be the point here, name a British dive bomber that proved superior to the Stuka, or that could outmatch the Stuka´s battle record. 

Battle of Britain, oh well, the Bf 109 E-3 and E-4 were clearly superior to the Hurricane and perhaps slightly superior to the Spitfire Mk. I; there you have the fighter designed to engage the British fighters that would intercept the Stukas.

Good you mentioned Rudel there; the fact he had to bale out 13 or more times due to enemy fighter action or AA fire and lived to tell the story could certainly help you comprehending a bit further how safe the Stuka could be. You can not go on challenging your "luck" factor forever without paying the consequences.

You assertion the Dauntless was never withdrawn from service means virtually nothing for concluding which plane was the best.

Sure the Dauntless made a fine dive bomber, but given the circumstances surrounding the deployment of both models, i´d see any definitive superiority of any of the 2 planes marginal.


----------



## MAV_406 (Jan 28, 2008)

the SBD could hold its own in a dog fight. the stuka was easy meat and the val was extreamly easy to ingnite and explode. in my opion being able to make an attack is the most important part of any strike fighter. no point having a great dive if you cant get there.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 29, 2008)

> A better pilot beats a better plane, and better tactics will beat a better pilot..


True, true, true, true!!!



> I guess the Val had it's time in the sun only when it was accompanied by zeros to deal with the fighters and provide air supierority. The stuka was much the same way right?



Being covered by fighters does not mean air superiority. In the BoB, the Stukas had cover, sometimes twice their number but they did not have command of the air over England. There was at times an equal number of RAF against the Luftwaffe and although the fighters tangled, the RAF still got to the bombers.

One other thing: Command of the air over England sometimes forced German bombers to turn back before even reaching the target. Not something much seen later by the Allies when they took it to Germany.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 29, 2008)

Rudel also flew the Fw 190 and scored his "kills" in that seat.... His numbers are inflated by anyones measure, and he lost several backseaters while flying the Stuka....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2008)

Velius said:


> I guess the Val had it's time in the sun only when it was accompanied by zeros to deal with the fighters and provide air supierority. The stuka was much the same way right?
> 
> I might be wrong on this one but was the Dauntless able to hold it's own without the aid of fighters?



Its that way for any Dive Bomber. If you dont have air superiority you are going to take heavy losses.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 29, 2008)

Hi Udet,

>You assertion the Dauntless was never withdrawn from service means virtually nothing for concluding which plane was the best.

Hm, the USAAF's A-24 seems to have been withdrawn from combat service after suffering serious losses (on a small scale).

David Donald's "Bomber" gives the A-24 versions as follows:

A-24 = SBD-3 (minus arrestor gear), 78 examples factory build
A-24 = SBD-3A, 90 examples from a Navy batch converted to A-24 standards
A-24A = SBD-4, 100/170? examples
A-24B = SBD-5, 615 examples, Tulsa-built

I figure all of the Army A-24 variants had the arrestor gear removed, but Donald mentions it only specifically for the first batch.

Accordingly to Donald, armour and self-sealing tanks were introduced with the SBD-2 variant.

Regards

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Nikademus (Jan 29, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Udet,
> 
> Accordingly to Donald, armour and self-sealing tanks were introduced with the SBD-2 variant.
> 
> ...



According to this site, the SBD-3 introduced armor and fuel protection.

The Douglas SBD Dauntless Curtiss SB2C Helldiver

However the same chart confirms that the A-24's were SBD-3's or higher so it would seem the USAAF was armored. Do you have any info on these heavy losses and the circumstances? It would be useful to take a look at em.


----------



## Nikademus (Jan 29, 2008)

Fighter escort doesn't mean the bombers are safe. I agree. I think however it's relevent that the Stuka proved so difficult to escort even when ample support was available. The facet that keeps getting mentioned in multiple sources is not the DUR of the bomber but rather that it was too slow. [unweildyness is less mentioned but there] This would appear to be in part due to the nature of the 109 itself however. I'm getting an impression from current reading that the situation was improved with a mixture of 109's and 190's on the escort.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 29, 2008)

Re: A-24, their reputation in USAAF seems to have been based a lot on one mission, July 29, 1942 in New Guinea. A 7 plane formation of the 8th BG, flying from Port Moresby to attack Japanese shipping on the north coast. They became separated from their P-39 escort but pressed on, were intercepted by Zeroes (Tainan Air Group) and all but one or two (sources vary) of the A-24's were lost. Thereafter A-24's were only used in areas of low fighter threat, v bypassed Japanese garrisons, v Kiska after Japanese air opposition there had ceased, etc.

The first use of A-24's was in Java where on a few missions the 91st BS managed to disable a Japanese transport (real successes v Japanese ships were pretty rare up to then, so it's notable) and avoided Zeroes, though their P-40 escort suffered heavily on one of those missions.

A-24 was SBD-3 as mentioned. SBD-3's had factory fitted armor and tank protection but SBD-2 were probably re-fitted in the field with those measures as F4F-3's were (F4F-4's from factory), in early 1942.

An assumption which might be examined further though is whether self sealing tanks and armor had a dramatic effect on *aircraft* loss rates. It helped a significant % of air crews to survive (to escape or crashland their a/c, often) who otherwise wouldn't have, that's pretty clear. And that was important for morale, and in number of pilots available if they could be recovered. But, on questions like this we're generally speaking of comparative plane losses rather than aircrew losses. Anecdotal evidence in this regard from Allied side will base the performance of Japanese planes on the numerous ones 'blowing up', but those will be seriously exaggerated estimates of the numbers compared to known certain Allied losses; and may amplify the effect of fire on pre-tank protection Allied a/c, again from the understandable perspective of avoiding getting burned to death, as opposed to plane loss rate.

Joe


----------



## fer-de-lance (Jan 29, 2008)

Aren't we forgeting that the D3A "Kanbaku" achieved the highest hit rate of any divebomber in WWII - vide sinking of HMS Hermes, Dorsetshire and Cornwall.


----------



## renrich (Jan 30, 2008)

One factor regarding the discussion of the SBD, Stuka, Val comparison is that the SBD was used and I believe designed for a dual role. That is as a scout plane as well as a dive bomber. Because of that it had a longer range than the Stuka and probably more range than a Val. The IJN typically used float planes off the cruisers and BBs as scout whereas early in the war the USN would normally designate one squadron of SBDs on a CV as scouts, one Sq as dive bombers. of course the SB in SBD stood for scout bomber.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 31, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>One factor regarding the discussion of the SBD, Stuka, Val comparison is that the SBD was used and I believe designed for a dual role. That is as a scout plane as well as a dive bomber. Because of that it had a longer range than the Stuka and probably more range than a Val. 

Unfortunately, I don't have a range table for the Stuka, but the Ju 87C, D and R variants could carry two external tanks to bring the fuel capacity up to 1370 L, while the similarly loaded SBD had a capacity of 1400 L. 

The SBD had an internal tank twice as large as the Stuka's though - 960 L vs. the 480 L.

(On the other hand, the Ju 87D could carry a 1800 kg bomb in the extreme, while the SBD was limited to a 726 kg bomb if fuel load was restricted - we're really seeing a difference in specialization here.)

I'd say that even with external tanks, the SBD-5 probably held a fair range advantage over the Ju 87C and R - and possibly over the Ju 87D as well. Still, it would be interesting to see accurate data on the Stuka!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jan 31, 2008)

Henning, My reference "Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" shows Ju87B2 with internal fuel of 480 liters and max range without bombs of 372 miles. On SBD5, "Aircraft of WW2" shows max range of 1115 miles. Doesn't sound like the Stuka would do well in the Pacific. Same book shows D3A2 with max range of 970 miles.


----------



## HoHun (Feb 1, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>Henning, My reference "Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" shows Ju87B2 with internal fuel of 480 liters and max range without bombs of 372 miles. On SBD5, "Aircraft of WW2" shows max range of 1115 miles. Doesn't sound like the Stuka would do well in the Pacific. 

Well, the Ju 87B was not configured to use drop tanks, but the naval version Ju 87C and the long-range version Ju 87R were - as was the Ju 87D, the contemporary to the SBD-5.

As a very rough estimate, on 1370 L instead of 480 L the Ju 87R-2 (the exact counterpart to the B-2) could do 1060 miles - neglecting the unknown drag of the drop tanks. This drag is an unknown quantity, but probably not all that important for a low-speed aircraft of the size of the Stuka. The Ju 87D featured improved aerodynamics, which of course help range, too.

Based on your figures (and ignoring the uncertainties that stem from the exact conditions for these range figures not being listed for the moment , I'd think the Ju 87D would not have quite the range of the SBD-5, but probably about the same range as the Aichi D3A, so it should certainly be an effective aircraft type in the Pacific Theatre.

(What range does your book list for the SB2C, by the way? I vaguely seem to remember that it sacrificed some range compared to the SBD to carry a havier bombload, but I might be wrong ...)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Nikademus (Feb 1, 2008)

According to this website, the -D varient with tanks had a max range of 830 nautical miles.

The SBD-5 in a max fuel config lists as 970 nautical miles. (same site)

Air Vectors

D3A2 from another site lists max range as 915 miles

Aichi D3A (Val) - Japan


Not really a whole lot of difference to remark about. Ultimately effective range would be governed by ordinance loadout and more importantly, the range of the escorts. A carrier cat and mouse game also would govern max effective range due to the target mobility and the need for a safety margin in order to return to the home carrier


----------



## Nikademus (Feb 1, 2008)

renrich said:


> One factor regarding the discussion of the SBD, Stuka, Val comparison is that the SBD was used and I believe designed for a dual role. That is as a scout plane as well as a dive bomber. Because of that it had a longer range than the Stuka and probably more range than a Val. The IJN typically used float planes off the cruisers and BBs as scout whereas early in the war the USN would normally designate one squadron of SBDs on a CV as scouts, one Sq as dive bombers. of course the SB in SBD stood for scout bomber.



The Japanese sometimes used their B5N's in the scout role. They did prefer floatplanes or land based scouts in order to preserve carrier firepower.


----------



## renrich (Feb 3, 2008)

My ref "Aircraft of WW2" gives max range of Helldiver as 1925 miles and normal range of JU87D-1 as 620 miles. Those numbers don't tell us much. The numbers I quoted on the SBD, 1115 miles are, I suspect, with internal fuel only, a 500 pound bomb and are a "yardstick" range, that is do not include warmup, takeoff, climb out, combat, return and reserve fuel. A realistic range would be around 70% of that. The reason I say that is internal fuel only is that I don't believe the SBD, especially in the early going ever carried external fuel and those range figures pretty much match the "yardstick" range of the Wildcat which would be the escort fighter for the SBD. I don't believe the Stuka could ever match the range of the Dauntless on internal fuel and carrying a 500 or 1000 lb bomb.


----------



## HoHun (Feb 4, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>I don't believe the Stuka could ever match the range of the Dauntless on internal fuel and carrying a 500 or 1000 lb bomb.

Hm, as (unlike the Dauntless) the Stuka could combine carriage of a 500 kg (1100 lbs) bomb and drop tanks, it actually could match the Dauntless' range under the stated conditions.

(At least, as far as I can tell from the fragmentary data we have.)

On internal fuel alone, that would obviously not possible, but the use of the underwing tanks seems to have been standard operating procedure with the Ju 87R in anti-shipping operations in the mediterranean, so it seems natural to assume they could have been used in the Pacific Theatre as well.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Feb 4, 2008)

Henning, some thoughts on the Stuka. Is there any single engine AC in WW2 that looks draggier? External fuel tanks because of additional drag and weight don't yield but about a 50% range gain and of course decrease bomb load. Often, big horsepower increases don't increase speed much but do increase load carry. To me, the performance figures on the Stuka look suspect. Were there any actual flight tests performed by the allies on JU87s?


----------



## HoHun (Feb 5, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>Henning, some thoughts on the Stuka. Is there any single engine AC in WW2 that looks draggier? 

Drag is in the eye of the beholder  Seriously, you'd need a wind tunnel test to know. 

The Junkers Flugzeugwerke had a long wind tunnel tradition, and they included the interior aerodynamics of radiators in their design considerations. Interior aerodynamics would not be immediately visible, of course. The Ju 87 also had an inline engine, featuring a smaller frontal area than a radial, and over the SBD it had the additional advantage of featuring a spinner - it does make a difference even for radials, even though sometimes considerations other than streamlining prevent its installation.

>External fuel tanks because of additional drag and weight don't yield but about a 50% range gain and of course decrease bomb load. 

Hm, a 50% range gain compared to what? You have to remember that the power required to overcome parasitic drag increases to the cube of speed, and the Junkers Ju 87 cruised rather slowly. The impact of the drop tanks has also to be seen in relation to the size of the aircraft, and the Ju 87 was rather big.

With regard to the bomb load, the Ju 87's decreased load was the SBD's normal load - 500 kg with drop tanks for the Ju 87 match the 1000 lbs of the SBD quite nicely,

>To me, the performance figures on the Stuka look suspect. Were there any actual flight tests performed by the allies on JU87s?

I'm only aware of the handling tests performed by Eric Brown, but of no actual performance testing. However, which numbers exactly are suspect in your opinion? It's not like we have a lot of Stuka data, I'm afraid.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Feb 5, 2008)

For instance it's speed and range figures as well load carrying. What I was referring to on external fuel is that I believe the rule of thumb in WW2 was that half the fuel in an external tank was used for overcoming the additional drag and the other half went to extend the range.


----------



## HoHun (Feb 5, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>For instance it's speed and range figures as well load carrying.

Here is the Ju 87B manual:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/ju-87b-pilots-manual-5085.html

It does not have top speed or range figures, but at least lists a true air speed in the cruise of circa 350 km/h @ 5.2 km at maximum continuous power, and a more economical 325 km/h @ 4.0 km for a range of 505 km in supercharger low gear. (This is not best range, which would be achieved at a considerably lower power setting. It's not "theoretical still air range" either, as some deductions have already been made from the figure compared to the theoretical figure you'd derive from true airspeed, fuel supply and fuel consumption.)

For the Ju 87D that was the contemporary of the SBD-3 and -5, I only have the loading diagram from the manual, so I'm afraid I don't have performance figures.

However, you can see the load cases 13 and 14 in the diagram: Two external tanks in combination with a 250 kg or a 500 kg bomb. Load case 15 actually is a 1000 kg bomb in combination with the two tanks, but it's marked as "take-off with overload - only by special RLM operations order", so it's not a standard configuration.

In short, I see little reason to doubt the load carrying figures and the typically quoted top speeds for the Ju 87. Range, as always, is difficult to determine from incomplete data, but with the external tanks, it would probably have had the range for carrier operations in the Pacific theatre, even if other dive bombers still would hold a range advantage over the Stuka.

>What I was referring to on external fuel is that I believe the rule of thumb in WW2 was that half the fuel in an external tank was used for overcoming the additional drag and the other half went to extend the range.

Hm, interesting rule of thumb, I hadn't heard this one before. Seems a bit pessimistic to me, though ... are you sure it's not actually a Vietnam era rule? For high-speed jets, it would make more sense in my opinion.

Looking at WW2 aircraft, the Me 109G-6's top speed at sea level for example dropped by 8% when a 300 L drop tank was carried, while the fuel load increased by 75% ... more like 10% of the additional fuel burnt to carry the drop tank.

Kurfrst - Leistungzusammenstellung Me 109 G.

And remember "speed cubed" ... if you fly as slow as the dive bombers, the additional drag pretty much collapses into irrelevance. If the Me 109G-6 travels at 1/2 its top speed, the drop tank drag penalty is only 1/(2^3) = 1/8 of the high speed value. That's very roughly 1% of the unencumbered speed ... not a concern at all.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Zeke_Freak (Dec 24, 2011)

fer-de-lance said:


> Aren't we forgeting that the D3A "Kanbaku" achieved the highest hit rate of any divebomber in WWII - vide sinking of HMS Hermes, Dorsetshire and Cornwall.



Agreed. However, the biggest factor IMO, is the skill of the pilots. As an example of this, I recall reading that some Midway Dauntless' in marine hands were not used as dive bombers at all, simply because the pilots didn't have verticle dive bomb training. Instead they used glide bombing techniques and were much less effective as a result.

Right now I'm reading a great book entitled 'Beyond Pearl Harbor' which recounts the 'untold' stories of Japanese naval pilots during WWII. In one of the accounts the point is made by one of the pilots that the window of conditions for effective dive bombing was very limited compared to level bombing, so many times the kanbaku had to simply turn back if conditions weren't right. Their reputation proved to be a two edged sword though as some Japanese commanders apparently expected more of them than was realistic.

Probably the biggest factor for the Japanese was that they had a finite number of experienced pilots, and they didn't protect them well, or make the most effective use of their experience while they still had them. They had some well experienced pilots going into WWII, thanks to their war with China, but wasted many of them.

Regarding the type 99 kanbaku (Val) in particular, one of the IJN pilots interviewed in the book I mentioned above, really liked the aircraft, but had one negative comment about it. He said the oil leakage from the engine cylinders was excessive, and he was always having to wipe the wind screen in order to see properly.

I vote SBD overall; though I'm a big fan of the Stuka and 'Val' (type 99 kanbaku) aswell. I just came back from the Pacific Aviation Museum on Ford Island in Pearl Harbor. I'd pass up the opportunity to fly any (or all) of the aircraft I saw there (inclduing their 'Zeke') for a chance to ride in the SBD-5 they had on display. Such a beautiful aircraft.

Leif


----------



## stug3 (Jan 10, 2013)




----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 10, 2013)

Thanks for bringing out this one, stug3 (my favorite German AFV, BTW). 
Looking into the manual of the Ju-87B-2, the 1000 kg bomb is the maximum (not 500 kg + wing bombs, as written many times), the plane flying on full fuel, ammo and crew. The almost 4000 lbs bomb of the Ju-87D is simply great.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 10, 2013)

Typical load of the Ju 87B was 500kg + 4x50kg bombs, Ju 87D had to sacrify fuel for the 1.8t bomb.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 10, 2013)

Agreed on both accounts, the outer wing fuel tanks (300L /225 kg) were not to be filled if the 1,8t bomb was to be carried, so the Ju-87D was able to carry only 480L of fuel. The max bomb load with full fuel was 1,4t bomb, as we can see on page 4 of this thread.
The Ju-87B-2 maximum: 1000 kg, with 500L.


----------



## Sydhuey (Jan 10, 2013)

All 3 were great at their job of precision dive bombing, but all fighter bait without fighter cover , look at some of the kills against dive bombers for example "Killer" Caldwell got 2 x JU87's and 1/2 a 110 on 30Jun 41 and 5 x 87's and a damaged MC200 on 05 Dec 41 flying P-40's, and he was only one ace with multiple kills against dive bombers in one mission, as mentioned the 8th BS of the 3RD BG got ravaged over New Guinea in late 1942 and soon got rid of there A-24's an flew A-20's and B-25's, yet the US issued SBD's to the RNZAF in the Solomans in 1944 and they operated quite successfully over Bougainville with fighter cover, what a differance two years and air superiority makes!!


----------



## stug3 (Feb 1, 2013)

Crewmen wheel bombs to planes on the Big E's flight deck, during the 1 February 1942 Marshall Islands Raid: the first U.S. offensive of the Pacific War. Courtesy: William T. Barr CV6. org






SBD Dauntless dive bomber of either VB-6 or VS-6 on the carrier USS Enterprise (CV-6) prepares for takeoff during the 1 February 1942 Marshall Islands Raid.


----------



## davebender (Feb 1, 2013)

Rudel mentions using a 1,000kg AP bomb when attacking Soviet warships during the fall of 1941. His unit had to wait for the special bombs to arrive before conducting the mission.


----------



## stug3 (Jun 12, 2013)

Stukas returning from a raid in the desert, 1942


----------



## pattle (Jun 12, 2013)

I was just wondering what would of happened if the roles were reversed and the Dauntless had of been German the Stuka American? How well would the Stuka have done at Midway and how well would the Dauntless have done in the Battle of Britain, if we could answer this sort of question then just perhaps we could agree which was the better of the two aircraft. Personally I think in the Battle of Britain the Dauntless may have been a little less vulnerable to Hurricanes than the Stuka and at Midway I don't think the Stuka would of had the range to reach the Japanese fleet and return home as the Dauntless did, but then it remains to be seen if the Dauntless would of had the opportunity to attack the Japanese fleet if it were not for the sacrifice of the Devastators. I think really though that true dive-bombers were a bit rubbish once up against Corsairs, Hellcats, Seafires and their like but that they possibly were still better suited to sea rather than to land based enviroments. As a final point I'm the sure the Fleet Air Arm would of had more use for Dauntless's than Stukas early war.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 12, 2013)

True dive-bombers weren't designed to go against Corsairs, Hellcats, Seafires and their like but targets on the ground. Thats why they were rubbish against fighters.


----------



## davebender (Jun 12, 2013)

1,000kg bomb vs 1,000lb bomb. A bit more accurate too. Ju-87D would have done a lot more damage then SBD.


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2013)

pattle said:


> I was just wondering what would of happened if the roles were reversed and the Dauntless had of been German the Stuka American? How well would the Stuka have done at Midway and how well would the Dauntless have done in the Battle of Britain, if we could answer this sort of question then just perhaps we could agree which was the better of the two aircraft. Personally I think in the Battle of Britain the Dauntless may have been a little less vulnerable to Hurricanes than the Stuka and at Midway I don't think the Stuka would of had the range to reach the Japanese fleet and return home as the Dauntless did, but then it remains to be seen if the Dauntless would of had the opportunity to attack the Japanese fleet if it were not for the sacrifice of the Devastators. I think really though that true dive-bombers were a bit rubbish once up against Corsairs, Hellcats, Seafires and their like but that they possibly were still better suited to sea rather than to land based enviroments. As a final point I'm the sure the Fleet Air Arm would of had more use for Dauntless's than Stukas early war.



The RN would have been better off facing the Dauntlass.


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2013)

The heaviest bomb SBD could carry was 1600lb.

Juha


----------



## altsym (Jun 12, 2013)

Which is 1000kg. Tough call between the SBD the Stuka, but I'd have to go for the Stuka as a dual purpose aircraft.


----------



## davebender (Jun 12, 2013)

Perhaps so but in combat SBD routinely carried 1,000lbs. Ju-87D routinely carried 1,000kg. Over twice the payload.

In regards to Midway no SBD bomb penetrated past lower hanger deck. Consequently none of the four IJN CVs were in danger of sinking even though the hanger deck fires were impressive. Theoretically all four IJN CVs could have eventually started one or more engines and crept to port.

Hit the IJN CVs with 1,000kg AP bombs and they will penetrate into lower hull which tends to cause a lot more damage. 1,000kg bomb also contains more HE filler.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 12, 2013)

Actually 1600lb = about 730kg.


----------



## pattle (Jun 12, 2013)

Njaco said:


> True dive-bombers weren't designed to go against Corsairs, Hellcats, Seafires and their like but targets on the ground. Thats why they were rubbish against fighters.


So dive bombers were invented before fighters then, I never knew that sorry. Or was it that nobody guessed that ground targets just might be protected by fighters? What bombers were designed to have dogfights with fighters? 
I always believed that a large part of accurate bombing depended upon reaching the target before being shot down.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 12, 2013)

Pattle, my Dad qualified in SBDs before he went off to F6Fs. The SBDs had firepower but that was principally to enable them to get the heck out of there, once they made their bomb run. They mixed it up with the fighters, some, and took care their share of those, too, but they knew better than to go looking for it, let me just put it that way.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 12, 2013)

pattle said:


> So dive bombers were invented before fighters then, I never knew that sorry. Or was it that nobody guessed that ground targets just might be protected by fighters? What bombers were designed to have dogfights with fighters?
> I always believed that a large part of accurate bombing depended upon reaching the target before being shot down.



I was just trying to state the obvious when you post that dive-bombers were rubbish when against fighters. The only ground target protection aircraft I remember were factory defense units in Occupied Europe during the war and the Me 163s of JG 400. Other than that, fighters were to protect bombers. And just to set things straight, bombers were actually developed to be a match against tri-engined recon planes.......


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 12, 2013)

davebender said:


> Perhaps so but in combat SBD routinely carried 1,000lbs. Ju-87D routinely carried 1,000kg. Over twice the payload.
> 
> In regards to Midway no SBD bomb penetrated past lower hanger deck. Consequently none of the four IJN CVs were in danger of sinking even though the hanger deck fires were impressive. Theoretically all four IJN CVs could have eventually started one or more engines and crept to port.
> 
> Hit the IJN CVs with 1,000kg AP bombs and they will penetrate into lower hull which tends to cause a lot more damage. 1,000kg bomb also contains more HE filler.




Trouble with using Ju 87 is it is rather nice to get your highly trained dive bomber crews back for a second strike if not future operations. It is also rather nice to actually get your dive bombers _TO_ the enemy instead of watching them splash down in front of the carrier and get run over. 

Ju-87D carried about 1285-1290lbs of fuel in internal tanks. SBD carried 1704lbs internal. Range/radius of action in favor of the Dauntless. Wing loading of the Dauntless was 32.9 lb/sq.ft at max T-O weight. Ju-87D was 37.5lb/sq.ft. at _normal_ take-off weight. SBD-5 had a better power to weight ratio too, although earlier ones weren't so good. The Ju-87C for carrier use was closely related to the "B" model and was about 3,000lbs lighter at T-O weight than the D-1 with the same size wing. 

AS for the the use of 1000KG AP bombs? It rather depends on the fuses, the Big AP bomb may just go right out the bottom of the ship without exploding if the armor decks are thin. 

In any case it is rather doubtful that a 1000kg AP bomb has more HE than a 1000lb GP bomb. German PC-1000 bomb carried 152 kg (335lb) of HE. 
American 1600lb AP bomb carried less explosive than a 500lb GP bomb which is why, even though they look impressive for weight of bombs carried, they were so seldom used in actual bomb raids.


----------



## Balsa (Jun 13, 2013)

Really interesting comparative analysis. I had no idea the JU-87 D model could pack a 4,000 lb bomb load. That's amazing actually. My least favorite of the three is the Dauntless, but the reality is that, if you held a gun to my head, well I'd be forced to choose the Dauntless because it seems most likely of the three to afford the best chance of coming back home. Didn't all the Dauntless models though just have twin 30 caliber machine guns in the nose and for the tail gunner?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 13, 2013)

altsym said:


> Which is 1000kg.


 
1600 lb is 725 kg, not 1000 kg.

From my recent reading of the air war on the Eastern front, the standard bomb load for the Ju-87B/D was either a single 500 kg (1100 lb) bomb, a single 250 kg (550 lb) bomb or one 250 kg bomb and four 50 kg (110 lb) bombs. Also popular were cluster munitions containers on the wing mounts. Less common loads were two 250 kg bombs or four or even eight 50 kg bombs. The Ju-87B was limited to a maximum load of 700 kg (1540 kg), the pre wing extension Ju-87Ds were limited to a maximum of 1100 kg (2440 lb).

Less common load-outs for the later, strengthened Ju-87D included a single 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bomb, a 1000 kg bombs and two 50 kb bombs, two 500 kg bombs or a single 500 kg bomb and two 250 kg bombs. 

The 1000 kg bombs were generally reserved for large static targets, such as bunkers or ships.

If you go by the manual, the later Ju-87D-5 could carry a single PD1400, SC1800 or PD1800 bomb, although I've never read a first hand account of their use. The actual weight of the two larger bombs varied a little due to some changes through the war, but were between about 1740 kg and 1820 kg. 

From the second hand reports that I've read on forums and suchlike, there seems to be considerable doubt over whether the 1400-1800 kg bombs were ever used in combat. I've seen opinions that the D-5 would have been required to delete the rear gunner and all his equipment, take out some of the armour protection and remove the forward firing guns to get the larger bombs off the ground.


----------



## pattle (Jun 13, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Pattle, my Dad qualified in SBDs before he went off to F6Fs. The SBDs had firepower but that was principally to enable them to get the heck out of there, once they made their bomb run. They mixed it up with the fighters, some, and took care their share of those, too, but they knew better than to go looking for it, let me just put it that way.


Yes I agree with all you wrote, the point I was making was that the Dauntless was more survivable than the Stuka when challenged by fighters. When I wrote that the Dauntless may have been useful to the Fleet Air Arm early war I was thinking it would have been preferable only to the Blackburn Skua which had the additional role of fighter.


----------



## pattle (Jun 13, 2013)

Njaco said:


> I was just trying to state the obvious when you post that dive-bombers were rubbish when against fighters. The only ground target protection aircraft I remember were factory defense units in Occupied Europe during the war and the Me 163s of JG 400. Other than that, fighters were to protect bombers. And just to set things straight, bombers were actually developed to be a match against tri-engined recon planes.......


 
To be honest I don't know what you are going on about here. You are saying that fighters were to protect bombers, well yes but what do you think they were protecting the bombers from if not enemy fighters? You then go on to mention that the only ground protection aircraft you know of were the few factory defence units, the ground was generally protected by patroling fighters and also by fighters scrambled to intercept bombers that had been spotted by ground based observers and later radar. Early war fighters such as the Hurricane and Spitfire had only a relatively short range because they were designed to protect against attacking enemy bombers and not to escort friendly bombers. Who developed bombers to be a match only against tri-motored recon planes and why would they do this?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2013)

In the mid to late 1930s aircraft designers had a choice. Make a single engine bomber (dive or otherwise) or make a single engine fighter. With 750-1000hp available from a single engine ONE plane could NOT do both jobs. The "bomber" needed a big wing to get the bomb load and fuel of the ground (or deck) using the same engine as the fighter. In the case of Navy planes (restricted in the number of types a carrier could embark) some planes had to do double duty. Dive bombers were often used as scout aircraft which required a second crewman, both for actual search (using the MK I eyeball) and to operate the radio. This further reduced performance from a fighter. 
Later aircraft got not only much more powerful engines but better radios which allowed the "fighter" to carry a worthwhile bomb load (or drop tanks) and perform some of the scout function. 
Very few people were under the illusion that pre-war or early war dive bombers could actually defend themselves without fighter escort and "fight" their way to the target.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 13, 2013)

pattle said:


> Yes I agree with all you wrote, the point I was making was that the Dauntless was more survivable than the Stuka when challenged by fighters. When I wrote that the Dauntless may have been useful to the Fleet Air Arm early war I was thinking it would have been preferable only to the Blackburn Skua which had the additional role of fighter.


Oh. Then on just what you said, here, Pattle, the SBDs were at least designed to be "survivable." That's why they were armed with guns from head to toe.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 13, 2013)

davebender said:


> In regards to Midway no SBD bomb penetrated past lower hanger deck. Consequently none of the four IJN CVs were in danger of sinking even though the hanger deck fires were impressive. Theoretically all four IJN CVs could have eventually started one or more engines and crept to port.


Dave, I guarantee, you hit that carrier with just so much as a 500-pound bomb 1/3rd in from the bow and you open up that central elevator shaft and send that big boy out of there looking like a wet dog that got kicked out of the house for chewing on a shoe.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 13, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> If you go by the manual, the later Ju-87D-5 could carry a single PD1400, SC1800 or PD1800 bomb, although I've never read a first hand account of their use. The actual weight of the two larger bombs varied a little due to some changes through the war, but were between about 1740 kg and 1820 kg.
> 
> From the second hand reports that I've read on forums and suchlike, there seems to be considerable doubt over whether the 1400-1800 kg bombs were ever used in combat.



Literally sh*tloads of SC 1800 were dropped by the Luftwaffe - those goes rather against "forum opinions". It would seem rather doubtful that only the Ju 87D, which was *the* pinpoint delivery tool, would be the exception of dropping them. Of course for most targets (tanks, troops, earthwork bunkers, RR stations etc.), 3 x 500 kg or 1x500+2x250 would be sufficient/better choice. 1000 and above were to be used only against "hard" targets, like steel bridges.



> I've seen opinions that the D-5 would have been required to delete the rear gunner and all his equipment, take out some of the armour protection and remove the forward firing guns to get the larger bombs off the ground.



They did not (the B series AFAIK had to make some sacrifices to load the 1000 kg bomb), though they took in less fuel in the extreme bomb cases.


----------



## pattle (Jun 13, 2013)

Very few people were under the illusion that pre-war or early war dive bombers could actually defend themselves without fighter escort and "fight" their way to the target.[/QUOTE]

I know this applies more to larger level bombers than dive bombers but the dominant school of thought before the war was that "the bomber would always get through". This phrase was first coined in about 1934 by Stanley Baldwin (British PM) who believed that an adequate defence against bombers was not possible, Baldwin formed this belief because the fighters of that time were generally slower than bombers and so would not of had the time to rise into the air to join battle with the bombers before their arrival. The RAF still had only just enough time in 1940 during the Battle of Britain to get it's fighters airborne in time to meet an attack, and by this time they had much faster fighters and more time to get them airborne thanks to radar. So I don't think the Germans really stopped to consider especially after Spain, Poland and France the possibility of running into strong organised fighter opposition and when they did the game was over for the slow cumbersome Stuka.
The Dauntless on the other hand had a much brighter future post 1940 and unlike the Stuka was able to survive in it's intended role as a dive bomber.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2013)

There is a big difference between Naval operations and land (operating over land) operations. 

There were also some big differences in both aircraft and tactics. 

There was also the matter of a few people paying attention to what was actually going on rather than spouting platitudes. 

The "land" air forces had 2 or 3 types of bombers. Fast twins which were supposed to be fast enough to present difficulties in intercepting. Slow twins (heavy bombers until the 4 engine ones came along) that operated at night and without radar were difficult to intercept. And some small or slow day bombers in some air forces. 
The Naval bombers were small, single engine machines that were NOT faster than the Naval fighters, let alone land based fighters. Naval (carrier) bombers could pretty much only operate by day (1930s) both in regards to finding their targets (moving ships vs a city) and landing back on their own carrier. Naval bombers were also going after something of a point target ( a fleet vs city) that had it's own defending fighters that did NOT have to defend a wide area. You want to bomb the defending carriers/ battle ships/ cruisers you came to them, there was no other city, factory, air field 20-40 miles away that could also be the target and had to be defended and so spread out the defending aircraft. You could saturate a defense but Naval battles were intended to be somewhat climatic. 
IF you suffered high losses BUT inflicted great damage in one or two attacks the the battle/campaign was over. Trading a few dozen aircraft for several ships is a good trade. BUT you only had those one or two chances to inflict the damage, there was NO going back in a few days to follow up. In land "air" combat there were few high value targets like warships and a much lower loss rate was needed for a sustained campaign. But in a sustained campaign there were also many targets instead of just a few closely grouped ones ( essentially just one target) so feints and dodges could throw the defender off. 

If people had been paying attention in China the idea of long range un-escorted bomber attacks had been shown to be a bad one before 1939, even against the pre (well pre) AFG Chinese Air Force.


----------



## pattle (Jun 13, 2013)

Yes I appreciate the big difference between carrier and land based operations and this adds to my belief that the Dauntless was superior to the Stuka as it was designed with the restrictions placed on it for carrier operations. If you look at the navalised version of the Stuka produced for use on the German Zeppelin carrier then you will notice it did not match the Dauntless in speed, handling or range, if the two fleets had ever had met then it looks to me as though the American fleet could have attacked the German fleet before its Stukas were able to hit back. The Dauntlesses would of course of had to of coped with the Zeppelins Me109's if detected but again I feel they would have been more survivable than the Stukas would have been in the same situation.
Also one of the differences between American and German policy was that the Americans did not keep on trying to update outdated designs as the Germans did with a number of their aircraft and nor did the Americans generally attach themselves to fruitless concepts. If the Stuka was an American land based plane then I believe the Americans would have got rid of it sharpish because they understood that against ground targets dive bombing was a fundamentally flawed concept .


----------



## stug3 (Jun 13, 2013)

pattle said:


> against ground targets dive bombing was a fundamentally flawed concept .




Dive Bombing was much more accurate than high altitude bombing, so it was more efficient against smaller targets such as ships, bridges, vehicle /or troop concentrations, etc.


----------



## pattle (Jun 13, 2013)

stug3 said:


> Dive Bombing was much more accurate than high altitude bombing, so it was more efficient against smaller targets such as ships, bridges, vehicle /or troop concentrations, etc.


Yes but it was also incredibly dangerous and that was it's fatal flaw.


----------



## davebender (Jun 13, 2013)

Risk vs reward. 

Sacrifice a few inexpensive yet accurate dive bombers with two crew members each and the target gets destroyed. Or you could send hundreds of expensive yet inaccurate heavy bombers with 8 or more crew members each and they will probably fail to hit the target.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 13, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Literally sh*tloads of SC 1800 were dropped by the Luftwaffe - those goes rather against "forum opinions". It would seem rather doubtful that only the Ju 87D, which was *the* pinpoint delivery tool, would be the exception of dropping them.


 
You can provide a first hand account then?


----------



## pattle (Jun 13, 2013)

davebender said:


> Risk vs reward.
> 
> Sacrifice a few inexpensive yet accurate dive bombers with two crew members each and the target gets destroyed. Or you could send hundreds of expensive yet inaccurate heavy bombers with 8 or more crew members each and they will probably fail to hit the target.



Or replace the dive bomber with something like a rocket firing Hawker Typhoon and hopefully get both the pilot and aircraft back safe and sound.


----------



## stug3 (Jun 13, 2013)

pattle said:


> Yes but it was also incredibly dangerous and that was it's fatal flaw.




I wouldnt describe it as a "fatal flaw". Of course it was extremely dangerous but relatively efficient. If given a choice, I think Id rather take my chances in a 2 seater than a medium or heavy. If I could have anything, Id take an A-36.


----------



## davebender (Jun 13, 2013)

Would take a pretty big rocket to do as much damage as a 1,000kg bomb...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2013)

Dive bombing's effectiveness rather depends on the target. Trading 3-6 aircraft and crew for even a light cruiser makes sense. Trading 3-6 planes for a Bridge that enemy troops are pouring across makes sense. Trading 3-6 planes for a small bridge as part of general plan to disrupt enemy transport does not make as much sense. Loosing several dozen dive bombers trying to take out a factory may be an even worse deal, assuming the dive bombers could even reach the factory with worthwhile bombs (500lb bombs are borderline or too small). Or using large twin engine dive bombers. Cost starts to go up, how much more did a Ju 88 cost than a Ju 87? how much more was the HE 177? Putting He 177s with in range of 20-40mm guns doesn't sound like a good plan for a general bombing campaign. 
Dive bombers can not dive bomb at night. They can be defeated by smoke generators, if they cannot see the target their accuracy is no better than the level bombers and diving into a smoke bank when they cannot see the ground is crossing into stupid land. Barrage balloons also cut into dive bomber effectiveness. If you KNOW that your enemy is going to be using predominately dive bombers you can plan the defense accordingly. 
Rockets cannot destroy bridges or really take out factories. They can mess up but not sink large ships. They have applications but are not a cure all weapon.


----------



## davebender (Jun 13, 2013)

Not much if any after economy of scale kicked in. By 1942 Ju-88 cost dropped to about RM 150,000. Amazingly cheap for an aircraft of that size and capability. Goering made some mistakes but he hit a home run when setting up large scale Ju-88 production during 1938.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2013)

Economy of scale only works so much, Once you are in large scale production you don't get two engines for the price of one (especially the SAME engine) or an empty equipped airplane of about 2 1/2 times the weight for the same price. 
The Germans built around 2150 of the early series Ju 87 (pre D) by the end of Oct 1941. 
Depending on when production of "R" started one factory may have averaged 70-80 planes per month. While not the equal of some other programs this is not small scale production.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 13, 2013)

Dave. this has been told to you before. The price tag of German weapons mean very little as the RM was kept at an artificial level.
The cost of the Ju 88 can only be measured by number of man hours and by amount of raw materials. Given the fact that it was in mass production, it is only natural than the expenses dropped. 
And Goering regretted ordering the Ju 88. And rightly so. As a bomber it was no better than the Do 17 or He 111 it was designed to replace, as the higher loss rates in the BoB indicate.

Also as a dive bomber it was nowhere near the Ju 87. Finnish operational experience showed that the Ju 87 could only withstand a 45 degree angle, while the Stuka was close to vertical ...

Kris


----------



## pattle (Jun 14, 2013)

Shortround I agree with what you are saying about weighing up the cost of losses to the value of a target but I also think this throws up a difficult moral question for the planners of raids against high value targets, particularly British and American planners. I can also see that the US Navy was probably in a position where it was forced to continue with the use of dive bombers through lack of a suitable alternative, where as the Fleet Arm fighting a different kind of war mostly against the Germans did not need such planes as it was not fighting a carrier war.
Ultimately though both the RAF or USAAF decided against dive bombers. For high value, high risk targets that needed a large bomb delivered with great accuracy the RAF developed the Upkeep, Tallboy and Grandslam bombs which destroyed targets that dive bombers could have done little or no damage to, for smaller pin point targets the Mosquito was used. The USAAF moved more in the direction of guided weapons as did the Germans, I know that guided weapons weren't perfected in the war but they were at least seen as the future.


----------



## Denniss (Jun 14, 2013)

According to load plans the Ju 87B could carry the 1t bomb with full load of 370kg fuel (+ the rear gunner with gun an ammo) at ~5t weight. The Ju 87R could do this even with two drop tanks and ~915 kg fuel at max overload with 5.55 t.
I have no overload plans for the D-1, max load in standard condition was 1t with 580kg fuel at 5.74 t or 500kg with two drop tanks and 1020kg fuel at 5.75 t.
The D-5 caried carry an 1.4t bomb on max internal fuel (580kg) at 6.3t or an 1.8t bomb with reduced internal fuel of ~355kg at 6.47t. With drop tanks and 1015kg fuel the bombload was limited to a 1t bomb at 6.42t weight.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 14, 2013)

I am a bit puzzled by this thread... Dive bombing remained a significant deiivery option for modern aircraft through the Vietnam war. A-4, A-7 and A-6 aircraft and crew were all practiced in the technique.

WRT to the SBD Vs Ju-87 at Midway, it's not the bomb size but the endurance that's important in this comparison. The SBD had to perform an extensive target search, deliver its ordnance and find its home plate. Missions exceeding 4 hours on June 6 were common. Launch at ~7:30 AM and return at ~11:30 AM. was the profile. I am assuming the Ju-87 would be hard-put to carry a 1000 kg bomb for that kind of mission profile. Also, if I recall, the SBD-5 could accommodate a 1,600 lb. ordnance load but not the SBD-3 used at Midway, which typically (as was stated earlier) carried a ~500 kg bomb. I believe max payload was ~1,200 lbs for the -3.

The following website tabulating the circumstances of Modern era ejections from the A-6 has ~6 separate references to dive bombing performed by the A-6 which may appear a bit less dramatic than those performed during WW2 in that the dive angle was less severe, but is still regarded in the modern vernacular as _dive bombing_ (raising the oft posed question of what exactly consititutes a dive bomber and a dive bombing attack; a topic that has been covered in some detail in this forum.)

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_type/a6_prowler.htm

http://info.publicintelligence.net/PACNORWEST_TRCM.pdf

NAS Whidbey Instruction dated 12 July 2010, page 8-5, assigns a priority 4 to aircraft performing *high pattern dive bombing attacks.* at the Boardman Oregon weapons range. I am assuming the instruction is still in effect with its recent date and dive bombing in the modern sense remains an option for attack type aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2013)

I think the definition of dive bombing changed. Pre WW II and early WW II it was a steep dive, at least over 45 degrees an closer to 60-80 degrees, some planes could manage 90 degrees. The speed of the dive was controlled to give time to aim. A plane diving at 400 mph is loosing 600ft per second so 10 seconds is a 6000 ft dive at 90 degrees. This is both the strength and weakness of the dive bombing attack. The step but slow dive allows time for course correction and accuracy (jets may use the help of bombing computers that more accurately measure aircraft speed, angle, and distance to target to release bombs?) but gives a predictable fight path and pull out within range of small, fast firing AA guns after giving them a number of seconds warning. 

The Jets may have "dived" at a shallower angle, under 45 degrees? One A-6 accident says it was practicing "dive bombing" at a 40 degree angle which in WW II would have been described as "glide bombing".

I believe you are correct about the bomb loads on the SBD.

I think both were good planes but did rather different jobs, both may have been "dive bombers" but I don't think one could really substitute for the other.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 14, 2013)

I saw one instance of a 50 degree angle mentioned. And unless my memory is deceiving me modern attacks were made initially inverted, entering from a split-S but then the dive angle was moderated to a ~50 or so degree angle. Of course the A-6 was designed with speed breaks (fuselage originally which were subsequently permanently disabled and replaced with wing tip mounts, however, whatever their original intended purpose (dive bombing?), my recollection is that these were used primarily (or perhaps only) during approach and landing. I thought that dive bombing might have been computer aided at the higher speeds of modern a/c but my old Vietnam-era shipmate B/N says Dive bombing, unlike other techniques, was done pretty much manually so your (SR6) summary seems quite accurate. He also recalls dives being performed at angles in excess of 45 degrees but not exceeding ~55 degrees although he also says he wasn't watching the dive angle with other concerns on his mind so that figure is an estimate.

Last March Rich Leonard did his usual thorough treatment of the topic: 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/what-best-these-four-dive-bombers-31953-6.html

I believe Rich's dad was active in the design and introduction of the A-6 and he may have some relevant info on the original design purpose of the A-6 speed brakes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2013)

A lot of jets have speed brakes and a lot of them carry bombs, doesn't mean they are dive bombers. 






















Not all Pre WW II dive bombers had dive brakes. 











These had enough drag that they didn't need dive brakes


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 14, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of jets have speed brakes and a lot of them carry bombs, doesn't mean they are dive bombers.



Yes, I am guilty of A-6 chauvinism... With few exceptions, I barely recognize the existence of other aircraft let alone their physical attributes. 

But, I do like those biplane photos you posted...


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2013)

Hey Shortround,

I believe that is an F-15E Strike Eagle fight-bomber in your pic, isn't it?

That said, all the F-15's had basically the same speed brake from the first prototype onward.

The old F-14 had speed brakes, too, and we called the F-14D (the only one with the engines it was designed for) the "bombcat."

Nice pics.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2013)

Not sure on the ID of the F-15, just googled Jet speed brake 

All but the earliest jet fighters had some sort of speed brake because they don't have a prop. Chop the throttle on a prop and the plane slows down. Prop acts as a speed brake. Chop the throttle on jet and they just keep coasting, harder to formation fly I am told/read.


----------



## altsym (Jun 14, 2013)

Hans-Ulrich Rudel got a maneuvering kill (though some speculate that the rear gunner got the kill) against the Hero of the Soviet Union, '26' victory ace, Lev Shestakov. That's pretty good in my book.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 14, 2013)

Of course there is the famous episode of IJN Ace Saburo Sakai approaching what he thought were a division of Wildcats and found to his dismay they were actually a formation SBDs (I"ve also heard TBFs) that tightened their formation and focused all rearward guns on his aircraft, wrecking (but astonishingly not destroying or killing) both pilot and plane. 

But perhaps more akin to Rudel's experience are the A6M claims submitted by Swede Vejtasa flying an SDB on anti-torpedo plane patrol at Coral Sea when he battled multiple Zekes and survived evidently either killing two or at least damaging them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattle (Jun 14, 2013)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Of course there is the famous episode of IJN Ace Saburo Sakai approaching what he thought were a division of Wildcats and found to his dismay they were actually a formation SBDs (I"ve also heard TBFs) that tightened their formation and focused all rearward guns on his aircraft, wrecking (but astonishingly not destroying or killing) both pilot and plane.
> 
> But perhaps more akin to Rudel's experience are the A6M claims submitted by Swede Vejtasa flying an SDB on anti-torpedo plane patrol at Coral Sea when he battled multiple Zekes and survived evidently either killing two or at least damaging them.



Things like this did crop up, I have heard an account of a Avro Anson shooting down multiple Me 109's over the English Channel in 1940.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 15, 2013)

> I believe that is an F-15E Strike Eagle fight-bomber in your pic, isn't it?



Yep, F-15E Strike Eagle of the 48th FW based at RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk. You can tell by the 'LN' tail codes.



> Things like this did crop up, I have heard an account of a Avro Anson shooting down multiple Me 109's over the English Channel in 1940



This is probably 500 Sqn Coastal Command Anson I flown by Plt Off P. Peters over Dunkirk on 1 June 1940, which was engaged by a number of Bf 109s. Peters' gunner LAC Pepper shot one down, with Peters despatching a second with his forward firing .303, a third Bf 109 was damaged.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 15, 2013)

altsym said:


> Hans-Ulrich Rudel got a maneuvering kill (though some speculate that the rear gunner got the kill) against the Hero of the Soviet Union, '26' victory ace, Lev Shestakov. That's pretty good in my book.


 

WW II ACE STORIES


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 15, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> _*I think both were good planes but did rather different jobs, both may have been "dive bombers" but I don't think one could really substitute for the other.*_



I think you are spot on with this observation. Another way to think about the comparison is to consider whether the three arms operating these aircraft would have traded theirs for one of the others. I would expect not, although a bit being envious of a counterpart's capability would be normal and not suggest a willingness to trade. For example. I am sure the USN envied the VAL's range and maneuverability but would never have considered giving up its SBD. For its part, I suspect IJN fliers would have preferred having the excess endurance so vital in naval warfare. Both navy's seemed to be satisfied with the 250 to 500 kg ordnance for their purposes while the Ju-87's ability to strike heavily fortified points (or armoured deck carriers) with a large bomb was suited to the war it fought. As RAFSon, Parsifal and others have correctly admonished in the past, a navy typically procures aircraft suited to its perceived needs. To compare them without such context seems a bit unfair.


----------



## stug3 (Jun 27, 2013)




----------



## stug3 (Jun 27, 2013)

Ju 87 early production C prototype D IHFH WNr 4928


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 4, 2014)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Of course there is the famous episode of IJN Ace Saburo Sakai approaching what he thought were a division of Wildcats and found to his dismay they were actually a formation SBDs (I"ve also heard TBFs) that tightened their formation and focused all rearward guns on his aircraft, wrecking (but astonishingly not destroying or killing) both pilot and plane.
> 
> But perhaps more akin to Rudel's experience are the A6M claims submitted by Swede Vejtasa flying an SDB on anti-torpedo plane patrol at Coral Sea when he battled multiple Zekes and survived evidently either killing two or at least damaging them.



I heard the story about Sakai. It blinded him in one eye, didn't it? Also, wasn't that over Guadelcanal? I heard he came up behind the formation of SBDs as they were returning to their carrier, thinking they were Wildcats, like you said. One of the rear seat gunners shot him, and one of the bullets hit him in the eye.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 4, 2014)

But as best dive bomber, I would have to go with the SBD. It had decent speed (255 mph) decent weapons for pilot (2x.50 caliber machine guns) and rear seat gunner (2x.30 caliber machine guns). It also had a decent bomb load, (500 pounds to 1000 pounds) and was double purposed (Scout Plane/Dive Bomber). Was the SBD built to be a scout plane, because I have heard SBD stood for Scouting by Douglass?


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 4, 2014)

Kurfürst said:


> Hardly the case - the Stukas are probably the best armored of all three, with a good defensive gun suite - _a twin_ MG81 is a nasty thing with 3200 rounds/min...
> 
> Looking at the specs, the Ju 87D seems to be a clear winner of the three; it has the same speed as the Dauntless, it`s heavily armored, the D-5 is heavily armed and also the Dora carries a heaviest bombload of all three, bombs as big as 1800 kg can be carried. As naval bombers for the Pacific, the other two generally has the advantage of range, though I am not sure how this would play out with a variation of ordonance - droptanks/bombs.
> 
> The Val was a nice dive bomber when the war started, but the lack of development simply made it fall behind against newer types of dive bombers.



I read the reason the Stuka was so vunerable was because of its speed. However, some of you more experienced and know more about the Stuka would know


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> But as best dive bomber, I would have to go with the SBD. It had decent speed (255 mph) decent weapons for pilot (2x.50 caliber machine guns) and rear seat gunner (2x.30 caliber machine guns). It also had a decent bomb load, (500 pounds to 1000 pounds) and was double purposed (Scout Plane/Dive Bomber). Was the SBD built to be a scout plane, because I have heard SBD stood for Scouting by Douglass?



SBD is for 'scout, bomber', 'D' was letter code for Douglas. The Vought have had letter code 'U' (like in F4U), Grumman was 'F' (like in F4F), North American was 'J' (like in FJ). As you've guessed it, if the 1st letter was 'F', the aircraft was in fighter class (or VF class).



USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> I read the reason the Stuka was so vunerable was because of its speed. However, some of you more experienced and know more about the Stuka would know



Every slow bomber (and other A/C) was vulnerable to fighters, whether it was a dive bomber, 'level' bomber or torpedo bomber.

BTW, what happened to the Stug's pictures??


----------



## Garyt (Apr 4, 2014)

> The SBD had some maneuverability, had two forward firing 50 cals and was even used as a CAP against VTs early on but it would not have a good chance unescorted against enemy VFs. However it served and served well during the whole war.



I'd agree here. Regardless of how well a bomber flies with a normal load, it's flight characteristics change dramatically when loaded down. The Val was far more maneuverable than the others, bit it won't maneuver well loaded with a bomb. The Val was used in last ditch CAP - but again, not with a bomb.

If a Val, Dauntless or Stuka dropped their bomb load and fought with enemy fighters they may have a very small chance of competing. Actually, the Val should perform a lot better here due to it's maneuvering. But none of these planes carried much forward firing hardware, the 2 50.'s on the Dauntless were better than the others. But the best hope for any of these would be to escape or mess around long enough for their escort to help if they had one. None would be able to run away effectively, their best chance of escape would be to get "lost" in a crowded fight. And by the time ordinance was jettisoned, the opposing fighters were sucessful, as no ordinance would reach the target.

I still like the Dauntless the best, but it's certainly close, and the reasoning is mostly due to weight of ordinance carried. And none were true fighter bombers that had a chance of fighting on anywhere close to even keel once ordinance was jettisoned.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 4, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> SBD is for 'scout, bomber', 'D' was letter code for Douglas. The Vought have had letter code 'U' (like in F4U), Grumman was 'F' (like in F4F), North American was 'J' (like in FJ). As you've guessed it, if the 1st letter was 'F', the aircraft was in fighter class (or VF class).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I knew Scouting by Douglass wasn't right! It just doesn't sound right! And when I said the Scouting by Douglass part, I didn't mean that's what it meant, I meant that's what I heard and didn't know if it was right.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 4, 2014)

All of them were good dive bombers, and it is hard to determion which was the best. The Val was not, so we can rule that one out. I kinda want the SBD to be better, but both the SBD and Stuka were very good dive bombers.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 4, 2014)

... as was the Vengeance


----------



## GrumpyBadger (May 9, 2014)

first off,

RL sucks sometimes, sorry for being gone for so long.

but I have to vote for the SBD probably for the reason anyone else votes for theirs. Purely sentimental reasons. I just love that kite. Right now in IL-2, in my online airgroup squadron, I chose the SBD as my first bird to become carrier qual'd in (CVE, CVL, and CV - fly out to CG using Hayrake, 5 touch and go, 1 trap, fly back using DR on "full real" settings). It's not because arguably she's the easiest to do this in. But because honestly, even if just in a made-up online group, I want my gold wings earned in an SBD Dauntless.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2014)

Video games- how fun!


----------



## VBF-13 (May 9, 2014)

GrumpyBadger said:


>


That's a darn cool picture. 

Seeing in as much as you revived this thread, I'd like to add this to it. Do you know what another issue was in the steeper dives in this aircraft? I know at least by late 1943, they wanted 60-degrees, but no steeper. It was in the pull-out. The crew (rear gun) couldn't take the pull-outs in the steeper dives. They'd vomit.


----------

