# Wasn't the STUKA the best dive bomber to see service in WWII



## Jank (Apr 11, 2005)

Know it was ptrobably the one that had the greatest impact on the war but was it the best? This question is for all theatres of conflict combined. The entire war. Which was the best?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 11, 2005)

Douglas SBD Dauntless


----------



## trackend (Apr 12, 2005)

I agree with Dave, I’m going to pick the Douglas SBD Dauntless.

The JU 87 Stuka (from the German for diver bomber Sturzkampfflugzeug) was strong, accurate effective, but slow, did not maneuver well , was poorly armed, and vulnerable to fighters. In the Battle of Britain, the Stuka suffered heavy losses and it was eventually withdrawn from campaigns in Western Europe for the rest of the war. The Dauntless SBD although slower than its Japanese opposite number, the Aichi D3A2 "Val" was far more resistant to battle damage, and its flying qualities suited its role. 
The SBD's replacment the SB2C Hell-diver failed to meet expectations. Commander Herbert D. Riley, who served with Naval Operations said about the Hell-diver "the SB2C was so tricky to fly, compared to the SBD, and so hard to maintain that the skippers of the new carriers preferred to have the old SBD's"
Captain Eric Brown, the test pilot who evaluated the Hell-diver for the Royal Navy, flew nearly every type of dive bomber, including a captured Ju-87 Stuka. After piloting the SBD-5 Dauntless, the Vultee Vengeance and the Hell-diver, Brown rated the Curtiss product a distant third. "One could only sympathize with the U.S. Navy pilots flying this unpleasant aircraft from carriers in the Pacific," he later wrote.
In my opinion the Blackburn Skua was never really successful in its diver bomber role and the Aichi D3A2’s lack of robustness was not up to the job when put alongside the SBD.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

> did not maneuver well



Actually I think the Stuka was fairly manouverable for such a relatively large aircraft.


----------



## trackend (Apr 12, 2005)

I may be wrong CC but I thought the wing shape of the Stuka was not condusive to good handling due to very narrow wing proportions at the point of maximum lift


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 12, 2005)

Aw, I dunno about that, worked real well on the Corsair....if the Stuka had a more powerful engine and retractable undercarriage, that may have improved it....
I'm a big fan of the Dauntless, I just love it's lines and it's excellent service, even though it wasn't that fast.......I'd say it probably sunk more shipping than the Stuka......

Gemhorse


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

They tried a Stuka improvment, the Ju-187/287








> By the time of the Battle of Britain, the venerable Junkers Ju 87 design was beginning to show some of its shortcomings. A new, faster, better armed and better armored replacement was needed, so work was begun on the Ju 187 design. It kept some of the features of the earlier Ju 87, such as the cranked (gull) wing and two man crew, but added retractable landing gear and a very novel reversible vertical tail. The Ju 187 was to be entirely of metal construction. The wing was tapered and featured both dihedral and anhedral. Slatted dive brakes were fitted near the trailing edge of the landing flaps. The main landing gear was housed in a bulge at the junction of the wing where the angle of the wing changed, and retracted to the rear (also rotating 90 degrees to lay flat under the wings). Power was to be supplied by a Jumo 213A 12-cylinder liquid-cooled engine, which was also used in the Fw 190D and Ju 88G-6), and developed 1750 horsepower at takeoff. One of the most unusual features was the movable vertical tail fin, which could be moved 180 degrees in flight, thus clearing the field of fire for the rear gunner. Two men sat back-to-back in a pressurized cockpit. Defensive armament was located in a remote-controlled rear turret, consisting of one 151/20 20 mm cannon and one MG 131 13mm machine gun. The bomb load was composed of one 500 kg (1102 lbs) bomb under the fuselage, and two 50 kg (110 lbs) bombs under each wing on either side of the landing gear bulges.
> Although windtunnel models and even a full-sized mock-up was built, the project was canceled due to the fact that the projected performance was not that much of an improvement from the older Ju 87, and also that fighter-bombers such as the Fw 190F series could do the job as well as specialized dive bombers. In October 1943, the project designation 287 was officially given to the forward-swept wing jet bomber project that Junkers was designing.


www.luft46.com


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 12, 2005)

Im going to agree with the general opinion in favour of the SBD. While the Stuka made a massive contribution to the Blitzkreig in the West, it was obsolete by 1941 at the latest. Only the poor shape of the VVS during the opening stages of Barabarossa allowed it to stay on as a useful weapon, and this seemed to decieve the LW into thinking they could carry on using Stukas.
It is possible to argue that the SBD was obsolete by the end of 1942, but by then the damage had been done and the Japanese Navy was no longer a threat. In fact, I really dont think thats it's going to far to say that the destruction cxaused by SBDs, TBDs and TBFs in the early stages of the Pacific War was a amjor factor in the US winning the war in that theatre. After all, the loss of most of the IJNs carriers and experienced aircrew by early 1943 represented a catastrophic blow to Japans ability to wage war in the theatre.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 12, 2005)

I'm going to say the Skua, as it was sufficiently manouverable, was robust enough and carried a big enough bomboad. 
It had to be manouverable as there was a fighter version- The Roc!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

But the less said about the Roc the better


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 12, 2005)

I agree!


----------



## Erich (Apr 12, 2005)

Will go with the Ju 87D variant on this. I'm pretty lame on my knowledge of US or RAF Pacific craft.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2005)

well don't worry we didn't have any dive bombers


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 12, 2005)

The Skua was pitiful even by early war standards. Heres some data:

Engine: Bristol Perseus XII nine cylinder, sleeve valve, air cooled radial engine rated at 815 hp (could give a higher power rating of over 900 hp for 5 mins on emergency boost).

Max Speed: 225 mph at 6,700 ft, 204 mph at sea level.

Service ceiling 20,500 ft (reached in 43 mins), the Skua had a very poor rate of climb.

Total fuel: 163 imperial gallons, giving a maximum range of some 760 miles (an endurance of over 4 hours).

Armament: Four Browning .303 machine guns in wings with 300 rounds per gun. One Lewis gun in rear cockpit. One 500 lb semi-armour-piercing bomb(SAP) or one 250 lb general purpose (GP) bomb recessed under fuselage and held in a bomb crutch to swing it clear of the propeller in dive bombing attacks. A "light series carrier" bomb rack could be fitted under each wing. Each carrier could hold 4 x 20 lb Cooper bombs or incendiaries or 2 x 40 lb bombs or incendiaries. Some reference books mistakenly give the impression the light series bomb racks were only ever used for "practice" bombs. The same carriers were used on Lysanders, Battles and Blenheims and were very much a weapon of war. The 500lb SAP bomb was only used against armoured warships, for attacks on merchant ships and ground targets the normal bombload was a 250 lb bomb in the fuselage recess and either 20lb or 40lb bombs on the light series carriers. The 250 lb bomb had only a little less explosive content than the 500lb SAP bomb (the extra weight of the latter was down to the casing, needed to punch through armour). If used against ground targets the SAP bomb would often bury itself deep before exploding, reducing its blast effect. The small and largely ineffective 100 lb anti-submarine (AS) bomb could also be carried in the fuselage recess.

The first prototype Skua had problems with stability and it and the second prototype (both known as Skua MK Is) had to be modified with a longer nose and upturned wingtips, features carried over to the production aircraft (known as Skua Mk IIs). The Skua prototypes used the well tried Bristol Mercury engine but use of these engines in the huge Blenheim bomber progamme meant that production Skuas had to use the new Bristol sleeve valve Perseus engine. There is no evidence that the Perseus engine as used on the Skua was particularly unreliable in itself, (later Bristol sleeve valve engines went through a stage of very bad reliability when first mass-produced by unskilled labour, faults cured in the supremely reliable later model Hercules and Centaurus) but the new sleeve valve technology must have made maintenance more difficult and the Perseus's small production run must have made spares hard to find as the war years rolled by. The spin characteristics of the Skua were bad enough to prompt the fitting of an anti-spin parachute in the tail to aid recovery.

Sourced from http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/blackburn_skua.htm

The poor performance of the Skua, along with poor handling, a complicated engine and its awful armament (it was supposed to be a secondary fleet defense fighter as well!) all contribute to it's place as probably the worst dive bomber of the war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

> Service ceiling 20,500 ft (reached in 43 mins), the Skua had a very poor rate of climb.



Oooo that IS nasty


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 12, 2005)

475ft/min, not good at all.Once the failings of the Roc became all too apparent, the Skua was also tasked as a fleet defence fighter. The Germans cant have known this, they'd have gone after the North Sea carriers they hadnt already sunk...


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Apr 12, 2005)

Dauntless ,Hands down...I've heard stories of Dauntlesses flying as fighters, and actually doing well against Japanese fighters.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Apr 12, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> > Service ceiling 20,500 ft (reached in 43 mins), the Skua had a very poor rate of climb.
> 
> 
> 
> A B-17 on 3 engines at half throttle could do better than that...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

Naw sod that, the WRIGHT FLYER with a really fat man piloting it could do better


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 12, 2005)

The Flyer would probably outurn a Skua too, and the bloke maight well do more damage than a 250lb GP... but I digress 

I think the Skua's out of the running on this thread, and Im still sticking with the SBD


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

I think the Dauntless will get this one. Although the Stuka gave the image of German invincibility, it was the SBD, in one decisive battle that really came through when it had to.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

Yep. Also, the Stuka was only fully effective with total air superiority.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

For being obsolete, SBDs shot down 135 enemy aircraft. Ens. Lepella and his gunner had 7 kills between them (Lapella 5 - an Ace!)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

I think it would of been cool to be an SBD gunner, silk scarf, goggles, cigar - yep! 8)


----------



## Concorde247 (Apr 13, 2005)

Although i prefer the look of the SBD, I think the Stuka had the greater impact in the war, especially the early stages through Poland France, It put the wind up anyone who was on the receiving end. Obvously, when it came up against fighters it stood little chance, and was withdrawn from the battle of britain because of this, but it still proved its worth in russia - as flown by the likes of Hans Ulrich Rudel who was the highest decorated pilot in the Luftwaffe - he destroyed millions of pounds worth of hardware.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2005)

and i believe is the highest decorated flyer of all time........


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 13, 2005)

But the SBD played a massive part in destroying the IJNs carriers - more than anything else, that decised the war in the Pacific. And Id argue that the Tiffy, IL2 and Jug were far better in the CAS role than the Stuka, both in performance, and in the havoc they caused amongst thier victims.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2005)

hey the avenger played a huge part in the pacific as well you know.........


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 13, 2005)

True, as did the TBD. But they werent dive bombers  And , I still think that the SBDs role in destroying the IJN as a fighting force was greater than the Stukas part in winning the Blitzkreig...although I suppose that is another thread


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 13, 2005)

Bomb Taxi said, "_And Id argue that the Tiffy, IL2 and Jug were far better in the CAS role than the Stuka, both in performance, and in the havoc they caused amongst thier victims. _"

Uh oh. Here we go again. I hope Udet doesn't see this. (See the thread entitled, "The ETO's finest single engined ground attack aircraft")


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 13, 2005)

Im off out for a beer, I think I might have a wrathful Lanc on my case soon too (been knocing Avro again!), so I'll retire now while I still can!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> True, as did the TBD. But they werent dive bombers  And , I still think that the SBDs role in destroying the IJN as a fighting force was greater than the Stukas part in winning the Blitzkreig...although I suppose that is another thread



DOUGLAS SBD DAUNTLESS - WORLD'S LARGEST DISTRIBUTOR OF USED JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER PARTS! 8)


----------



## Erich (Apr 13, 2005)

CC that is quite incorrect the Stuka did quite well with no air superiority and I have covered that fully in it's night time role. funny during Kursk the D's and the new G's made mince meat out of the Soviet armor columns and in almost all cases was no Luftwaffe air cover as the fighters had homed in on Il-2's and other Soviet fighter junk heaps.....

E ~ being cuatious as I expect an attack soon


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

Yes, but were there any Soviet fighters around?


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 14, 2005)

The Soviets managed localised air superiority in most operations from mid-1944 onwards through sheer weight of numbers, and the transfer of german fighters to DOTR and NW Europe


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

ah yes BT, i read you're little dig at a cirtain avro bomber.........


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Apr 14, 2005)

I have always wondered why they never mounted a .50 in the back seat of an SBD...


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 14, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ah yes BT, i read you're little dig at a cirtain avro bomber.........



The lanc was certainly a good a/c. But in terms of the overblown reputation we were discussing in that thread, the lanc is one of the worst


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 14, 2005)

Two words: Grand Slam


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 14, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Two words: Grand Slam



One sentence: How many targets could they find that were worth a ten-ton bomb? Just cos it's big don't make it useful 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 14, 2005)

U-Boat pens, viaducts, bridges, tunnels, underground bunkers......


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 14, 2005)

I thought the U-Boat pens weren't Grand Slammed? I gather it was fairly rarely used?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

only 41 were ever dropped in anger, all by B.MK.I (specails) of 617 Sqn, and yes, they were used with great sucess against uboat pens, they cut through 20ft of re-inforced concrete then a further 75ft into the ground like a hot knife through butter, despite reduced ceiling and defensive armourment, not a single "grand slam lanc" was lost through enemy action..............

and it's very hard to exaggerate the role of the lanc over europe in WWII, whilst the halibag was a very good bomber, she could not stand up against a lancaster, "bomber" harris cliamed the lanc was the largest single factor in winning the war against germany................


----------



## trackend (Apr 15, 2005)

But Harris was bound to say that Lanc wasn't he as his doctrine was the war could be won by bombers and it was the main stay bomber at his disposal.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

and because it was the truth.........


----------



## Concorde247 (Apr 15, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and because it was the truth.........



True! you wouldnt equip most of your squadrons with "duff" aircraft would you? if you did the entire bomber command would have been equipped with Avro Manchesters


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

yes if the lanc wasn't as good as people make out, why is it that at peak strenth they were used in 56 squadrons!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2005)

Because it was ugly and it made the crew members look better


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

ASK THESE GUYS


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 15, 2005)

At least the Lanc wasnt as ugly as the Stirling. That was one unfortunate looking aircraft


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

Amen!!


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 15, 2005)

I still think this was the best looking Bomber Command a/c of the war though...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 15, 2005)

lanc, cover your eyes! Look away!!


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 15, 2005)

I love the Halifax, in all it's various incarnations. Great looking plane, even with the nose turret and inlines


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

it, like every single other plane, looks ugly compared to the lancaster though............


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 15, 2005)

Id have to disagree  I can think of a bunch of other very good-looking a/c, but they wouldnt necessarily be military or from WWII


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

don't be stupid, there is no such a plane..........


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 15, 2005)

The VC10 is a great looking plane, even though the RAF have ditched the snazzy old Transport Command paintscheme and gone for all over grey. The Tornado is also a good looker, and the Hawker Hunter...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

all however pale into insignificance compared to the lanc.........


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 15, 2005)

Im not gonna win this one am i?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

nope...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 15, 2005)

The Hally and the Stirling looked the best, but the Lanc was the better bomber


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> Im not gonna win this one am i?



Dont give into him!  The Lancaster is one ugly mofo 8) The B-29 is far better looking, as are the Stirling, Halifax, B-17, B-24, P.108 and Windsor 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 17, 2005)

I wouldn't go that far CC. The P.108 has an uglier bumb on it's nose than the Lanc and the Windsor never saw service


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2005)

The P.108 did have that hideous bump yeah, but it still looks better than the Lancaster, only just though. And I know the Windsor didnt see service, I was just making a point 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 17, 2005)

The Lanc looks better than the P.108 easily


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2005)

Naw, the P.108C is sexy! 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 17, 2005)

with the faired over nose that does look good, I'll admit that
Looks a bit like a Kondor


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

Painted like that it does.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2005)

With Italian Camo it would look even better


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

na the P.108 is nowhere near as good looking as the lanc.............


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 3, 2008)

Stuka Effectiveness:

Inscription: Bombenvolltreffer auf Tankzug – A direct bomb-hit on the tank-wagon, Stabia LFL 2, July 15th, 1941. Photo taken by colonel Hans Ruef.

Original photography is nowadays included into Photo Library of the German Air Force. It was captured by US Air Force investigators.


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Jan 21, 2010)

I think the SBD was the best dive-bomber of wwii. Although the stuka could carry more bombs, was more accurate, and even had things such as a horn to weaken morale, it was too slow and exposed to enemy fighters. Not to mention that the fighting in 
Europe had much more advance aircraft than the Pacific.
As for the D3A or even the D4Y, both of them were poorly armored making them even more exposed to anti-aircraft and the 6 .50 cals of most american fighters.
So what made the SBD the best? Compared to the stuka it had more range, a much better defensive armament, more armor, and wasn't so behind in payload (1600lbs to the stuka's 2,205lbs). And do I even have to compare the SBD with the Val?


----------



## davebender (Jan 21, 2010)

*Ju-87D1.* Entered service during the fall of 1941.
WRG - Luftwaffe Resource Center - Junkers Ju 87D
255mph max speed.
1,800kg max bomb load.

*USN SBD-5.* Most produced version.
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Naval Aviation Resource Center - Bomber Specifications
252mph max speed.
1,500lb max bomb load (1,000lb on center plus 250lb on each wing)

The Ju-87 looks outdated with it's fixed landing gear. However it actually compares quite well with the American SBD dive bomber.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 21, 2010)

'Fraid I'm going to buck the trend and go for the Vengeance....just to be contrary!

I know the SBD and Stuka had bigger operational impacts but the Vengeance, with its cranked wing, is just a cool looking beast. And it operated over Burma which makes it 8) in my book.


----------



## machine shop tom (Jan 21, 2010)

wwii:)aircraft said:


> ........... Not to mention that the fighting in
> Europe had much more advance aircraft than the Pacific.
> ..........



I'd have to argue that point.

tom


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 22, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> 'Fraid I'm going to buck the trend and go for the Vengeance....just to be contrary!
> 
> I know the SBD and Stuka had bigger operational impacts but the Vengeance, with its cranked wing, is just a cool looking beast. And it operated over Burma which makes it 8) in my book.



Me and you are gonna get on just fine...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> 'Fraid I'm going to buck the trend and go for the Vengeance....just to be contrary!
> 
> I know the SBD and Stuka had bigger operational impacts but the Vengeance, with its cranked wing, is just a cool looking beast. And it operated over Burma which makes it 8) in my book.



For once we agree....the Vengeance was the unsung hero of the Pacific in my opinion


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 22, 2010)

Wildcat said:


> Me and you are gonna get on just fine...



And with noseart like the beaut on your Vengeance, I have to say I concur!!


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 22, 2010)

parsifal said:


> For once we agree....the Vengeance was the unsung hero of the Pacific in my opinion



I might not be posting on the forum for a while...I'm feeling faint and need to lie down!


----------



## Markus (Jan 22, 2010)

machine shop tom said:


> I'd have to argue that point.
> 
> tom



Axis A/C in Europe were a lot more advanced than the axis A/C in Asia and the Pacific.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 22, 2010)

Markus said:


> Axis A/C in Europe were a lot more advanced than the axis A/C in Asia and the Pacific.



Wheres your Facts?


----------



## Markus (Jan 22, 2010)

beaupower32 said:


> Wheres your Facts?



The Me109 E-4 had cockpit armour, the E-7 self sealing fuel tanks. Even one to two years later no such thing was installed in any japanese fighter making a pair of cal.30 machine guns effective self defence weapons.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 22, 2010)

Markus said:


> The Me109 E-4 had cockpit armour, the E-7 self sealing fuel tanks. Even one to two years later no such thing was installed in any japanese fighter making a pair of cal.30 machine guns effective self defence weapons.




Wrong. Your thinking mostly of the Zero. The Ki-84 had all of what your looking for. So, you need to learn your facts before you go all out claiming something. 

Wikipedia


> The Ki-84 addressed the most common complaints about the popular and highly maneuverable Ki-43: insufficient firepower, poor defensive armor, and lack of climbing power. The Ki-84 was a cantilever low-wing monoplane of all-metal construction, except for the fabric-covered control surfaces. It had retractable tailwheel landing gear. Armament comprised two fuselage-mounted 12.7 mm (.50 in) machine guns and two wing-mounted 20 mm cannons, a considerable improvement over the single 7.7 mm (.303 in) and single 12.7 mm (.50 in) used in the Hayabusa.Defensive armor offered Hayate pilots better protection than the unsealed wing tanks and light-alloy airframe of the Ki-43. In addition, the Ki-84 used a 65 mm (2.56 in) armor-glass canopy, 13 mm (.51 in) of head and back armor, and multiple bulkheads in the fuselage, which protected both the methanol-water tank (used to increase the effectiveness of the supercharger) and the centrally-located fuel tank.



I know the risk of quoting Wikipedia, but all the other websites I went to also confirmed this. 
Ki-84 Hayate Nakajima


----------



## Markus (Jan 22, 2010)

Not wrong,

the Me109 E-4 was introduced in late 1939, the E-7 right before the BoB. By the time Japan went to war -two years after WW broke out in Europe and showed armour and fuel tank protection were a must- the A6M and Ki-43 were her "best" fighters and neither had a single pound of protection.
The Ki-84 was introcuded in 1944(!). At that time it was too late: the elite pilots were dead and the Allies had already introduced their own high performance fighters. *edit:* and SBD wasn´t the USN´s standard dive bomber any more.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 22, 2010)

I my friend, stand corrected. I miss read that about the Ki-84. It is a 1944 plane. My apologies. Maybe I need to take my own advice and learn some facts huh


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 22, 2010)

Perhaps the way to look at it is the following:

For 1942, 43, 44 and 45, would you rather fly Japan's best against Germany's best or would you rather fly Germany's best against Japan's best?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 22, 2010)

beaupower32 said:


> I my friend, stand corrected. I miss read that about the Ki-84. It is a 1944 plane. My apologies. Maybe I need to take my own advice and learn some facts huh



Hey, Beau, takes a big man to admit mistakes! Not that I ever make mistakes!!


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2010)

I would not disagree that aircraft in the Pacifc were technologically less advanced than aircraft in Europe, And yet yet this whole argument seems wrong somehow. Compared to an Me 109 the A6M held a number of different characteristics that are worth noting:


1) It had much greater range and endurance.
2) It was far more manouverable in the horizontal plane
3) It was a very fast climber
4) It was a machine designed for carrier operation. 

My understanding is that the Me 109 was not fully armoured until around the time of the Battle Of Britain. As a generalization, one could say armouring in the Luftwaffe began to take effect in Septmeber 1940. Drop tanks were introduced some time after that, I dont know exactly when, lets assume December 1940. 

For the Japanese drop tanks began to be adopted early in 1941. They disdained the use of armour prior to hostilities, though the technology was known to them. Given the operational requirements of the pacific....the vast didtances to be covered, this was the correct decision. Armouring began to be fitted from early to mid 1942, in the Tojo and the Ki-61. The Oscar started to receive some armouring from the Ki-43 III and the A6m received some protection from the A6m5 (allbeit at an inadequate rate) 

In terms of strike aircraft, and particulalry aeronaval capability, the Japanese held a distinct advanatage over the germans. It is is not widely known, but the germans did not have effective torpedo bombers until some time in the latter part of 1941. They had to borrow aerial torpedoes from the Italians after having witnessed the successes of the italian armed torpedo bombers. The Japanese had been equipping torpedo bombers for land based units since at least 1936, and more to the point, training their aircrews to use them for many years. 

There was one piece of technology that the Japanese held a lead in aircraft fabrication....they were the first country to develop a product called super duralumin, which made possible the zero because it enabled a super lightweight airframe and skin to be adopted, as I understand it


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 22, 2010)

Valid points, Parsifal. In many respects, I believe the primary difference between Japan and the Western Powers was as much cultural as it was technical. To make an analogy, Western Powers preferred aircraft that were akin to the armoured knight with a battleaxe while Japanese pilots wanted their aircraft to be Ninjas - lightly armoured, fast, and agile. This analogy applies to comparisons of Western and Japanese aircraft, tanks and tactics. As weapons systems, both models work in certain circumstances - the key is ensuring you shape the battlespace to neutralise the adversaries advantages and maximise your own. The Japanese military was obsessed with the "samurai spirit", believing that superior will and agility would overcome the lumbering western forces. Initially, they were right but ultimately they could not maintain the balance of power.


----------



## davebender (Jan 22, 2010)

The A6M and almost everything else were slow climbers compared to the Me-109 series.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 22, 2010)

Good post Parsifal. Covers a lot of good stuff.

Also would add the Japanese had a different philosophy than the western powers. Their aircraft were strictly offensive, with no built in defensive components. I guess they figured they'd always be giving and not getting, left the defense to the pilots reactions. They learned after dealing with Western fighters to incorporate armor and self sealing gas tanks (as well as an inert gas system) into their aircraft. 

One other point. The Japanese design team that produced the Zero were hampered by a design spec that was pretty rigorous. The orginal A6M had a 950 horse engine in 1940, about 200+ horses lower than comparable 109 and Spitfires. Yet they still got performance that would equal (if not surpass) most of the aircraft in the RAF and Luftwaffe. 

It was an amazing aircraft for it's time.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 22, 2010)

davebender said:


> The A6M and almost everything else were slow climbers compared to the Me-109 series.



Saw in Wiki that they have the 109G with a climb rate of 3700ft per minute. Pretty impressive. 

Have about the same number for the P39. 

Huh?

P-39 Airacobra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Markus (Jan 22, 2010)

parsifal said:


> 2) It was far more manouverable in the horizontal plane
> 
> There was one piece of technology that the Japanese held a lead in aircraft fabrication....they were the first country to develop a product called super duralumin, which made possible the zero because it enabled a super lightweight airframe and skin to be adopted, as I understand it



Yes, but it was brittle. This and the overall flimsyness of the design lead to wing spars cracking and even breaking at high speeds. This and the huge ailerons limited the often praised manouverability to rather low speeds of 200 to 250 mph. 




timshatz said:


> One other point. The Japanese design team that produced the Zero were hampered by a design spec that was pretty rigorous. The orginal A6M had a 950 horse engine in 1940, about 200+ horses lower than comparable 109 and Spitfires. Yet they still got performance that would equal (if not surpass) most of the aircraft in the RAF and Luftwaffe.
> 
> It was an amazing aircraft for it's time.



It was a flying coffin. The seemingly supreme performance came at the expense of survivability. These flimsy flying gas tanks could not survive the most minor damage. This was not important in a low intensitiv air war against a third rate air force like the Chinese but once the Japanese crossed swords with capable pilots in modern planes they were doomed.

*edit:* The armament was far less impressive than it seemed too. Two rifle calibre machine guns are as good as useless against a plane with armour and protected fuel tanks and the 20mm cannons had a muzzle velocity that was so low even good shots like the Japanese had a hard time scoring a hit. And each gun had just 60 rounds. 

To loosely quote a guy from another froum: The Japanese found out their ability to shoot down the TBDs was directly proportional to the amount of 20mm ammo.


----------



## Markus (Jan 22, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Saw in Wiki that they have the 109G with a climb rate of 3700ft per minute. Pretty impressive.
> 
> Have about the same number for the P39.
> 
> ...



Seems correct to me. An early P-39 had a climb rate of 2,500 ft/min, late version were well above 3,000 ft/min but only until the plane reached 12,000 feet.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 22, 2010)

I also agree with Parsifal's points mainly, but what does Bf109E v Zero really have to do with 'advanced a/c' when comparing Ju-87 and SBD, or divebombers generally?

If the point is that SBD with twin .30's had better success firing back at Japanese fighters than Ju-87 with (somewhat faster firing) double ~.30, that's not borne out by facts. SBD rear gunners very seldom actually downed Zeoes*, often claimed, seldom achieved. If anything, Ju-87's rear gunners scored more often against Hurricanes and Spits hitting them in the cooling system, and while seldom totally destroying the attacking plane or killing the pilot, forced them to break off and perhaps crashland. Of course as far as deterring the attacking pilot with stream of tracers, Japanese pilots were again if anything less susceptible to that than Western pilots generally speaking.

If we're going to get off topic on 109 v Zero though, almost everyone who is interested in the European air war and less familiar with Pacific is surprised to learn the Spitfire V had a terrible record v the Zero, even in 1943. After some argument about how the record actually wasn't so bad, or Japanese losses not known or understated (both clearly wrong), it usually goes to explanation/excuse by a series of incorrect assumptions (outnumbered: wrong, no radar warning system: wrong, etc) and then usually finally comes to rest on 'wrong tactics' but what's to say German pilots would have done so much better. The Spitfire was sometimes not so successful v 109 either (it has a mythic rep from old Brit propaganda that's not always in line with the unvarnished facts), but often it was reasonably competitive, v very poor showing against the Zero.

Nobody really knows what result of 109 v Zero combats would have been; of course if the combat required the 109 to fly more than maybe 100 miles from base it just wouldn't have been there! or very briefly make a pass and go home. Even over Malta ~100 miles from bases 109's couldn't stick around long fighting Spitfires and had periodic losses to fuel exhaustion. Zeroes defeated Spitfires near Darwin after flying 500+ miles from Timor, with no operational losses to fuel (unless you want to count some of the handful of disappeared Zeroes rather than assume they were downed by Spits, and make that kill ratio even more lopsided) over a whole series of missions.

So nobody knows Bf109 v Zero because it didn't happen and actual combats often contain surprises, but blanket statement of 'more advanced' about 109 v contemporary Zero models, in terms of who would have been more effective, real pilots and all, is quite questionable IMO. It's at the very least a speculation not based on any real facts. We see all the time in WWII fighter combat that comparing a few stats like speed and climb is not a good predictor of outcomes unless the differences are really big; again Spits would beat Zeroes based on such an analysis, but in real life it didn't turn out that way.

*most people know SBD gunners almost downed the Japanese ace Saburo Sakai, his survival was near miraculous, but it's also one of very few times in 1942 that a Zero was downed or nearly so by an SBD rear gunner.

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 22, 2010)

So, back to dive bombers...I still like the Vengeance!!!


----------



## Markus (Jan 22, 2010)

JoeB said:


> If we're going to get off topic on 109 v Zero though, almost everyone who is interested in the European air war and less familiar with Pacific is surprised to learn the Spitfire V had a terrible record v the Zero, even in 1943.



That mess was the result of using the wrong tactics. The Spitfire pilots were told not to get into a low speed dogfight with japanese fighters but to use boom and zoom tactics instead. They did not listen and thus got beaten, after that they applied the tried and proven anti-Zero tactics and won.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 22, 2010)

Markus said:


> That mess was the result of using the wrong tactics. The Spitfire pilots were told not to get into a low speed dogfight with japanese fighters but to use boom and zoom tactics instead. They did not listen and thus got beaten, after that they applied the tried and proven anti-Zero tactics and won.


You're following exactly the standard script I mentioned in last post. Trying not to be wordy I just said part of the script was 'it wasn't actually so bad', as in 'after that they applied the tried and proved anti-Zero tactics and won'. No, they were never consistently successful. In the whole series of combats, stretching for several months, the Spits lost upwards of mid 20's a/c *in air combat NOT COUNTING THEIR HEAVY ADDITIONAL LOSSES TO MECHANICAL AND FUEL* while downing 4 Zeroes. 2 of those Zeroes were lost when stafing an airfield and jumped by Spitfires. Other than that there was no particular trend in the results over time.

So again, we can call it 'tactics', but 'tactics' that were apparently not so easy to change, and what's to say the Germans wouldn't have suffered similarly and their lack of success v Zeroes be attributed to 'tactics' by Luftwaffe fans? At some point the objective results matter, not just the subjective explanation of the results.

The Spits did inflict moderate losses on the Japanese bombers as well, but to compare, Spits inflicted at least as heavy losses on escorted Ju-88's over Malta and did much better v the (more relatively numerous) Bf109 escorts at the same time, though the 109's still had somewhat of a kill ratio advantage.

Joe


----------



## Markus (Jan 22, 2010)

JoeB said:


> You're following exactly the standard script I mentioned in last post. Trying not to be wordy I just said part of the script was 'it wasn't actually so bad', as in 'after that they applied the tried and proved anti-Zero tactics and won'. No, they were never consistently successful. In the whole series of combats, stretching for several months, the Spits lost upwards of mid 20's a/c *in air combat NOT COUNTING THEIR HEAVY ADDITIONAL LOSSES TO MECHANICAL AND FUEL* while downing 4 Zeroes. 2 of those Zeroes were lost when stafing an airfield and jumped by Spitfires. Other than that there was no particular trend in the results over time.
> 
> 
> Joe




Strange! Much less advanced A/C like the F4F and the Curtiss Hawk did well against Zeros and Oskars in the PTO and BCI.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 22, 2010)

Markus said:


> Strange! Much less advanced A/C like the F4F and the Curtiss Hawk did well against Zeros and Oskars in the PTO and BCI.



Tactics. The IJNAF in particular was known for its pilots seeking individual kills rather than fighting as a cohesive unit. Good section tactics (ie Thach Weave) hugely reduced the Zero's comparative performance advantage over the F4FGoes back to my point in an earlier post about the difference of philosophy between Western and Japanese approaches to fighting. Not so sure the Curtiss Hawk did particularly well, though....

Now...back to the Vengeance


----------



## JoeB (Jan 22, 2010)

Markus said:


> Strange! Much less advanced A/C like the F4F and the Curtiss Hawk did well against Zeros and Oskars in the PTO and BCI.


British Mohawks in 1943 had about a 1:1 real kill ratio v Japanese Army Type 1's (Oscar), but that's not necessarily the same as a Zero. Zeroes had one-sided success v Dutch Hawks in the Dutch East Indies but that's only a small handful of examples. F4F's had around a 1:1 real ratio v actual Zeroes in 1942, and seldom used the Thach Weave until later on (Thach himself used it at Midway, VF-10 used it late in the Guadalcanal campaign, otherwise the Thach Weave was a more a 1943 and later tactic). But who says the Hawk and F4F were *much* less advanced than the Spitfire? French Hawk 75's had a tolerable result against 109's in Phoney War period of 1939-40 (Battle of France less well documented from both sides, AFAIK) and the Spitfire was more often than not bested by the Bf109 in the first 1/2 of WWII. 

Maybe part of the problem here is the common general overestimation of the Spitfire, especially mid-Mark Spitfiires, as all around practical fighter combat a/c, good in many cases, the best plane on Allied side early on, but not necessarily '*much* more advanced'. It's often termed 'much' more advanced than Zero, which is just obviously not so. If you're 'much' more advanced you don't have a 1:5+ kill ratio against you over a series of combats, the 'much more 'advancedness' should keep that ratio reasonable even if you suffer some other disadvantages. 1:5+ doesn't mean the Spitfire was a worse plane than the Zero, but rules out calling it 'much' better, and in turn same v planes which managed much better results v the Zero. They might not have been as good overall, but their much greater success comparatively against an important opponent, rules out the modifier 'much', IMO.

In any case I don't see a solid basis on which to assume Bf109's would have badly beaten Zeroes, not to claim it's impossible, I'm not saying that, but not necessarily. And it's a simple fact there are no direct examples to settle it either way.

Joe


----------



## davebender (Jan 22, 2010)

A-31 Vengeance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_The first RAF squadrons (No. 82 and 110 received Vengeances in October 1942_

It appears to me the A-31 operated only from airfields on land (not CVs). Under those circumstances I would prefer the A-20. It couldn't dive bomb but was otherwise superior to the A-31 in every way. The A-20 was also available earlier and in larger numbers.

Yokosuka D4Y - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The D4Y (Judy) puts all other WWII CV based dive bombers to shame. Max speed of 342 mph makes it a lot faster then the SBD, Ju-87, Vengence, etc. 500kg bomb load is decent for a CV based bomber. Fortunately for us it entered service too late to matter. If it had been operational as a bomber during 1942 I don't think the F4F could catch it.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2010)

To explore some of the points raised by Joe in a slightly different light. The Zero appears to have enjoyed a kill-loss ration up to Midway of around 4:1. After Midway until about October 1942, the kill loss ratio was about 2:1. After that it was a more rapid decline.

Whilst the Japanese enjoyed the luxury of elite pilots and the strategic initiative, the battles, even in a tactical sense could be worked to the benefit of the zero. At sea level, where the fighter was intended to fight as a fleet defence fighter, it possessed an unsurpassed climb rate of over 4500 feet per minute. This impressive number dropped away sharply as the altitude increased, such that by about 20000 feet it was decidedly sluggish. 

The results speak for themselves. In the initial offensives, the land based zeroes, numbering no more than 200 in total, managed to destroy about 800 (roughly) enemy aircraft. Total enemy losses exceeeded 1500 in this period. Total Japanese combat losses in this period was in the order 250 a/c Whilst it can be argued that this was against aircraft of inferior quality, there is no doubt in my mind that the zero was easily fulfilling its mission.

Now compare that to the efforts by the Me 109s up to the end of 1940. Against the Poles, flying decidely inferior aircraft (but admittedly with very good pilots), the German fighter wings were barely able to achieve loss ratios in excess of 1:1. In the low countries and over France, despite enjoying a vast superiority of numbers, the losses to the Luftwaffe as a whole were exceedingly heavy. Total Lufwaffe combat losses in the six week campaign exceeded 1500 aircraft . Over Britain the Me 109s were a strategic failure, their limited range meant that they could not achive the fundamental mission of air superiority even over southern England. If the Me 109 had even a moderate element of the Zerroes qualities it may have succeeded rather than failed.

With regard to the Zeroes armament, the 60 round drum fed 20 mm cannon were the same as those fitted to German French and British 20mm armed aircraft, and the rate of fire superior to the German cannon. From the Type 2 onward the ammunition supply had increased to 100 rounds per gun. 

The Model 99 Type 1 cannon introduced in 1940 had the following characteristics

Specifications
Caliber: 20 mm 
Ammunition: 20x72RB 
Length: 133 cm (53 in) 
Weight: 23 kg (75 lb) 
Rate of fire: 520 rounds/min 
Muzzle velocity: 600 m/s (1970 ft/s)

The type 2 dropped the ROF to 480 rpm,, but the muzzle velocity shot up to 750 m/s. This was introduced just after Midway. The Types 3 and 4 appear to have been introduced more or less simultaneously, increased the ROF to 670 rpm, and then 740 rpm, with no loss of Muzzle velociity. These were introduced progressively from warly 1943.

By comparison the MG/FF had a ROF of 520 RPM and a Muzzle velocity of 600M/s. This was slightly alrtered later on. The later MG 151/20 had a ROF of 750-800 RPM and a muzzle velocity of 720-800 m/s . Though the performance of the Japanese guns was less than that of the Germans, it was more than adequate to achieve its purpose. It did have dicfficulty in bringing down B-17s, because of the impact fuses being used and because of the limited ammunition supply in the model 21. This was no different to the problems faced by the early 109s...

As defensive fighter, with inferior pilots, the Zero was a poor aircraft. It was built for a purpose which it succeeded in spades. Once that role was completed, it should have been replaced by a more durable point defence aircraft like the 109. That it wasnt led to its poor showing in the latter part of the war


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 22, 2010)

davebender said:


> A-31 Vengeance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> _The first RAF squadrons (No. 82 and 110 received Vengeances in October 1942_
> 
> It appears to me the A-31 operated only from airfields on land (not CVs). Under those circumstances I would prefer the A-20. It couldn't dive bomb but was otherwise superior to the A-31 in every way. The A-20 was also available earlier and in larger numbers.
> ...




Sorry, Dave, but you've lost me. This thread is about which was the best dive bomber so (a) whether it operated from a carrier or not is irrelevant (the Stuka didn't...at least not operationally!) and (b) the A-20 was not a dive bomber (I like the Mosquito and believe it was far superior to the Vengeance but it shouldn't be considered for this thread)....then again, most of the recent posts have disappeared down a rabbit-warren discussion of the Me109 vs the Zero.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2010)

Kind of agree.....the vengeance had great potential as a design, but was not really given the full opportunity to display itself completely. It seems to me that the allies veered aaway from Divebombing as a ground support weapon, in favour of the fighter bomber. The US sort of discarded the A-24 after no apparent problems, though my knowledge of this aircraft is limited. The commonwealth appeared to draw similar conclusions in the ETO and the Pacific. There was nothing inherently wrong with the Vengeance, but time and again it was withdrawn from its intended role. In the case of the RAAF, most of the Vengeance ewuipped units were re-equipped with Liberator bombers.....perhaps it was the simple expedient of range, payload versatility in the case of the RAAF


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 23, 2010)

RAAF Vengeance squadron's in New Guinea were doing excellent ground support work, in most raids putting the vast majority of bombs on target. I'm talking infantry foxholes and gun postions or in some cases narrow foot bridges across jungle ravines. Probably the most accurate Allied aircraft to see sustained service in New Guinea. 
By all accounts the RAAF (and AIF) were extremely pleased with the work of the Vengeance squadrons but in the end it was General Kenney who ordered the withdrawl of the squadrons out of the theatre, much to the surprise of the Vengeance wing personnell.
No doubt the role of the dive bomber was made obsolete with the appearance of the fighter bomber, in the case of the RAAF, our P-40 squadrons took over in the ground support role. Howeveer, in six months of flying hazardous dive bombing missions over tough jungle and mountains in New Guinea, the RAAF lost three aircraft due to enemy fire - compare that to the P-40 in the same role and I think you'll find the vengeance comes out on top.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 23, 2010)

To voice my opinion I think the SBD and Ju 87 were pretty close in terms of performance, offensive/defensive armament and accuracy. Though I don't know if the SBD had a good bomb sight. D4Y seems a little weak as far as offensive armament goes, but in reality most Ju 87 missions were flown with 500 kg bombs aswell and the D4Y is has the best chances here to avoid enemy fighters.

I wonder how the Vengeance came up here. So far I read it was rather not that great.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 23, 2010)

In terms of speed protection, defensive armament even range, it outclassed both the Ju-87 and the SBD. It arrived into an environment where divebombing as a technique outside anti-shipping roles had lost favour, and this doomed it from reaching its full potential operationally


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2010)

Just dive bombing alone the Stuka is 2nd to no other aircraft, but when compared to others like the Dauntless, it is less suitable for defending itself in air combat. Without air cover it is pretty much a sitting duck to enemy fighters, but lets be honest almost any dive bomber is.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 23, 2010)

Ju 87 D and following defensive armament is identical to that of the contemporary Dauntless. As a "dogfighter" it may be inferior due to the fixed undercarriage, but then, even with the famous exceptions mentioned, the SBD was also outclassed in that regard by any Japanese fighter. Btw Ju 87s too scored some air-to-air kills (with the fixed cannons) on the eastern front.

EDIT: granted the SBD rear gunner had a very good field of fire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Ju 87 D and following defensive armament is identical to that of the contemporary Dauntless. As a "dogfighter" it may be inferior due to the fixed undercarriage, but then, even with the famous exceptions mentioned, the SBD was also outclassed in that regard by any Japanese fighter. Btw Ju 87s too scored some air-to-air kills (with the fixed cannons) on the eastern front.
> 
> EDIT: granted the SBD rear gunner had a very good field of fire.



I am sure if you compared the SBD and the Stuka to one another in air to air combat the SBD would win. The SBD was a much better designed "aircraft" in my opinion, but the Stuka was superbly designed for dive bombing. As I stated, the Stuka was 2nd to no one when it came to dive bombing.


----------



## Markus (Jan 23, 2010)

JoeB said:


> But who says the Hawk and F4F were *much* less advanced than the Spitfire? French Hawk 75's had a tolerable result against 109's in Phoney War period of 1939-40 (Battle of France less well documented from both sides, AFAIK)



The Brits tested both planes. While the H-75 A-4 was much more manouverable at high speeds and the pilot had a better view from the cockpit, the Spitfire could break off and enter combat at will due to her higher speed. IIRC this test was done in 1940, after that Spits became even faster, so anti-Zero tactics based on a high speed should have worked well. 




parsifal said:


> Whilst the Japanese enjoyed the luxury of *elite pilots* and the strategic initiative, the battles, even in a tactical sense could be worked to the benefit of the zero.
> 
> Now compare that to the efforts by the Me 109s up to the end of 1940. Against the Poles, flying decidely inferior aircraft (but admittedly with *very good pilots*), the German fighter wings were barely able to achieve loss ratios in excess of 1:1. In the low countries and over France, despite enjoying a vast superiority of numbers, the losses to the Luftwaffe as a whole were exceedingly heavy.



The French pilots were very good too. Werner Mölders stated the MS 406 had to be taken serious in spite of it´s technical inferiority because of the skill and courage of its pilots. 
And the pilots the Japanese faced in the first few month of the war were not particularly skilled, not in Malaya, not in the PI and not in the DEI. The one exception was the AVG who suffered amazingly low losses.




> With regard to the Zeroes armament, the 60 round drum fed 20 mm cannon were the same as those fitted to German French and British 20mm armed aircraft, ...



No the guns were different. The German and Japanese ones were based on the MG FF but German guns had a higher muzzle velocity sooner. The French and Brits used the completely different HS 404 gun, it was much heaveir but had a muzzle velocity of 880 m/s and thus a flatter traject like that of a machine gun.


To get back to topic:

IMO the Ju87, SBD, SB2C and Vengeance are not much different in the dive bombing department. The Vengeance´s six machine guns make her an excellent strafer, while the SB2C is both very fast(for a dive bomber) and can be armed with a torpedo. Given the limited space on a carrier such versatility is IMO a huge advantage over single-purpose bombers like the TBF or SBD. 
And that bring me to the reason for the dive bombers demise; the rise of the fighter bomber. Within a very short time they went from 50 to 500lb bombs and eventually even P-40´s were armed with 2,000 pounders, while F4U could carry up to 4,000 lb of bombs.

So you have A/C that are almost as good for ground attack as dive bombers and unlike any dive bomber they can defend themselvs.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 23, 2010)

Ju 87s also scored some air-to-air kills during the BoB as the defensive tactic was to close tight when attacked and provide mutual aid - similar to the B-17 boxes.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 23, 2010)

Markus said:


> So you have A/C that are almost as good for ground attack as dive bombers and unlike any dive bomber they can defend themselvs.



Entirely agree Markus. I don't subscribe to the Peter C. Smith view that the divebomber was the wonder-weapon of WWII. However, in the context of the thread, which is about the best divebomber of WWII, I still go with the Vengeance. I agree that by 1944 the divebomber concept had pretty much been overtaken (like that of the "light bomber") by strapping bombs onto fighters.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 23, 2010)

Markus said:


> The Brits tested both planes. While the H-75 A-4 was much more manouverable at high speeds and the pilot had a better view from the cockpit, the Spitfire could break off and enter combat at will due to her higher speed. IIRC this test was done in 1940, after that Spits became even faster, so anti-Zero tactics based on a high speed should have worked well.
> .


There you go, 'should have', but clearly didn't. The Spit units did attempt to or say they changed tactics, and claimed better results, but had no more actual success according to what the Japanese really lost. Everyone's tests tended to be infused with 'not invented here', 'home field advantage', especially as long as war was still on: morale. The Spit V was a fairly mediocre fighter compared to many of its contemporaries without a great combat record overall, though it did worse than average v Zero; it's not *that* big shock or shouldn't be; especially considering that things like being more delicate and termpermental (or slower) in tropical or primitive field conditions isn't some irrelevant technicality when that's where the plane needs to perform its mission. Likewise the Spit's extremely short range compared to the Zero was a real disadvantage not only in, needless to say, preventing any situation where Spitfires flew 500 miles from Darwin to Timor to escort raids on Japanese bases, but even in combat right around Darwin the Spits were highly constrained by fuel and lost a number of a/c to fuel exhaustion besides those shot down by Zeroes. The more manuevrable plane with good visibility can parry high speed attacks with sharp turns into the attack till the short legged faster plane has to break off for lack of fuel, or sooner or later either the faster plane is drawn into turning fight, or the slower plane gets its own hit and run opportunity (which Japanese Navy fighters actually liked to do, and the Zero wasn't *that* much slower than Spit V in practice in those conditions). That's just as plausible an outcome in theory, and the Zeroes beat the Spitfires badly in reality.

So I still don't see the real evidence either Hawk or F4F were *much* less advanced' than Spitfire. Rather their, F4F particularly, far superior results v Zeroes could also be partly being better adapted to that particular type of opponent, though the Zero was vastly superior to any of the Allied fighters mentioned, in range.

Joe


----------



## Markus (Jan 23, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> However, in the context of the thread, which is about the best divebomber of WWII, I still go with the Vengeance.



Helldiver II it is for me. Faster than any other dive bomber and much more versatile as she could also carry a fish. That is not particularly important for attacks on land targets but IMO dive bombers were most valuable for attacks on ships.


----------



## davebender (Jan 23, 2010)

> IMO dive bombers were most valuable for attacks on ships


I have my doubts about that statement. 

German dive bombers were invaluable for destroying bunkers and artillery emplacements at long range. Without Ju-87 and Ju-88 dive bombers the Wehrmacht would need to build a lot more 17cm Kanone18 long range artillery pieces plus their tracked prime movers.

*17cm Kanone18 Long Range Field Artillery.*
17 cm Kanone 18 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 23, 2010)

Wildcat said:


> RAAF Vengeance squadron's in New Guinea were doing excellent ground support work, in most raids putting the vast majority of bombs on target. I'm talking infantry foxholes and gun positions or in some cases narrow foot bridges across jungle ravines. Probably the most accurate Allied aircraft to see sustained service in New Guinea.
> By all accounts the RAAF (and AIF) were extremely pleased with the work of the Vengeance squadrons but in the end it was General Kenney who ordered the withdrawal of the squadrons out of the theatre, much to the surprise of the Vengeance wing personnel.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 23, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> The more I read about WW2, and after, the more I seem to stumble over instances where "It was working well - and then taken away" for no apparent reason (that I can see anyway).



Crom,

I tend to agree, although the "disappearing trick" that most confuses me relates to the canopies fitted to RAF fighter aircraft. We learned, through hard experience, that bubble canopies with all-round visibility were the way to go, even though it took until quite late in the war for the low-back Spits to get into service. As soon as the war finishes, what do we do? Go straight back to fighters with solid metal behind the cockpit (with the honourable exceptions of the Vampire FB5 and Meteor F8.). It's like WW2 never existed. Why this happened is quite beyond me, unless it was over-confidence in the ability of missiles (or an inability to build blown canopies that could cope with the stresses of high-speed jet-powered flight). And don't get me started on the canopy for the TSR2, an aircraft which (apart from that feature) I truly admire....yes, I know it wasn't a fighter but providing the nav with a couple of little peepholes is hardly helpful).


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 23, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Kind of agree.....the vengeance had great potential as a design, but was not really given the full opportunity to display itself completely. It seems to me that the allies veered aaway from Divebombing as a ground support weapon, in favour of the fighter bomber. The US sort of discarded the A-24 after no apparent problems, though my knowledge of this aircraft is limited. The commonwealth appeared to draw similar conclusions in the ETO and the Pacific. There was nothing inherently wrong with the Vengeance, but time and again it was withdrawn from its intended role. In the case of the RAAF, most of the Vengeance ewuipped units were re-equipped with Liberator bombers.....perhaps it was the simple expedient of range, payload versatility in the case of the RAAF





Have you noticed how one man's meat is another man's poison when it comes to planes from WW2 ?

For example, the Airacobra and Kingcobra, discarded by the Yanks - loved by the Ruskies. They even helped to further develop the Kingcobra by sending over an aero-engineer and a test pilot for the Kingcobra !

Or perhaps the Buffalo, complete failure most everywhere else - but very successful when used by the Finns

Well, that is my spin anyhow - comments please welcomed too !


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 23, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Crom,
> 
> fighters with solid metal behind the cockpit (with the honourable exceptions of the Vampire FB5 and Meteor F8.). It's like WW2 never existed. Why this happened is quite beyond me, unless it was over-confidence in the ability of missiles (or an inability to build blown canopies that could cope with the stresses of high-speed jet-powered flight). And don't get me started on the canopy for the TSR2, an aircraft which (apart from that feature) I truly admire....yes, I know it wasn't a fighter but providing the nav with a couple of little peepholes is hardly helpful).



Yes, we - the Brits - seemed to specialise in *Coal-Hole *accomodation especially for Navs, Co-Pilots and Bombardiers

Its as if they didn't need to see out or something ! 

Imagine being a Navigator in a Sea-Vixen or the Photographer in a PR Canberra Nose-cone - brrrrrrr shudder quake - its Bonkers mate !


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 23, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Ju 87 D and following defensive armament is identical to that of the contemporary Dauntless. As a "dogfighter" it may be inferior due to the fixed undercarriage, but then, even with the famous exceptions mentioned, the SBD was also outclassed in that regard by any Japanese fighter. Btw Ju 87s too scored some air-to-air kills (with the fixed cannons) on the eastern front.
> 
> EDIT: granted the SBD rear gunner had a very good field of fire.




_When you say Fixed Cannons do you mean Bordkanone BK 37 ?_

I know that Hans-Ulrich Rudel was a great exponent of this feature - he also shot down 9 planes in a JU87 (Soviet ones I think)








BTW I think Later versions of the JUu87 had much better Rear Gunner positions with Twin guns and high rates of fire - actually *7.92mm MG 81Z* twin machine guns


----------



## Markus (Jan 24, 2010)

davebender said:


> I have my doubts about that statement.
> 
> German dive bombers were invaluable for destroying bunkers and artillery emplacements at long range. Without Ju-87 and Ju-88 dive bombers the Wehrmacht would need to build a lot more 17cm Kanone18 long range artillery pieces plus their tracked prime movers.



Depends, IMO fighter-bombers could have taken care of artillery just as well and at least at Sedan the Stukas did not destroy a single bunker. Regarding attacks on ships; level bombers are useless, torpedo bombers need to close in to less than 1,000 yards flying a straight course at sea level at a speed of 150 mph. A bit dangerous, isn´t it? If the ship is smaller than a BB or CV no torpedo bombers are needed, if it is a capital ship the dive bombers can take out some of the triple-A to pave the way for the torpedo bombers.


----------



## davebender (Jan 24, 2010)

> Regarding attacks on ships; level bombers are useless


Not if you employ proper tactics.

The Luftwaffe preferred the "Swedish Turnip Method" which involved skip bombing from a height of 45 meters. That's level bombing, Germany style.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 24, 2010)

davebender said:


> Not if you employ proper tactics.
> 
> The Luftwaffe preferred the "Swedish Turnip Method" which involved skip bombing from a height of 45 meters. That's level bombing, Germany style.




I think that is actually a variation of Bounce-Bombing by Germans with a Swedish Turnipy-flavour.

Nelson would be proud


----------



## Markus (Jan 24, 2010)

davebender said:


> Not if you employ proper tactics.
> 
> The Luftwaffe preferred the "Swedish Turnip Method" which involved skip bombing from a height of 45 meters. That's level bombing, Germany style.



Agreed, skip-bombing is perfect *once* you can do it. The Allies started skip bombing in 1943. When did the LW start, after 1941 I guess?


----------



## davebender (Jan 24, 2010)

Supposedly during the Spanish Civil War.


----------



## Markus (Jan 24, 2010)

davebender said:


> Supposedly during the Spanish Civil War.



 They must have forgotten about it as the record of level bombers like the He111 and the Do17 was most unimpressive in Norway, Dunkirk and Greece.


----------



## davebender (Jan 24, 2010)

Luftwaffe skip bombing - Google Search


> From an altitude of only 15m Oberleutnant Siegward Fiebig swept across the adjoining airfield, machine-gunning as he went and "skip-bombing" his four 250kg bombs off the wet grass and into the sheet metal shop and the work's technical school.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 24, 2010)

davebender said:


> Luftwaffe skip bombing - Google Search



BTW 'Bender' is a German name is it not ?

I had relatives who came to London at the turn of the C20 called Bender !


----------



## davebender (Jan 24, 2010)

My grandparents moved from Elsaß to the U.S. during 1912 to escape the French invasion which they considered inevitable.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 25, 2010)

German naval air theory in the years 1935-1939 supported the idea of an independent naval air arm with floatplanes, flying boats, and naval fighter planes cooperating directly with the Navy. However, the theory was rarely applied. Initially, land-based attacks by planes also proved ineffective. In late October 1936 Franco urged the Condor Legion to bomb Republican naval and supply ports. It did so with disappointing results. Over a year later in the Mediterranean, another attempt was made at maritime bombing to interdict Soviet shipping. This time the Condor Legion enjoyed greater success, its seaplanes raiding shipping at sea by day and in harbor by night. On Franco's orders, the maritime bombing attacks escalated into a full-scale offensive. As Willard C. Frank notes, "Raids became continuous, severely reduced the supplies needed to maintain the [Republican] civilian population, and did serve to undercut morale." By the end of the war in 1939. Italian and German aircraft had sunk 115 Republican and 51 foreign merchant ships, a total equal to nearly 75 percent of all enemy ships destroyed by those two countries during the entire war. Another 225 bombing sorties during this period damaged or delayed many Republican cargoes. choking off a source of the besieged population's food, clothing, fuel and medical supplies and producing increased misery and despair.

Dive bombers were intended as the basic instrument of enemy shipping's destruction. However, the only plane available at that time, the Ju87, originally had only a one-hundred mile operational radius, a factor which limited flight time. Legion pilots did ascertain that torpedo attacks and dive bombing were very promising. But the Luftwaffe developed neither a long-range dive bomber nor a torpedo bomber. The He59 and He115 floatplanes were intended to be torpedo bombers, but they never carried out an operation. The Germans were aware of their limitations, but because of their indifferent attitude, they failed to exploit the equipment at hand. The Air Staff believed that the larger German warships received adequate service from their Arado and Heinkel floatplanes. This helps to account for the nearsighted decision not to complete the German aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin. In any case, the High Command in 1937-39 believed that war with Great Britain could be avoided, and men like Ernst Udet did not believe that Germany would wage war against a maritime power like Great Britain. As an result of the maritime air war during the Spanish War, the Germans falsely deduced that ships underway did not need to fear aerial attack. Consequently, naval officers procrastinated dangerously on improvements for shipboard anti-aircraft defenses, and the air force failed to develop more effective strike methods. Overall, the Luftwaffe concluded that a separate naval air arm or indeed specialist anti-shipping units, were unneccessaary, By 1940, it had begun to be reabsorb into air force land-based squadrons of its fledgling naavl air arm. Specialist anti-shipping units were not really organized and deployed until after the outbreak of the war. 

As stated above, the Luftwaffe did not have a specialised anti-shipping unit at the beginning of the war . Just prior to Norway they began to train specialist units, which later was organised into FliegerKorps X.

The preferred method of attack remained divebombing throughout 1940 and 1941. Even aircraft like He 111s and Ju 88s tended to use shallow dives as a means of delivery, which I suspect is the reference to glide bombing often referred to in many texts.

However the German level bombers were generally unsuccessful against warships, though against slower and less manouverable merchant shipping they enjoyed some success. Up to May 1940, about 90000 tons of shipping was lost to air attacks....not that impressive, but worth noting. 

With level bombing proving to be inneffective, the Germans were dismayed to observe the high loss rates for the Divebomber units attached to FK X. Over Norwegian waters the RN AA cruisers had exposed the vulnerability of Divebombers to even light flak, and this continued throughout the war. One of the outcomes from this was the equipping of the Me110 units of FK X asa fighter bombers. In this role the Me 110 units enjoyed considereable success in the Med


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 25, 2010)

Good summary post, but I have few comments, if I may... 



parsifal said:


> But the Luftwaffe developed neither a long-range dive bomber nor a torpedo bomber.



And the Ju 88, which served as both...? It wasn't dubbed the 'Big Stuka' for no reason.. And practically all the German twins and even the He 177 was employed as torpedo bombers.



parsifal said:


> The He59 and He115 floatplanes were intended to be torpedo bombers, but they never carried out an operation. The Germans were aware of their limitations, but because of their indifferent attitude, they failed to exploit the equipment at hand.



I am afraid you are wrong in this, the Germans could and did operate these floatplanes in the torpedo bomber role early the war with some success. The limitations of the He 59 were clearly seen indeed, and it was replaced in the role by the He 115, and later, the Ju 88 and He 111.


----------



## davebender (Jan 25, 2010)

The Me-210C and Me-410A dive bombers entered service during early 1943 yet rarely served in that role. Perhaps after 4+ years of combat experience with dive bombers (including Spanish Civil War) the Luftwaffe had already decided that precision low level bombing was superior for most missions.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 25, 2010)

_And the Ju 88, which served as both...? It wasn't dubbed the 'Big Stuka' for no reason.. And practically all the German twins and even the He 177 was employed as torpedo bombers._

My understanding is that the Ju-88 was rarely used in the true divebombing configuration. To qualify as such, it would need to have dive angles greater than about 70 degrees. Was it capable and was it used to deliver attacks at these dive angles. 

Dives below 70 degrees are not generally considered true divebombing, though they are still quite accurate as a means of delivery

Regarding the use of German Twin engined aircraft as Torpedo Bombers, you are right, but none were able to undertake torpedo bombing at the beginning of the war. That cam e later, approximately October 1941 in fact is when the first marks able to carry torpedoes were delivered. 

_I am afraid you are wrong in this, the Germans could and did operate these floatplanes in the torpedo bomber role early the war with some success. The limitations of the He 59 were clearly seen indeed, and it was replaced in the role by the He 115, and later, the Ju 88 and He 111_.

Not until later oin the war. The first torpedo attacks were undertaken approximately October 1941, at first using Italian 17.7 inch torpedoes. Later the Germans developed and improved this aerial topredo. It is possible that He 115s and He59s were equipped to launch torpedoes, but I am unaware of even a single attack ever being made by these aircraft before 1941


----------



## riacrato (Jan 25, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> _When you say Fixed Cannons do you mean Bordkanone BK 37 ?_


No, I meant the 2 x MG 151 that replaced the 2 x MG 17 on the D-4 and D-5 variants.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 25, 2010)

riacrato said:


> No, I meant the 2 x MG 151 that replaced the 2 x MG 17 on the D-4 and D-5 variants.



Really ? Wow you learn something all the time with this forum - I never realised they put 15/20mm Cannon IN the wings of the Stuka - I always thought they were strapped on as pods where the outer bombs used to reside, sort of.


From Wikipedia :-


_The MG 151 (MG 151/15) was a 15 mm autocannon produced by Waffenfabrik Mauser starting in 1940. It was in 1941 developed into the 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon which was widely used on many types of German Luftwaffe fighters, fighter bombers, night fighters, ground attack and even bombers as part of or as their main armament during World War II._


----------



## Trebor (Jan 26, 2010)

cheddar cheese said:


> Naw sod that, the WRIGHT FLYER with a really fat man piloting it could do better



no way, scratch THAT Da Vinci's flying machine


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 26, 2010)

Trebor said:


> no way, scratch THAT Da Vinci's flying machine



You can't beat the ML Utility Plane Mk1 - later used as the basis for bouncy castles 

It really was the Ultimate (Pants)


----------

