# Best Dive Bomber of WWII



## V-1710 (Nov 29, 2005)

I vote for the Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 29, 2005)

Me too.


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 29, 2005)

I almost wanted to say the Junkers JU-87, but it was only effective if there was NO competent opposing fighters in the area. The Dauntless not only sunk a substantial number of Japanese warships, but managed to have the lowest loss ratio of any U.S. Navy carrier-born aircraft. I have heard that Dauntless also shot down a fair number of Zeros as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2005)

V-1710 said:


> I have heard that Dauntless also shot down a fair number of Zeros as well.



It sure did, eh Syscom?!?  

We had this discussion on another thread, "Swede" Vejtasa, got his first three kills as the pilot of a Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless dive bomber with VS-5


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 29, 2005)

Well, I have bought a book about the IJN fighter groups and aces, and so far, the Dauntless claims for the Zero's dont add up.

There were plenty of exaggerations on both sides apparently.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 29, 2005)

the ju87 was the one from 39 - 45 it caused the most havoc was far more multi role capable it was a tank buster it sunk a lot of naval tonnage severely damaging carrier illustrious sinking the formidable it sunk a couple of Russian battleships and flew in a far more intensive area of action not to demean the us pacific naval war


----------



## trackend (Nov 30, 2005)

SBD5 is my choice. faster better bombload to range ratio than the JU87


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 30, 2005)

I have read where Dauntless pilots commented that the SBD was easier to fly than the SNJ (AT-6) trainers. The only comments on the JU-87's flight characteristics I have read were quite negative. Twin .50's in the nose, twin .50's in the rear cockpit, and capable of very abrupt turns and changes in speed (I guess it was due to all that flap area) made for a dangerous dive bomber to try to attack. [/b]


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 30, 2005)

Dauntless for me too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 30, 2005)

damn it why did the RAF have any decent dive bombers


----------



## Andrew (Nov 30, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> the ju87 was the one from 39 - 45 it caused the most havoc was far more multi role capable it was a tank buster it sunk a lot of naval tonnage severely damaging carrier illustrious sinking the formidable it sunk a couple of Russian battleships and flew in a far more intensive area of action not to demean the us pacific naval war



If you a are talking about the carrier HMS Formidable, she suffered severe damage, by 2 1000kg bombs dropped by Stuka's on the 26th May, and was out of the war for 6 months.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2005)

Ju-87...Mmmmm...


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 30, 2005)

yeah the stukas only damaged Formidable, my error but still the stuka fought in a much more intense theatre of combat and still performed well


----------



## MacArther (Nov 30, 2005)

The Vengance and the Dautless. The Vengance because it had larger amounts of forward firepower, the Dautless because it was the coolest and did the job very well. Another point for the Vengance, it had a top level speed of 365mph according to the text I found it in.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 30, 2005)

I would go for the Ju-88. It performed well in dive attacks and could 
fullfill a number of roles the Ju-87 couldn´t do. For single engined I am impressed by the max 1.4 tons of bombs as a huge payload for a single engined plane such as Stuka, but the Dauntless is technically better.


----------



## JCS (Nov 30, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I would go for the Ju-88. It performed well in dive attacks



Where'd you hear that?  

Everything I've seen says the Ju88 wasnt stable enough to dive bomb.....


----------



## JCS (Nov 30, 2005)

I'd have to go with the Val as the best dive bomber. Despite being obsolete it sunk more allied warships than any other axis aircraft of the war.


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 30, 2005)

Vengence vs. SB2C. And throw the Brewster Buccaneer in there, too, for 2nd. best U.S. Navy dive bomber. Sure, the JU-88 was a dive bomber, with someone like Douglas Bader on it's tail. Problem was they never pulled out......


----------



## elmilitaro (Nov 30, 2005)

The dauntless gets my vote.


----------



## Glider (Nov 30, 2005)

I would go for the Vengence. It was robust and served well on land up to the end of the war. It also had a decent load and was well armed and protected.


----------



## book1182 (Nov 30, 2005)

Val all the way!!! Must I remind you of what it did at Pearl Habor??? It even had a little Stuka in it. Being that it was helped designed by the same people. Biggest notice being the fixed landing gear. It also had some of the best pilots. Their hit accuracy was something like 80% at the beginning of the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Well, I have bought a book about the IJN fighter groups and aces, and so far, the Dauntless claims for the Zero's dont add up.
> 
> There were plenty of exaggerations on both sides apparently.



Well what information does this book have? - compare it to what Leonard could come up with...


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 30, 2005)

Im going to be scholarly about it. Im going to check with some Japanese warbirds experts to see what they say.

Erich inspired me to be cautious about accepting allied claims at face value.


Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War 2.
by Ikuiko Hata and Yasuho Izawa
translated by Don Cyril Gorham.
Naval Institute Press, 1989


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 30, 2005)

The Val had little opposition at Pearl Harbor. Didn't do too well at Midway, and was not used much after (maybe there wasn't any left?).


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 30, 2005)

The Val was responsible for damage done to the carriers, USS Yorktown (Coral Sea and Midway), USS Hornet (Santa Cruz), USS Enterprise (Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz).

It also inflicted punishment on the Royal Navy in the Indian Ocean operations in March 1942.

Another battle where it was used with great success was the Darwin raid of April 1942.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Im going to be scholarly about it. Im going to check with some Japanese warbirds experts to see what they say.
> 
> Erich inspired me to be cautious about accepting allied claims at face value.



Ah! the old master inspires many!


----------



## V-1710 (Dec 1, 2005)

Still not convinced the D3A was a better aircraft than the SBD. The Val was based on the Heinkel He-70. Here's some comparisons:
Top speed for the D3A was [email protected] 20,000 ft., vs. 255 for the SBD-6 at 25,000 ft.. Max. T/O wieght was 9,519# for the SBD, vs. 8,047# for the D3A. Armament for the SBD-6 was 2 .50's in the nose, 2 .30's on a flexible mount at the rear cockpit. For the D3A, 2 7.7mm in the nose, 1 7.7 at the rear. Bomb load show a big advantage for the SBD, with 1,600# on the center rack, and up to 650# on the wings. The D3A typically carried one 551# on the center rack, with 2 132# on each wing. I think all this shows an advantage for the SBD. I am trying to evaluate only the merits of each aircraft, and not the service records, as there are usually far too many variables in combat to decisively say which aircraft was 'better'. Consider the Swordfish! On paper, an obsolete aircraft to say the least, but extremely effective in use (I give a great amount of credit to the Swordfish crews).


----------



## delcyros (Dec 1, 2005)

If we take tactics into consideration tahn the dive attack was obsolete from mid 42 (latest) onwards. A Dive bombing was useful in times when reliable bombsights were unavaiable. From mid 42 on, almost all air forces developed reliable bombsights and other planes began to fullfill the dive bombers original role to attack a ground or sea target with (almost) pinpoint accuracy. 
SBD´s , Val´s Stuka´s began to strike without entering a dive. We should rather count them from 43 onwards as tactical bombers. Referring to dive qualities and technical abilities I expect that the He-118 could beat the Ju-87 on nearly every point, but the Ju-87 was the one to enter production.
The Vengance was better than SBD but by it´s time it almost became obsolete in it´s originally intended role...


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 1, 2005)

The Dive bomber was the ship killer of the PTO.

The only time the dive bomber became obsolete in the PTO is when the IJN fleet ceased to exist.

I have heard that USN Helldiver's did quite well against Japanese industrial targets in the Carrier raids against the japanese homeland in 1945. In fact, they put more bombs on target than the B29's did.


----------



## V-1710 (Dec 1, 2005)

With regard to the He-118, I think I remember reading somewhere that the main reason the Ju-87 was selected over the He-118 was because Ernst Udet crashed the He-118 prototype due to a malfunctioning variable-pitch propeller. The Ju-87 won by default. What of the Ju-187?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 2, 2005)

The Ju-187 was seen to have little advantage over the normal -87 and therefore was not put into production...Also I think the rotating tailfin would have been a recipe for disaster...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 2, 2005)

looked mighty fine though, by that point though the -87 was being used uncreasingly less for actual dive bombing and it's unlike the -187 would've done a huge ammount of dive bombing...........


----------



## delcyros (Dec 2, 2005)

That´s my estimation, too. The taildesign would have become a problem.
The crash of Udet, while piloting a He-118 was a ground accident.
The SBD´s could well place more bombs than the B-29 (the Stuka dropped more bombload over russia than any other single plane).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 2, 2005)

delcyros said:


> The SBD´s could well place more bombs than the B-29 (the Stuka dropped more bombload over russia than any other single plane).



That I doubt!!!! Look at the XX and XXI Bomber Command, Very Heavy Bombers (B-29) the numbers speak for themselves...


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 2, 2005)

I dont think any SBD's were used against the Japanese mainland. By 1945, all the fast fleet carriers had been equipped with Helldivers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

Well I go for the SBD Duantless and then the Ju-87 Stuka.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well I go for the SBD Duantless and then the Ju-87 Stuka.



agree!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 2, 2005)

For me its either the JU-87G or the SDB Dauntless. It sure did a hell of damage against the Japanese Carriers at Midway!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2005)

can we really count the -87G as a dive bomber??


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 3, 2005)

I think so...


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 3, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> I think so...


I don't, 37mm Cannon are not dive bomber material. To be a dive bomber you have to have bombs, the JU-87G didn't carry bombs (correct me if I am wrong), therefore it is not a dive bomber in my opinion anyway.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 3, 2005)

Oh, whoops!


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 3, 2005)

Id vote for the val i guess, even though the stuka and the SBD are technically better, but the val just seemed to me the best. I like what it did at pearl, and later on, and they were only butchered the way they were because they were trained to fly in tight formations no matter what, and the cover from the japanese escorts was inadequate to say the least, american aircraft, mainly F4F's at this point, could climb above the bombers and escorts, dive attack, and climb, repeating this until no bombers were left. Alse the vals were shot down in mass numbers by ships because of the new fuses on the AA that the ships were being issued.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 3, 2005)

Id vote for the val i guess, even though the stuka and the SBD are technically better, but the val just seemed to me the best. I like what it did at pearl, and later on, and they were only butchered the way they were because they were trained to fly in tight formations no matter what, and the cover from the japanese escorts was inadequate to say the least, american aircraft, mainly F4F's at this point, could climb above the bombers and escorts, dive attack, and climb, repeating this until no bombers were left. Alse the vals were shot down in mass numbers by ships because of the new fuses on the AA that the ships were being issued.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 3, 2005)

sorry for the double post  didnt mean to


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 3, 2005)

The Val was a good dive bomber. Like the Stuka, it was dangerous as long as they weren't being attacked by supeior aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 3, 2005)

I vote for the A-36 'Apache' because it was a capable and effective dive-bomber that served in Italy and Burma with a good record. It may not have been able to carry as much as those other's mentioned, it was still able to inflict serious damage and was more survivable in the presence of enemy fighters.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 3, 2005)

Heres an interesting web site for the "beast". Perhaps its reputation was undeserved for the late model varieties.

http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blhelldiver1.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/cgi-bin/quiz.pl/research/attack/a3/a3-27.htm

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/helldiver.html

http://www.sb2chelldiver.org/


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2005)

About 12 years ago I was heavily involved with Civil Air Patrol. There was mission pilot who lived in Bishop, I think his name was Bob Chinn who flew the SBC-2 in WW2 off several carriers. He had all kinds of memorabilia from his career, we stayed up very late talking about aircraft. I recollect him saying the SBD was a hard aircraft to fly but once mastered was a great plane. He felt Curtiss tried to put too many advances into the aircraft. He was also one of the original members of the now infamous "Tail-hook" association....


----------



## parsifal (Jul 29, 2016)

for me the best divebomber of the war was the B-7A Grace. made no impact on the war and yet was easily head and shoulders above any of the contenders mentioned so far

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Jul 29, 2016)

Ju-88. In the picture with two 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bombs.

Finnish aviation historian Jukka Raunio wrote: "Whereas our other bombers were the hammer, Ju-88 was the heavy hammer that could send russian tanks flying to treetop level".

(Btw. Soviets wanted all our 1000 kg bombs to be sent to Russia after the armistice.)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 29, 2016)

Gnomey said:


> I don't, 37mm Cannon are not dive bomber material. To be a dive bomber you have to have bombs, the JU-87G didn't carry bombs (correct me if I am wrong), therefore it is not a dive bomber in my opinion anyway.


Well the word "bomber" can come from the world "bombardment" and you can bombard with artillery or bombs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2016)

Flying around strafing with a pair of 37mm guns with 12 rounds each is a pretty wasteful way of conducting a "bombardment". 
Attacking point targets like tanks, bunkers and small ships/boats is NOT "bombardment".


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 29, 2016)

Good point, though it probably would feel like a bombardment if you were under the gun 

It's really more of a strafer


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 30, 2016)

The SB2C is a plane I like, but it seems like it just took too long to be fully operational. In Jocko's Clarke's Carrier Admiral, he writes how he traded his SB2C's for SBDs during the shakedown of Yorktown, and recommended to BuAir to cancel the program. Later accounts I've read seem like it was effective plane. 

By the time the plane was operational, the tactical needs may have changed too much. The Order of Battle for Operation Iceberg, in Morrison's last Volume, shows the fleet carriers carrying VBF squadrons with only one 15 plane VB squadron with SB2Cs. The change in mix of VF/VFB and VB was also to combat the Kamikaze, and the F6f and F4U could carry a bombload.

An interesting what if is if the SB2C could have been fully operational and deployed in 43 and taken the lead dive bombing role in the big battles of 44. On paper its performance was better than the SBD.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 30, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> Well the word "bomber" can come from the world "bombardment" and you can bombard with artillery or bombs.


So by that definition, this was a bomber...


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 30, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> So by that definition, this was a bomber...
> 
> View attachment 349370



No, but close - it was a bombarder


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 30, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> No, but close - it was a bombarder


Actually...this is a Bombardier!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 30, 2016)

parsifal said:


> for me the best divebomber of the war was the B-7A Grace. made no impact on the war and yet was easily head and shoulders above any of the contenders mentioned so far



Parsifal,

Very cool, had not seen that one before!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 31, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> The SB2C is a plane I like, but it seems like it just took too long to be fully operational. In Jocko's Clarke's Carrier Admiral, he writes how he traded his SB2C's for SBDs during the shakedown of Yorktown, and recommended to BuAir to cancel the program. Later accounts I've read seem like it was effective plane.


I thought the problem was that the plane had little roll-control at low-speeds and it had excessive buffeting when the dive-brakes were extended.



GrauGeist said:


> So by that definition, this was a bomber...
> 
> View attachment 349370


Actually, the Hs-129 had around 660 pounds of bombs it could carry. I'll concede that the tank-plinking Ju-87 wasn't exactly a dive-bomber, but it was a strafer based on a dive-bomber.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 31, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> Actually, the Hs-129 had around 660 pounds of bombs it could carry.


The Hs129 (which was a dedicated ground-attack aircraft from paper to production) could carry a combination of bombs to augment it's 20mm cannons and MGs.
However, the 4 50kg hardpoints on the fuselage were omitted when it was equipped with the Mk101 or Mk103 30mm cannon.
When it was equipped with the BK 3.7 or BK7.5, it carried none.


Zipper730 said:


> I'll concede that the tank-plinking Ju-87 wasn't exactly a dive-bomber, but it was a strafer based on a dive-bomber.


The Ju87G (and the late D series) was perhaps the most successful "tank-plinker" of the war. An impressive feat, since that was not it's primary design.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 1, 2016)

I believe the JU-87G had the dive brakes removed which would certainly limit it's ability to perform a diving attack. 
I think, but am not sure, that late production JU-87Ds also had the dive brakes removed/deleted.


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 1, 2016)

Quite correct, the JU-87G series had the dive brakes removed and were utilized as a ground attack aircraft. It is funny reading some of the comments of some gamers that think the stuka's still performed their vertical dives while attacking tanks. They actually unofficially changed there name from Stuka to Kanonenvogel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

