# Stuka vs. Dauntless vs. Val vs. Skua vs. Il-2?



## Lucky13 (Sep 16, 2009)

How can an aircraft like the Stuka, that achieved so much under such a long time, and such a vide field in combat, be seen as a failure?

Just curious fellas....


----------



## beaupower32 (Sep 16, 2009)

I dont think it was considered a failure. It was a very accurate aircraft and had many many different roles. The airframe was adaptable to many differnt mods. Its just in the wars last few years or so it didnt have as much success due to enemy fighters. Being slow and cumbersum, it was easy prey. Rudel managed to be very successful in it. Looking at the Val and Dauntless, I see the Val as probably the worst of the 3. The dauntless was a work horse in its own right, and Rudel was qoted as saying when he saw a Dauntless in person "man, what I could have done with that".


----------



## imalko (Sep 16, 2009)

Who said Stuka was a failure?! Not in my opinion. Stuka was far better then people give her credit for. Just my opinion though. Not wishing to spark another heated discussion on the issue. Stuka has been discussed in detail on the forum before.

"I often visited the Stuka squadrons on their return from bombing over Warsaw, spoke with the crews about their impressions and inspected the damage where aircraft had been hit by flak. It was almost a miracle that some of them got home, so riddled were they with holes- halves of wings were ripped off, bottom planes were torn away, and fuselages disembowelled, with their contorls hanging by the thinest threads. Our thanks were due to Dr Koppenberg and his engeneers who produced such aircraft as the Ju 87 which was still in use in Russia in 1945."

Quote from "The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring", William Kimber Limited, London 1953​
Just a side note - if I'm not mistaken out of the aircraft listed in the title all were used as dive bombers except Ilyushin Il-2. So is it Sturmovik even comparable with other aircraft listed?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2009)

The problem is people look at how many were shot down in droves. The thing though is that the Stuka is no different than any dive bomber. If you do not have control of the skies, dive bombers are sitting ducks.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Sep 16, 2009)

I don't consider the Stuka a failure. Any dive bomber would have been blown out of the sky with no air cover, the Val and SBD are no different.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 16, 2009)

Agree with all comments....


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 16, 2009)

I agree with all here. The Ju-87 was extremely successful......When the Luftwaffe ruled the skies. Once it lost control, the Stuka became Ace bait.


----------



## proton45 (Sep 16, 2009)

I think that people frequently misunderstand the comment about the Stuka being an "outdated" design. Just because their where many innovation's in aircraft design that could have been built into a new Luftwaffe dive-bomber, doesn't mean that the Stuka was an ineffective aeroplane by 1942-1945. 

That and what "DerAdlerIstGelandet" said about Luftwaffe aeroplane losses....


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 16, 2009)

Agree with what these guys said. 

Beginning of the war Poland, France etc. it was a great plane, but once the allies regrouped and started launching raids and taking control of the air, the Stuka wouldn't be my first choice. Plus you have to take into consideration that the technology of fighters was becoming much more advanced. 

Overall I say IL-2


----------



## Clay_Allison (Sep 16, 2009)

with air superiority, the Ju 87 is an unholy terror. With enemy fighters in the area, that thing is an unmarked grave.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2009)

The Stuka, much like the Val, enjoyed a good deal of success as long as there was air superiority. In those conditions, they excelled at thier task.

Unlike the Stuka and Val, the Dauntless was capable of turning against it's attackers and while not a gunslinger by a long shot, they at least had a chance where the Stuka or the Val would be dead meat.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Sep 16, 2009)

I like the Stuka because it knew what it was. It was a damned good dive bomber. To hell with making a dive bomber that is also a bad fighter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 17, 2009)

That's the beauty of the SBD...it was exceptionally good at dive bombing, and when the enemy attacked it, it was able to fight it's way home in situations that would have seen the loss of the Val or the Stuka.

I've read of a few instances where a Stuka pilot was able to turn and face his attackers, but for the most part, that was the last act of defiance before they were taken out...


----------



## Glider (Sep 17, 2009)

All these aircraft were capable of performing well and did so. All were vulnerable to enemy fighters to a greater or lesser degree definately when pulling out of the dive but that was common to all.
The IL 2 wasn't pretty or sophisticated but was designed to take knocks and again needed air cover to do well.


----------



## proton45 (Sep 17, 2009)

I agree that the "SBD Dauntless" was one hell-a-va well built aeroplane, and it did really well against opposing pursuit fighters...But I wonder how much of this was due to Navy training and/or the presents of top-cover? For instance, the USAAF used 7 SBD-3's (A-24) on a mission against Buna on 7/29/42 and lost all but one divebomber to A6M2's (no top-cover)...

Why was the lightly built A6M2 able to bring down the A-24 (in this case)? Was the earlier (SBD) variant less well armored?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 17, 2009)

proton45 said:


> For instance, the USAAF used 7 SBD-3's (A-24) on a mission against Buna on 7/29/42 and lost all but one divebomber to A6M2's (no top-cover)...
> 
> Why was the lightly built A6M2 able to bring down the A-24 (in this case)? Was the earlier (SBD) variant less well armored?


The A-24 was used on a mission before that, at Bali and had better results. But here's something I find interesting about the A-24 versus the SBD: The A-24 was suffering from mechanical problems and poorer performance than the SBD...including a lack of armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks. So the A-24 was just begging for disaster. 

As far as I know, the SBD-3 onwards had armor self-sealing tanks plus later models had the additional .30 cal in the rear. (two .50 cal forward, one or two .30 cal rear)


----------



## Marcel (Sep 17, 2009)

Actually after the first few years, the Stuka's mission of divebombing was obsolete, not the aircraft itself. This role was taken over by fighterbombers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 17, 2009)

I agree...the battlefield mission was evolving, and multi-role aircraft were becoming an important asset


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 17, 2009)

_"....throughout this time the Junkers dive-bomber would be a steadily declining force on the field of battle, overtaken by events, overshadowed by the rise of the fighter-bomber and overwhelmed by the enemy's growing numerical superiority."_

...and from a young army officer in the desert....

_"Here, while I sit in the desert with an Me 110 circling overhead, the wireless broadcast of 0915 hours is telling us that the great feature of our recent operations here was that the RAF held complete mastery of the air by the simple procedure of preventing the enemy aircraft leaving the ground. This is completely untrue. In this regiment alone we had thirty casualties from air attack alone. It is true that from time to time the RAF makes a sortie and bombs known enemy aerodromes. But Jerry does not rely on them alone. He scatters his aircraft all over the desert, which is full of natural landing grounds and feeds and maintains them if necessary from the air. While our sorties are sporadic Jerry is always in the air watching every movement and attacking every target worthwile with bombs and machine-gun fire - and his needle bullets go through our armour. His army co-operation is fine - whenever he want air support his front line troops wireless 'Stuka' and give a map reference and it comes at once, whereas we have to apply through Brigade to Division and from them through ALO to RAF Command. When (and if) it comes it is two hours late and the whole situation has changed and the bombs are dropped in open desert, or as on more than one occasion, on our own troops." _

From the Stuka book I got yesterday.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 17, 2009)

The SBDs, Vals and Skuas were all used sucessfully as fighters, actually, albeit second line. The Skua in particular was effective at providing fleet defence at a time when officially the FAA air defence fighter was the Gladiator.

This is possibly the one thing that separates the Stuka from its compaetitors. As far as I know the Stuka was never considered a fighter, not even a second line fighter like the SBDs and the others. I suspect this was due to the defensive armamanebnt carried, the slow speed and the relatively poor performance of the Stuka even when divested of the offensive warload


----------



## proton45 (Sep 17, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> But here's something I find interesting about the A-24 versus the SBD: The A-24 was suffering from mechanical problems and poorer performance than the SBD...including a lack of armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks. So the A-24 was just begging for disaster.



Hmm, ya that is interesting...I wonder if the mechanical problems where a factory thing, or if it was a poor training/moral kind of thing?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 17, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The SBDs, Vals and Skuas were all used sucessfully as fighters, actually, albeit second line. The Skua in particular was effective at providing fleet defence at a time when officially the FAA air defence fighter was the Gladiator.



I wonder if this " success" was due as mutch to the opposition as to the merits of the aircraft involved.

THe Skua vrs Gladiator thing being a case in point. Skua used an engine not quite 10% more powerful yet weighed a ton more empty. One book claims the gladiator was over 20mph faster.

Providing "air defence" against flying boats, floatplanes and/or third line fighters (P-26's in he Philipines?) might have been a different enviroment than the Stuka was operating in.

I could be way off on this. Can anybody point to air combats of these aircraft against real fighters (not enemy fighter happened to fly in front of the dive bomber) or their use against 1st line bombers, even Vals intercepting SBDs or vice versa?


----------



## Juha (Sep 17, 2009)

Hello
Skua was designed as dive bomber/fighter but wasn't good in the latter job. IIRC Sea Gladiators were produced when it was found that Fleet AA wasn't good enough deterrent against bombers and because Skua was so lousy climber.

Val, as fighter, IIRC at least over Ceylon and at Midway. One of US fighter pilots recall that when he and some others attacked a sqn of unescorted Vals that after shooting down one he was surprised to see trackers flowing past his canopy. After a hard turn he noticed that it wasn't unobserved Zero, that was slipped behind him but a Val. F4F pilots later figured out that a couple of Vals had dropped their bombs and had began act as "fighter" escorts for the other Vals.

SBD, it was used as anti torpedoplane misiions at Coral Sea at least, also against Bettys during the attack on Yorktown or Enterprise during which O'Hare claimed 5 Bettys.

Stuka, one must remember that the fist plane shot down during WWII was a Polish P-11 fighter shot down by a Stuka.

Because the name of this tread incl Il-2, in 1942 sometimes some Il-2s were acting as escorts for others, ie they flew misiions without bombs and their main function was to try to protect other Il-2s againsrt Bf 109s.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Sep 17, 2009)

For a dive bomber the Skua didn't do badly as a fighter. A number of He111's were claimed as well as other aircraft such as the Do 18. Over Norway they claimed I believe nine He111's. No doubt the actual losses were less but unescorted bombing attacks were often driven off with losses.
The first FAA Ace was Lt Bill Lucy flying Skua's.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 17, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I could be way off on this. Can anybody point to air combats of these aircraft against real fighters (not enemy fighter happened to fly in front of the dive bomber) or their use against 1st line bombers, even Vals intercepting SBDs or vice versa?



Didn't the TV show 'Dogfights' do an episode on a SBD vs the A6M?


----------



## davebender (Sep 17, 2009)

> after the first few years, the Stuka's mission of divebombing was obsolete


I don't think so. You still need a way to place heavy bombs on relatively small targets. But we've had that discussion before....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> with air superiority, the Ju 87 is an unholy terror. With enemy fighters in the area, that thing is an unmarked grave.



Replace Ju 87 with any Dive Bomber...



GrauGeist said:


> Unlike the Stuka and Val, the Dauntless was capable of turning against it's attackers and while not a gunslinger by a long shot, they at least had a chance where the Stuka or the Val would be dead meat.



Just because it can do so from time to time, does not mean that it was suited for the task. More times tha not, even a Dauntless is going to end up in the drink if it is facing a real fighter.

Having said that, I think the Dauntless was the overall better aircraft. The Stuka however was 2nd to no one when it came to dive bombing.



Marcel said:


> Actually after the first few years, the Stuka's mission of divebombing was obsolete, not the aircraft itself. This role was taken over by fighterbombers.



+1


----------



## Marcel (Sep 17, 2009)

davebender said:


> I don't think so. You still need a way to place heavy bombs on relatively small targets. But we've had that discussion before....



Don't know where that discussion was or how it went, but I think the fact that dive-bombers were quickly replaced after (and even during) WWII speaks for itself, I think. Close air-support was beter done with fighter-bombers, aiming aids for level-bombers became better, torpedo's improved and they became the preferred way to attack ships. Overall I think the concept of dive-bombing became obsolete.


----------



## davebender (Sep 17, 2009)

What's wrong with the Me-410 dive bomber? The aircraft enters service during early 1943. Max speed (without bombs) of about 385 mph makes it difficult to intercept. It's even quite fast when carrying a 1,000kg payload in the bomb bay.

Obviously you need to make different decisions so most of the production doesn't get diverted to bomber interception.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 17, 2009)

davebender said:


> What's wrong with the Me-410 dive bomber? The aircraft enters service during early 1943. Max speed (without bombs) of about 385 mph makes it difficult to intercept. It's even quite fast when carrying a 1,000kg payload in the bomb bay.
> 
> Obviously you need to make different decisions so most of the production doesn't get diverted to bomber interception.



Many dive-bombers became easy prey for AA when attacking. Especially a big aircraft like the Ju87 or the Me410. There are many stories of Dutch AA gunners shooting down Ju87 after the first initial horror was over in 1940. They simply waited for the aircraft to pull out the dive and show their big wings. It was usually easy to predict where it would be and when.


----------



## Juha (Sep 17, 2009)

Hello Glider
I'm aware the successes of Skua during the Norwegian Campaign but as it's specifications included the secondary fighter role, IMHO it wasn't good at that notwitstanding what Lucy and co achieved. I think that pure dive bomber SBD would have been as effective fighter as Skua in same situation. IIRC Kates were too fast for SBD to be effectively intercepted but they got or at least finished off a couple Bettys and IIRC some of them at least gave as good as they got against Zeros at least once.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Sep 17, 2009)

I agree. An aircraft in a 90 degree dive is an easy target for light flak. However I suspect an aircraft flying at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees is a much more difficult target for flak while still retaining decent bomb accuracy.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 17, 2009)

> Didn't the TV show 'Dogfights' do an episode on a SBD vs the A6M?


Yup.....

A man I used to call Uncle Swede did something pretty amazing....


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnDjwXnj3Y_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1NTUzj7cGw_


----------



## Glider (Sep 17, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Glider
> I'm aware the successes of Skua during the Norwegian Campaign but as it's specifications included the secondary fighter role, IMHO it wasn't good at that notwitstanding what Lucy and co achieved. I think that pure dive bomber SBD would have been as effective fighter as Skua in same situation. IIRC Kates were too fast for SBD to be effectively intercepted but they got or at least finished off a couple Bettys and IIRC some of them at least gave as good as they got against Zeros at least once.
> 
> Juha



I think that all it proves, is that a fighter has to be designed as a fighter to be any good for all the obvious reasons. The Skua was first and foremost a dive bomber and it that role it was as good as most pre war designs. As a fighter is was as you rightly say it wouldn't last long against a modern single engined fighter


----------



## Clay_Allison (Sep 17, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Don't know where that discussion was or how it went, but I think the fact that dive-bombers were quickly replaced after (and even during) WWII speaks for itself, I think. Close air-support was beter done with fighter-bombers, aiming aids for level-bombers became better, torpedo's improved and they became the preferred way to attack ships. Overall I think the concept of dive-bombing became obsolete.


There is/was a school of thought disagreeing with that assessment. A well placed 500 pound bomb can do so much more to a high priority target than a few scattered ones and some strafing.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 17, 2009)

Dive bombers later in the war were not purpose built as such they used a lot of Spits and Typhoons in 2TAF


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 17, 2009)

According to the _ Navel Aviation Combat Statistics of WW2_ page 22. the SBD shot down 31 bombers and 107 fighters with a kill ratio of around 1 - 1.7 - I never had any idea. 

Over all I'd have to go with the SBD, but there is just something about the Stuke that just looks like a bad*** to me.


----------



## davebender (Sep 17, 2009)

The Ju-87 Stuka was operational during the late 1930s when it was badly needed for service in Spain, Poland, Norway, France, Greece and Crete. Being available when needed counts for a lot.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 17, 2009)

Another question for me is which of the dedicated divebombers was the most accurate. The French LN 40 series for example were reportedly poor in their stability, which affected their accuracy. I believe the Skua also suffered from this problem. I have reaqd areports that the accuracy of the D3A was as high as 80% with a trained pilot (against a moving target)....this was the hit ratio, apparently, achieved against the Cornwall and Dorsetshire.

I suspect the Stuka was the most accurate of the Divebombers. I have read it possessed special equipment to assist in bombing accuracy.


----------



## proton45 (Sep 18, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Yup.....
> 
> A man I used to call Uncle Swede did something pretty amazing....
> 
> ...




Its an amazing story...


----------



## Juha (Sep 18, 2009)

Hello Viking
But we must recon the overclaiming factor, which IIRC was rather high at least early on amongst SBD crews, at least according to Lundstrom. But I also think that SBDs could look after themselves better than Vals, Skuas or Ju 87s.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Sep 18, 2009)

> SBDs could look after themselves better than Vals, Skuas or Ju 87s.


240 mph. D3A Val.
255 mph. Ju-87D Stuka.
255 mph. SBD Dauntless. Most common version with 1,200 hp engine.

I think you are splitting hairs. The D3A, Ju-87 and SBD all have similiar max speed. All are sitting ducks for early WWII fighter aircraft with a 100+ mph speed advantage.

The 294 mph SB2C Helldiver did not become operational until November 1943. By then most fighter aircraft were pushing 400 mph. Hence it was not all that survivable either.

Unlike most dive bombers, the below aircraft were fast enough to make evasion of contemporary fighter aircraft possible once the bombs were gone.
357 mph. D4Y3 Judy. Mitsubishi MK8P 62 radial engine.
365 mph. A-36 Apache.
388 mph. Me-410A.


----------



## Juha (Sep 18, 2009)

Hello Dave
aircombat wasn't one dimensional. Speed alone, especially if one is still slower than enemy fighters, wasn't enough, look JNAF Judy losses during the late war carrier combats, if you don't believe me.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Sep 18, 2009)

I suspect most of those losses happened before the bombs were dropped. Nothing you can do about that except provide better fighter escort. Once the bombs are gone the F6F fighter would have a difficult time catching a Judy dive bomber.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 18, 2009)

davebender said:


> I agree. An aircraft in a 90 degree dive is an easy target for light flak. However I suspect an aircraft flying at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees is a much more difficult target for flak while still retaining decent bomb accuracy.



Sorry for a late reply...
Any info that backs that up? Since I've served 12 months as a crew member of the Praga twin 30mm I'm not sure your claim is correct.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 18, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Praga twin 30mm....



??


----------



## Milosh (Sep 18, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> ??



A Google search turned up this, M53/59 twin 30-mm self-propelled AA gun


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 18, 2009)

Just did..... 

On a sidenote.....how many of these except the Stuka, could carry a torpedo?


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 18, 2009)

Milosh said:


> A Google search turned up this, M53/59 twin 30-mm self-propelled AA gun




That's my baby, Milosh


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 18, 2009)

Picture:


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 18, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Just did.....
> 
> On a sidenote.....how many of these except the Stuka, could carry a torpedo?



Don't think torpedo was a standard livery for planes from our thread...


----------



## davebender (Sep 18, 2009)

Sounds like you are our resident expert. 

I am under the impression that a crossing shot against an aircraft is more difficult then a head on shot. Perhaps I am mistaken.


----------



## Juha (Sep 18, 2009)

Hello Dave
But the main aim of defending fighters was to catch the attacking bombers before they made their attack, and that was especially true to carrier fighters because, as one has said, carriers were eggshells with tremendous firepower. Anyway, if there were extra Hellcats or the attack was clearly ending you have some surviving Judys low down with some extra speed, the use of divebrakes had inhibit them to gain too much extra speed and Hellcats higher and nearer to their full throttle height. If Hellcat pilots were able to see the Judys IMHO almost unprotected and weakly armed Judys would not have much a chance against Hellcats coming downhill after them. I doubt that smallwinged Judy was even very manoeuvrable.

Juha


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 18, 2009)

Ouch, that'll leave a mark!


----------



## proton45 (Sep 19, 2009)

davebender said:


> 240 mph. D3A Val.
> 255 mph. Ju-87D Stuka.
> 255 mph. SBD Dauntless. Most common version with 1,200 hp engine.
> 
> ...



The figures I have for the D3A are 267 mph Stuka 242 mph...




Juha said:


> If Hellcat pilots were able to see the Judys IMHO almost unprotected and weakly armed Judys would not have much a chance against Hellcats coming downhill after them. I doubt that smallwinged Judy was even very manoeuvrable.
> 
> Juha



The reputation of the Judy was that it had good maneuverability due to the low wing loading...it was still a sitting duck (lol), but the maneuverability was suppose to be good...


I go with the opinion that, all things being equal, every dive bomber is vulnerable to offensive action. Without fighter escort any dive bomber was a sitting duck to a well trained pursuit aircraft of their respective era or theater. 

*That being said...I have always been a fan of the Stuka, it is a cool looking aerocraft and it single handedly gave birth to the mystique of the dive bomber as an instrument of destruction fear...*


----------



## Milosh (Sep 19, 2009)

I know it is not one of the planes mentioned but there is the A-36, a fighter converted to a dive bomber.


----------



## Juha (Sep 19, 2009)

Hello Proton
Judys wingloading wasn’t very low, it had 23,6m2 / 254.027 sq.ft wing area ie its wing loading for D4Y-2 was 158,6kg/m2 32,6lb/sq.ft at normal t/o weight, almost 50% higher than that of D3A-2 Val. But powerloading of D4Y-2, 2,4kg/hp, was almost 20% better than that of D3A-2 Val.

SBD had better wing loading with 325 sq.ft / Gross: 9352lb (-5), 9407lb (-3) Max: 10 700lb (-5), 10 400 (-3) but worse powerloading. But it had armour and self-sealing fuel tanks which Judy didn't have.

The speed, it depends on version
D3A-1, 240mph
D3A-2, 267mph
Ju87R-2, 211 mph
Ju-87D-1, 249mph
Ju-87D-5, 255mph
SBD-3, 250mph
SBD-5, 255mph

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 19, 2009)

davebender said:


> Sounds like you are our resident expert.
> *
> Thanks, most kind of you *
> 
> ...



.


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2009)

> The speed, it depends on version
> D3A-1, 240mph
> D3A-2, 267mph
> Ju87R-2, 211 mph
> ...


Leaving aside the limited production Ju-87R (Long range variant), max speed for all these dive bombers falls within a 27 mph range. I doubt that makes much difference.

The D4Y, A-36 and Me-410A have max speeds that average 100 mph faster. That equates to a huge increase in survivability vs enemy fighter aircraft. 

Apparently there is no defense against light flak except crew armor and luck.


----------



## Juha (Sep 19, 2009)

Hello Dave
Quote:” The D4Y, A-36 and Me-410A have max speeds that average 100 mph faster. That equates to a huge increase in survivability vs enemy fighter aircraft.”

Still have not seen any proof that Judys were hugely more survivable than D3A-2 Vals. A-36 was entirely different bird, being in essence a fighter modified to dive bomber and IIRC at least in MTO during Sicily campaign they wired its dive brakes permanently shut, so it was used as fighter bomber. Me 410, much bigger plane and I have no recollection on its use as dive-bomber. IIRC Me 210s were used in bombing operations during Tunisia campaign but I have no recollection how effective they were or the dive angle used, whether they were used as dive bombers or as fighter bombers like P-47s or Spits and Typhoons which could also dive bomb but not as accurately as real dive bombers.


----------



## Glider (Sep 19, 2009)

I recognise that this is a digression but I came across this claim in an account of the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. It was written by Mr. IIZUKA Tokuji who took part in the attack.

I mention it here as its to do with a Val dogfighting with a P40 during the attack.

The carrier bombers of the Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu of the First Air Fleet had received superior training so they were instructed to attack the vessels in the harbor. The training level of the crews on the carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku was somewhat less than the other four carriers therefore they had been assigned the airfields as targets. It turned out that one airfield, a small one near to Wheeler, was left untouched. So, when the Second Wave arrived, these P-40s, about ten undamaged ones, came up to intercept us.
Pilot GOTOH Gen, in the Akagi dive-bomber group and who had participated in the attack with us, engaged one of these P-40s in an air duel. Both ended up shooting each other down off Honolulu. The enemy plane went down and so did ours. Because we had observed this air duel, both were credited as having been shot down. About two years ago, a part of the plane piloted by GOTOH was salvaged out of the ocean. Author HENMI Jun wrote in her book that the piece found was identified as being from the GOTOH plane.

Attached is a link to the entire article and I recommend it to anyone, I found it fascinating as you don't often find eye witness accounts from the Japanese side. Another must read part is the pre war training which involved totally unexpected items such reading the palms of future pilots, you cannot make it up.

Kanbaku War Notes


----------



## proton45 (Sep 19, 2009)

Thanks "Glider" that was a good read....


----------



## renrich (Sep 19, 2009)

Not sure exactly why but in actions where SBDs and SB2Cs were used , the SBD had a much better survivability record. On paper, the SB2C had better performance and better armament but it was not as suvivable nor as effective a dive bomber as the SBD. The Corsair was a more accurate dive bomber than the SB2C. I question how many dive bombers actually dived at 90 degrees. To the pilot an 85 or 80 degree dive must have felt like you were going straight down.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 19, 2009)

That was a pretty good read.


----------



## Glider (Sep 19, 2009)

renrich said:


> To the pilot an 85 or 80 degree dive must have felt like you were going straight down.



I have never tried a 85 degree dive, but have had to do a number of approaches in a 50/60 degree dive and you learn to hold your nerve. Teaching trainees to do it is always an interesting experience, as you can never be certain that they won't freeze.


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2009)

> The Corsair was a more accurate dive bomber than the SB2C.


Could the Corsair drop a 1,000 lb bomb at a 45 degree angle?


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 19, 2009)

davebender said:


> Could the Corsair drop a 1,000 lb bomb at a 45 degree angle?


Why not from accounts I've read even the Spits were tasked dive bombing and believe even with the 1000lb bomb in later Normandy


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 20, 2009)

How do you know, in which angle your dive is in a dive bomber and did they all have a automatic system, in which where you've dropped your bomb the aircraft started to climb?


----------



## proton45 (Sep 20, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> How do you know, in which angle your dive is in a dive bomber and did they all have a automatic system, in which where you've dropped your bomb the aircraft started to climb?



They painted an angle line on the cockpit glass...when the line is "lined-up" with the horizon you are diving at a predetermined angle...


----------



## davebender (Sep 20, 2009)

I don't think you need this for a 45 degree dive. However I suspect dive brakes are always useful as they allow you to dive at a slower speed, increasing weapon accuracy.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 20, 2009)

The Stuka had a dive angle indicator on the side of the canopy that had inclinations from 30° to 90° and it also possesed an autopilot system that had an indicator that signaled time to pull out of the dive as well as a component of the system that held the aircraft in a "pullout" condition until the pilot recovered from the potential force of 6g.


----------



## proton45 (Sep 20, 2009)

davebender said:


> *I don't think you need this for a 45 degree dive*. However I suspect dive brakes are always useful as they allow you to dive at a slower speed, increasing weapon accuracy.



Tell it to the "RML"...


----------



## renrich (Sep 20, 2009)

The Corsair could and did dive bomb at 80 degrees or so and tests by the Navy showed it was almost as accurate as the SBD and more accurate than the SB2C.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 20, 2009)

I'm curious, how did they aim, just point the nose at the target?


----------



## davebender (Sep 20, 2009)

80 degrees is plenty. Now you just need dive brakes to improve bombing accuracy. Then you could cancel the Skyraider divebomber program.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 20, 2009)

But could it carry anywhere near as much as the "Spad", or stay on target for the same amount of time?


----------



## renrich (Sep 20, 2009)

The Corsair did have dive brakes. There was a setting where the landing gear was partially put down and there was a flat plate which acted as a dive brake. The Corsair was first used as a dive bomber on March 18, 1944. eight F4Us of VMF 111 based on Makin drop 1000 bombs on Mille. It was found that the AC could be used safely in dives up to an angle of 85 degrees. The dive brake option could not be used above 225 knots. The recorded percentage of hits on a 76 M target circle is only about 7 % less than the SBD. I believe that the max bomb load ever carried by the Corsair was 4000 pounds. The AD could carry a substantially bigger load.


----------



## davebender (Sep 20, 2009)

I'm not suggesting the F4U would remain the standard American CAS aircraft for the next 20 years. But it's plenty good enough to finish WWII. This allows you to skip the Skyraider and transition directly to new technology during the late 1940s. Something like the turboprop powered A2D Skyshark.

A2D Skyshark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 20, 2009)

The Skyraider had many capabilities that the Corsair didnt have.

I will agree with your statement about the F4U taking over the dive bombing mission during WW2, but once the Skyraider joined the fleet, then it was a diffferent "ball game".

And the fact that the Skyraider soldiered on in many different missions all the way till the mid 70's, while the Corsair faded away rapidly after Korea, only underscores that when it came to attack, the The "Able Dog" was the more successfull of the two.


----------



## proton45 (Sep 20, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The Skyraider had many capabilities that the Corsair didnt have.
> 
> I will agree with your statement about the F4U taking over the dive bombing mission during WW2, but once the Skyraider joined the fleet, then it was a diffferent "ball game".
> 
> And the fact that the Skyraider soldiered on in many different missions all the way till the mid 70's, while the Corsair faded away rapidly after Korea, only underscores that when it came to attack, the The "Able Dog" was the more successfull of the two.



I thought that one of the main reasons it stayed in service for so long was that their was nothing to replace it... Didn't the "Brass" (or bean counters) assume that the (multi-purpose) jet powered fighters would be the next wave in ground support? However practical use, in combat, showed that the Skyraider was more durable then the jet aeroplanes...I believe that even during the Vietnam war it was being phased out of use, and the South Vietnamese airforce was being trained to take over duty's.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Sep 20, 2009)

I'd like to see the F4U carry the 8000 pounds that the A-1 could. The Skyraider was a beast that excelled in so many roles that they eventually rplaced it with 3 planes.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 20, 2009)

How successful were the Corsairs and Skyraiders in the divebombing role. Was the Corsair used in the final destruction of the Japanese fleet in 1945. Wasnt the Yamato destroyed by Helldivers and TBFs, and not Corsairs. Sometimes to judge the success of a type you have to look at the operational history of a type, and the success it enjoyed in that role. The Skyraider was a very capable aircraft, and it would have been very interesting to see it in its intended first line role during the war. But its excellent service post war had more to do with miscalculations by the US procurement machine, than any outstanding qualities of the aircrat itself. Dont get me wrong, the Skyraider did very well, but not as a first line ship killer. It was primarily retained because of its cost effectiveness, and because it could undertake the COIN mission due to its low speed and relative inexpesive nature. 

Whilst the Corsair was an effective Fighter Bomber/Divebomber, I seriously doubt it had the same capabilities, accuracy range (when loaded with offensive ordinance) as a dedicated attack craft. The Corsair is one of my favourite aircraft, but there are reasons why dedicated attack aircraft are retained and new designs rolled out. Multi-role aircraft are generally a "jack of all trades" and a master of none


----------



## JoeB (Sep 20, 2009)

First, as we've covered before there aren't solid statistics to really say the F4U was equal as a dive bomber to purpose built a/c. That was an opinion of some Marine units bombing cut-off Japanese garrisons where you went back and bombed the same stuff day after day for months, and the bombings accomplished little anyway, not operations from which to make sweeping extrapolations IMO. 

The majority of USN bomb sinkings of ships by carrier type a/c were by dive bombers, and many others by glide bombing TBF/TBM's, actual sinkngs of sizeable ships by bombing by fighter bombers (F6F and F4U) were not very common. In fact the largest number for any single type was by the SB2C, despite its mixed reputation, simply because it was the dominant dive bomber type when the number of operational carrier groups was largest and the groups achieved vast numbers of sinkings (when including merchant and minor warship types) in 44-45; and VB units specialized in dive bombing as their main reason to exist, not like VF/VBF and VT units of late war which tried to be proficient in a wider range of missions.

On AD v F4U, one big difference was vulnerability to AA, back to that old topic. The F4U's loss rate in Korea was far higher, and universally recognized as such. The AD was legendarily tough. In the F4U v F6F case the difference in loss rates to AA might be surprising when first seen in the stats, but for F4U v AD it shouldn't be surprising at all. The AD had, of course, no opportunity, to speak of, to prove itself a ship killer. But it was a true dive bomber, and when attacking big bridges in Korea with carrier groups, the AD's directly attacked them with 2000#, while F4U's did flak suppression with 500 or 1000; they couldn't practically carry 2000#'ers. No contest for true dive bombing of big tough target, and in general the AD had much more to offer plane for plane for the air-ground missions performed in Korea; although it was a substantially larger plane of course, took up more space, cost more, burned more gas, etc.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Sep 21, 2009)

As JB says, the major damage done to IJN ships by air was done by the AC on the scene. The Helldiver comprised most of the dive bomber squadrons in the US Navy in the latter part of the war and it consequently was in on the kill of a number of IJN ships. Based on the Helldiver's record and this is pure supposition on my part, we are fortunate that the SB2C was not operational in 1942-43 in place of the SBD. We may not have had the success in the early carrier to carrier battles. To me, comparing the Corsair and the AD is a little like comparing Labrador Retrievers and Pit Bulls. One was designed for killing enemy AC and the other for killing enemy installations and personnel on the ground. The Corsair happened to be a pretty good air to ground AC but was not in the same class with the AD. The AD could be formidable in a dogfight, because of it's maneuverabilty with it's dive brakes and if it was light but was not in the class of the Corsair air to air. I know a former Navy pilot who flew both in Korea. All of his experience was air to ground. We were discussing the merits of the two, AD and F4U one day while playing golf and I mentioned that the F4U was about 100 mph faster than the AD and he looked at me as if "what does that matter and you don't know what you are talking about" which was most certainly true. He did tell me about a time that upon receiving a wave off in a Corsair he poured on the coal and found himself inverted. Obviously he survived.


----------



## Juha (Sep 21, 2009)

What I recall is that most bad problems of SB2C were corrected do the course and at least SB2C-4 was a decent plane, I cannot recall how it was with -3. But anyway SB2C IIRC was never liked by pilots as SBD was.

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 22, 2009)

The Captain off USS Yorktown CV-10 said that the only good use for the "beast" would be as a anchor....and promptly swapped them for SBD's in '43.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 22, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> The Captain off USS Yorktown CV-10 said that the only good use for the "beast" would be as a anchor....and promptly swapped them for SBD's in '43.


SB2C-1's with plenty of serious outright bugs. Debugged a/c later had a more subtle variation in reputation. Some pilots liked the SB2C, two examples in autobiographies are Don Engen and Harold Buell but they were legendary and notable naval aviators, respectively. They agreed the SC2C was not easy to fly for the typical mass production WWII pilot. The SB2C's operational loss rate in carrier ops was around 1%, compared to around .8 for SBD, both for whole war, but operating practice and the general carrier aviation learning curve meant that operational loss rates early in the war were generally higher, so that understates the SBD's advantage. But SB2C's sank a lot of ships, the a/c was definitely capable of performing its mission. IMO its shortcomings are sometimes overstated as part of a sentimental story line featuring the SBD, which tends to be overrated in part based on claims of its supposed successes against enemy fighters few of which check out in Japanese records, and its genuine right place at the right time successes at Midway.

Joe


----------



## Glider (Sep 22, 2009)

I am sure that I read somewhere that the SB2-C stood for *S*on of a *B*itch *2*nd *C*lass


----------



## renrich (Sep 22, 2009)

Another thing that understates the SBD's advantage is that the SBD was used a whole lot more when the IJN had effective CAPs. The Helldiver faced not nearly as much aerial opposition. I think I recall reading that during the Battle Of the Philipine Sea, one of the factors in the SB2C's high losses was that they were not as fuel efficient as the SBDs.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 22, 2009)

renrich said:


> Another thing that understates the SBD's advantage is that the SBD was used a whole lot more when the IJN had effective CAPs. The Helldiver faced not nearly as much aerial opposition. I think I recall reading that during the Battle Of the Philipine Sea, one of the factors in the SB2C's high losses was that they were not as fuel efficient as the SBDs.




I am not sure about that. During the last year of the war, the US lost a lot of ships, because of the Kamikazes. But the Kamikazes were just a part of Japanese equation, there were still a lot of conventional operations occurring as well. It follows that the CAP and fighter elements in the IJN/JAAF would also be vastly thickened up as well.

The air flotilla that over-ran Malya and South east asia (excluding the Philipinnes), had just 25 Zeroes initially to undertake their operations. These were elite pilots, as their kill rates testify. But even if each pilot at that time was worth 5 pilots in 1944, the 5000 or so zeroes/other first line fighters they had at their disposal at that time were still a greater threat to US aircraft than the 25-50 put in the air in 1942. This of course omits tyhe aircraft attached to the carriers and the the main fighter force over the Phillipinnes.

Nevertheless, in 1941, the IJN had less than 1300 aircraft at their disposal. The average flying experience of their pilots was 500 hours. In 1944, roughly speaking, the IJN had over 5000 aircraft, and about the same for the JAAF. The average flying experience for their aircrew by thet time had dropped to about 150 hour. If there is a direct correlation between flying hours and effectiveness, then in 1944 terms, the 1941 IJN air wing was the equivalent to onlly 4300 1944 aircraft


----------



## renrich (Sep 22, 2009)

If one reads Lundstrom's books about the Pacific war in 1942, the SBDs time and time again went up against formidable IJN CAPs with very small numbers of escort fighters of their own. At the Mariiana's Turkey Shoot Japanese fighter protection was minimal and the US strike force had good escort fighter protection. During attacks on Musashi and Yamato that ultimately sank them there was little Japanese fighter opposition. The SB2Cs flew 18808 action sorties in the Pacific from carriers and lost 18 to enemy AC. The SBD flew 6048 action sorties from carriers and lost 43 to enemy AC. The SBD had 106 EA kills and the SB2C had 43 EA kills. It looks to me that the SBD had substantially more enemy fighter oppositon than the SB2C. In fact, perhaps Churchill's praise of the RAF during the BOB could equally be applied to the SBD.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 22, 2009)

The claims for kills as always need to be treated with a great deal of circumpection. Usually, claimed kills are inflated four or five times those that are actually shot down. Moreover, Ive noticed that earlier in the war, these inflated claims weere actually far worse than the claims for later in the war. 

It makes sense that the Musashi and Yamato were not provided with fighter cover. By the time these ships were lost, there were no Japanese carriers to help, and the land based air was being concentrated on other tasks. Protecting ships by that stage was not a priority for the IJN. They needed to concentrate their resources in defending the beachheads, and the cities of Japan. 

Moreover the numbers are, what the numbers are. Whatever the claims about the strength of the japanese defences, they just were never there. Rabaul, for example, until well after the August landings on Guadacanal could only ever call on approximately 40 fighters at any given time. Kinda brings the massive superiority of the US into perepective when you find this out. 

The key question is this.....are a few highly trained aviators better than a mass of half trained recruits? Its difficult to say, because by 1944, the Americans had two things in thgeir advantage....numbers and quality. In '42, their fleet based CAGS were about equal, as were their numbers, to the Japanese. So the balance of power had changed, making the equation hard to quantify


----------



## JoeB (Sep 23, 2009)

It's true that SBD's faced more fighter opposition early in the war than SB2C's did later (or than SBD's did later for that matter), but the sortie loss rate of SBD's to enemy a/c was higher too, only naturally. So this is a true statement historically, more fighter opposition v SBD's, but I don't know if it really establishes anything solid in comparing the two planes. 

But just taking the SBD, there's no question its reputation is inflated wrt actual success shooting down enemy fighters, which didn't actually happen very often. Also, the SBD's actually didn't face concentrated fighter opposition in that many cases. That was partly one of the inherent advantages of the dive bomber concept at the time, v. carrier groups without radar (Coral Sea and Midway) or relatively primitive radar and radar fighter direction doctrine (iEastern Solomons and Santa Cruz where the IJN TF's had radar but were less practiced in its use as a system with fighters than USN; the USN itself had a long way to go in that respect compared to later on). Remember in the 1930's some planners concluded radar-less carriers and their fighters could seldom hope to intercept attacks before it was too late, one reason the RN didn't emphasize carrier fighter performance pre WWII. In the carrier battles of '42 only the VS-8/VB-8 strike at Santa Cruz was really heavily engaged by Zeroes without escort (and did come off fairly well, actually downed a Zero in that case, while several SBD's were downed or disabled but they still completed the strike). The use of SBD's as defensive a/c at Coral Sea was a heroic story, but a disaster in terms of outcomes v Zeroes. And in the Guadalcanal campaign, Marine and Navy SBD's were more often than not going after Japanese ships outside the effective range of land based Zero CAP's, though not always. Also SBD scouts in carrier v carrier ops had some interesting run ins with Zeroes and proved often survivable (though again their own claims seldom check out). So in sum, in its 'golden year' of 1942 the SBD was relatively rarely subjected to concentrated fighter attack without escort. Still, losses to fighters were more common than ca. 1944-5 when concentrated fighter attacks on USN attack a/c had become highly exceptional.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Sep 23, 2009)

The surprising thing to me about studying SBD versus SB2C is how few action sorties the SBD flew from carriers by Navy pilots. One thinks of the carrier war and the SBD stands out because of Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, et al. But some 6000 carrier based sorties for SBD versus over 18000 for the SB2C. That is a huge difference. Of course, when the SBD was the dive bomber, the US had few operational carriers so with only two bombing squadrons per carrier, they could not fly too many sorties. The other surprising fact is that land based Marines flew more than 40000 sorties in SBDs while land based Navy flew more than 5000 sorties, almost as many as carrier based by Navy. I just have never thought of the SBD as a Marine piloted AC flying from land. One thing for sure the American taxpayer got his money's worth when he paid for carrier based SBDs in WW2.


----------



## VG-33 (Sep 25, 2009)

renrich said:


> The Corsair did have dive brakes. ...The dive brake option could not be used above 225 knots. The recorded percentage of hits on a 76 M target circle is only about 7 % less than the SBD. I believe that the max bomb load ever carried by the Corsair was 4000 pounds. The AD could carry a substantially bigger load.



Well this is interesting. Have you got the ful trials data. Number of trials, number of hits, gauss curves, mid-distance from the circle?


----------



## renrich (Sep 25, 2009)

My sources are from "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" and from "Corsair" by Barrett Tillman. The complete tests are not there. However, one of the sources mentions that the Corsair could dive even steeper than SBD, 85 degrees versus 70 degrees. The Corsair from several sources was a very steady diving AC. I am speaking from memory now but I remember reading that the P51, in a dive, had to be constantly retrimed. To a certain extent that may be true of all AC but I believe us "experts" on this forum often neglect the issue of controllability or control harmony in our learned debates about superiority of our "pet" fighter. Seems to me that aerial gunnery would be heavily influenced by those factors.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 26, 2009)

Didn't it happen more often than not, that they dived at almost 90 degrees with the SBD or Stuka?


----------



## VG-33 (Sep 26, 2009)

renrich said:


> My sources are from "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" and from "Corsair" by Barrett Tillman. The complete tests are not there. However, one of the sources mentions that the Corsair could dive even steeper than SBD, 85 degrees versus 70 degrees. The Corsair from several sources was a very steady diving AC. I am speaking from memory now but I remember reading that the P51, in a dive, had to be constantly retrimed. To a certain extent that may be true of all AC but I believe us "experts" on this forum often neglect the issue of controllability or control harmony in our learned debates about superiority of our "pet" fighter. Seems to me that aerial gunnery would be heavily influenced by those factors.



Thank you,

At the same time, slow divers were quoted as more accurate divers because they could launch bombs at lower altitude.
So the Stuka was diving from 5/6 km to 1 km, when it was lauching is bomb at 560km/h.
For the Pe-2, it was from 7/8 km to 2.5 km, and up to 870 km/h. The accuracy at that speed was extremly difficult to obtain even by the common work of 2 crew members. 

So inceasing both speed and weight numbers, you're increasing also the lowest critical height (or minimal distance to recover from a dive) to launch the bomb. And difficulty to aim. It's why Corsair accuracy performance against the SBD is quite surprising.

Regards


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 26, 2009)

Has anyone considered the Typhoon or better known to its crews as the Bombphoon its load was 2 1000lb bombs


----------

