# Which was the best 1942-era dive bomber?



## hurricane55 (Aug 3, 2012)

Which 1942-era dive bomber was the best? It does not matter how much each bomber was produced, but how effective it was in dive bombing, defending itself,ect.
Some aircraft were not included due to not meeting the 1942-era criteria such as the SB2C Helldiver and He 50.


----------



## davebender (Aug 13, 2012)

Can carry a wide variety of weapons
.....Bomb(s) up to 1,800 kg in size.
.....Torpedoes and special bombs designed for skip bombing against maritime targets.
.....Cluster bombs.
.....Two underwing cannon up to 3.7cm in size.
Outstanding accuracy for all of the above weapons.
Good armor protection against ground fire.
Sturdy wide track landing gear and short runway capability allow it to operate from almost any clearing in addition to proper airfields and CV deck.
Fixed landing gear may look old fashioned but the Ju-87 was as fast as a SBD and probably quite a few other small dive bombers.
Relatively cheap to mass produce.

Ju-88A, Me-210C and Pe-2 were operational during 1942. These large dive bombers probably belong in a separate category. Larger, faster and longer range then small dive bombers such as the Ju-87 and SBD.


----------



## Rogi (Aug 14, 2012)

Hs-123? 

Since were missing it and I have a fondness for the Hs I'd say the Stuka  That Siren and the shear effect it has on people 
must at least rank the Stuka at 1st. When you think dive bomber you always get the image of the Bob Stuka in action in the movie hehe.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 14, 2012)

I'll go with the Dauntless. Better defensive armament, heavier payload, much better range. If it's the siren that you like (and I do too), just strap a Jericho Trumpet on the wing of the SBD.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Aug 14, 2012)

During 1942 SBDs typically carried a 1,000 lb bomb. During 1942 the Ju-87D typically carried 1,000 kg.


----------



## riacrato (Aug 14, 2012)

1942 Stuka and SBD have nearly identical defensive armament. Stuka has better payload, SBD better range.


----------



## davebender (Aug 14, 2012)

An accurate summary.

Unlike the SBD, the Ju-87D had a big brother. Ju-87s were tasked with short range dive bomber missions. Ju-88As were tasked with long range dive bomber missions. The two Junkers dive bombers complimented each other. SBD did not have a complimentary large dive bomber so it had to be a jack of all trades (and master of nothing). However IMO the SBD was a reasonably good compromise between bomb load and range.


----------



## stona (Aug 14, 2012)

davebender said:


> An accurate summary.
> Unlike the SBD, the Ju-87D had a big brother. Ju-87s were tasked with short range dive bomber missions. Ju-88As were tasked with long range dive bomber missions.



Yes,The Ju 87 was designed for use somewhat like long range artillery in support of the Army so its relatively limited range was not an issue. It didn't have to fly over vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean !

I voted for it anyway.

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 14, 2012)

What was the longest range SBD strike mission when carrying a 1,000 lb bomb? I think it was less then 200 miles.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 15, 2012)

IIRC, the 1,000 pound payload max range was about 225 statute miles while the 500 lb. armed-search profile was about 300 sm.


----------



## stona (Aug 15, 2012)

davebender said:


> What was the longest range SBD strike mission when carrying a 1,000 lb bomb? I think it was less then 200 miles.



I'll rephrase that....operate in the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean 

If I'd known that the Dauntless had less than double the range of the Ju 87 then I'd have voted for the "Stuka" twice!

Steve


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 15, 2012)

stona said:


> I'll rephrase that....operate in the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean
> 
> If I'd known that the Dauntless had less than double the range of the Ju 87 then I'd have voted for the "Stuka" twice!
> 
> Steve



Looks to me like the range was about double that of the Stuka. The values I quoted above were for CV Based operations. That typically allows a 20% fuel margin, so the effective range is more like ~270 smi. for a max-range, land-based combat mission with a full load. *Previous quote regarding the battle of Cape Esperance was incorrect, doing further research.*

I have no idea what the land based combat mission range of the Stuka was but wikipedia ranges compare as: 

SBD-5: 1,115 statute miles
Stuka: 311 statute miles

The SBD-3 had a longer range than the -5. Max Payload for the SBD-5 was 2,250 lbs., for the SBD-3 was 1,200 lbs. Wiki claims Stuka-JU-87-B2 payload was just under 1,200 lbs. Of course these maximum payloads do not correspond to their max range. 

Based on this simplistic comparison I'd guess the SBD's range was at least twice that of the Stuka.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 15, 2012)

Real comparison to SBD is imho a Ju 87D with 1x1000 kg bomb and 2x300 liter droptank... B version Stukas had less fuel and bomb capacity, and not really a good comparison for 1942 when they were about to be phased out.

Ju 87D-1 had 1500 km range with 1000 kg bomb and 2x300 liter droptank. Pretty much the same as SBD-5 on long range mission.


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2012)

800 liters. Ju-87D internal fuel.
…..Can carry two 300 liter drop tanks in addition to 1,000 kg bomb on centerline.
…..Flight duration of 4 hours when carrying two drop tanks.

960 liters. SBD internal fuel.

Did the SBD have a range advantage over the Ju-87D? I'm starting to doubt it.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 15, 2012)

According to wikipedia (the easiest albeit questionable on-line source available to me at present), during the Naval Battle of Guadacanal, SBDs from Enterprise attacked transports at a distance of over 230 miles. No indication of the load out however. There is a lot of conflicting range quotes cited for the SBD on the web. Wikipedia is as above but other sites quote 770 miles. My guess is that this latter lower range value most probably represents a round trip distance covered by an unarmed scouting mission.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 15, 2012)

davebender said:


> 800 liters. Ju-87D internal fuel.
> …..Can carry two 300 liter drop tanks in addition to 1,000 kg bomb on centerline.
> …..Flight duration of 4 hours when carrying two drop tanks.
> 
> ...



Which SBD? when was the JU-87D in service?

According to wikipedia the JU-87 D could use only 780 liters and the 260 gallons of internal fuel for the SBD corresponds to 984 liters. Also the SBD-5 could carry 2 x 58 gallon wing tanks if needed and was evidently radar equipped and carrying up to a 1,600 lb payload.

I don't think you have enough information yet to determine the size of the SBD range advantage.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 15, 2012)

AFAIK Ju 87D go in production in spring '41 and SBD-5 in '43


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2012)

Production of Ju-87D began during May 1941. They would have been in service a couple months later.

Ju-87D cruise speed was at least 150 mph with payload.
.....Probably 30 mph faster on the return trip with bombs and drop tanks gone. 
4 hour flight time with 2 x 300 liter drop tanks.
Range with max fuel load is probably about 660 miles.

Combat radius is typically about 1/3rd of total range.
So I would guess Ju-87D combat radius with 1,000 kg bomb is around 220 miles. About the same as SBD but with twice the bomb load.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 16, 2012)

Looking at MTO Luftwaffe unit deployments, the Dora doesn't appear on the scene until January 1942. 

http://www.ww2.dk/misc/obmed.pdf

The JU-87 D's total payload capability of nearly 4,000 lbs is indeed impressive although it evidently caused landing gear structural issues when introduced. I would expect with the JU 87-D wing tanks and a bomb of SBD size. range would approach that of the apparently roughly contemporary SBD-3. Wiki doesn't define the 4 hour flight configuration, but I would expect (without evidence) it to be with a 250 kg bomb load. I would also expect, that despite the additional 200 hp of the Stuka's Jumo and the larger wing area, drag would limit its range somewhat. IIRC, the SBD routinely flew missions of 4 hours but lacking sources, I can't give much more definition. At Santa Cruz, an armed search departed Enterprise at 6 AM, at some point in their search, one pair of SBDs altered course to attack the Zuiho successfully at 0830 AM and then returned to their carrier (I assume ~2 hours later). Probably a mission of at least 4 hours flown with a 500 lb bomb.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 16, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Looking at MTO Luftwaffe unit deployments, the Dora doesn't appear on the scene until January 1942.
> 
> http://www.ww2.dk/misc/obmed.pdf
> 
> .



Howyou get that page from ww2.dk? i don't see that file in miscellaneus index


----------



## R Pope (Aug 16, 2012)

Range doesn't matter much when you are bombing your neighbours! Whereas the ocean is a big place, a naval plane by definition needs good range to be effective. The Stuka gets my vote, as stated it was the definitive dive bomber for most of the war.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 16, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> Howyou get that page from ww2.dk? i don't see that file in miscellaneus index



The Luftwaffe, 1933-45

Go to the *Tony Wood *link


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 16, 2012)

R Pope said:


> Range doesn't matter much when you are bombing your neighbours! Whereas the ocean is a big place, a naval plane by definition needs good range to be effective. The Stuka gets my vote, as stated *it was the definitive dive bomber for most of the war.*



Personally, I think that depends on where your head is at. I am far more interested in the PTO so to me the Stuka is interesting mainly as an example of a different (read foreign) expression of a particular aerial bombing technique. I am not for a minute questioning the Stuka's effectiveness or historic importance, just a personal level of interest. I find Dave' revelations about the _Dora_ variant very interesting from a technological perspective but I have to say, while he's convinced me that it may have approached the endurance of the SBD, I'd be a bit surprised to find it had the same or better range with common payload as the SBD. That gear and those external tanks, along with the ordnance, have got to cost a fair amount of drag penalty. JMO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2012)

Landbased - Stuka

Carrier Based - SBD

Overall - Stuka


----------



## stona (Aug 16, 2012)

January '42 is correct. I./St.G.2 was the first unit to use the "Dora" operationally. The Eastern Stukageschwader were withdrawn,in turn,to re-equip starting with St.G.2.

Development of the "Dora" was delayed as a plan to use the DB 603 engine was adopted,then the Jumo 213, before finally reverting to the originally planned Jumo 211 J when it became available in February 1941.

In June 1941,after successful testing of the prototypes early in the year,an order for 1,037 of the type was placed. These were to be produced at the Weser Bremen-Lemwerder plant over an eighteen month period up until December 1942.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 16, 2012)

Even the early war Ju-87B normally carried 500 kg. Rudel makes that point in his book. During 1941 he had to wait for 1,000 kg AP bombs to arrive before attacking a Soviet battleship off Leningrad.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2012)

Just as there were many SBDs, there were many models of the Ju-87 and even in the "D" series there were different models that used different sized wings and different engines in addition to different guns and armor. 

SBD performance can vary a lot because the Navy had a number of mission profiles. The was an "armed" reconnaissance mission which required a 500lb bomb as opposed to the strike mission or unarmed scout mission.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 16, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> The Luftwaffe, 1933-45
> 
> Go to the *Tony Wood *link



thanks


----------



## stona (Aug 16, 2012)

All the production D series Ju 87s used the Jumo 211 J engine. What Peter Smith describes as "the Stuka that never was",the F series was to have had the Jumo 213 A-1 engine.

I haven't been able to find the load out for the four hour flight quoted in some post above but the fuel capacity would have been the maximum of 780 litres internally and two 300 litre auxiliary tanks under the wings.

Steve


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 16, 2012)

I was pretty sure I'd heard that SBD's exhibited up to 5 hours endurance on occassion and quite possibly up to 300 miles radius on armed search missions. The link below contains is a first person, USN SBD pilot, account that talks about such a mission during the Santa Cruz Battle, October 1942 and also mentions occasions when the SBD flew 5-hour missions without describing the load-out. In fact he mentions flying a 7 Hour, 700 mile ferry mission returning the a/c to the Enterpise from Henderson field without Ordnance. He evidently got lost enroute which accounts for the apparently slow rate of advance. 

Collect Air | World War II Stories

I assume these were SBD-3s.

Other sources suggest an SBD-3 had a maximum misson radius of 276 statute miles for a 1,000 lb. load. I assume a land based mission would allow a somewhat larger radius. Evidently the drag differential between a 1,000 and 500 lb bomb wasn't all that great.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2012)

Some sources say that the D-7 used the Jumo 211P engine. Could be wrong, but then the D-7s may have had the dive brakes removed too. 

Point is that there are a lot different combinations of both planes with some rather different capabilities.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 16, 2012)

Strong and Irvine's strike on the Zuiho, originally an armed search to a radius of 300 miles, apparently began shortly after 6 AM and ended at 10:26 AM. A little over 4 hours. 

The Big E: The Story of the Uss Enterprise - Edward Peary Stafford - Google Books


----------



## davebender (Aug 16, 2012)

75 mph average speed. That sounds pretty slow even allowing time for climb to altitude plus a few minutes for the attack.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2012)

davebender said:


> 75 mph average speed. That sounds pretty slow even allowing time for climb to altitude plus a few minutes for the attack.


They might not have flown straight and level and flown a "zig-zag" during their search.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 16, 2012)

To a radius means 300 out, 300 back


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 16, 2012)

300 mile radius, means a 600 mile round trip in 4 hours at 150 mph carrying a 500 lb bomb for about 2/3rds of the flight.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 16, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> To a radius means 300 out, 300 back



What he said...


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 16, 2012)

The poor ole Val doesn't get much attention, but was the single most successful enemy ship buster of the war; it was responsible for the destruction of more Allied warships than any other type, plus it's battle honours are impressive; Pearl Harbour, Coral Sea, Midway, Indian Ocean, but I picked the Dauntless because of its longevity, not to forget its very impressive battle honours.

The Aichi D3A had a higher speed than the Dauntless, D3A1 and SBD-3 compared, but the SBD could carry a bigger bomb load over a greater distance than the Japanese machine. Why not the Stuka? Because it diminished in importance as the war wore on, the Ju 87D was certainly an improvement over the earlier models, which made an immediate impact in the start of the war, but the Fw 190F variants were a better ground attack platform than the Ju 87D, if not a more accurate dive bomber. Although the Dauntless was replaced by the SB2C, it didn't completely disappear, largely because of the problems with the Son of a B***h Second Class, but in 1942, the Dauntless was just gettin' started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 16, 2012)

And IIUC, like its opposite number, the Val could be a dangerous A2A opponent despite its relatively light armament, if an opponent wasn't careful to respect its potential manueverability.


----------



## kettbo (Aug 17, 2012)

radius would be an outbound leg, a small chunk of the circumference, and a return leg. thus pretty easy for the operations guys to plot something like a 90 deg search to the NW. 90* search area 15 planes= 6* side leg
with all due respect, weaving around over the featureless ocean on a search could be a career-ending idea without an on-board dedicated navigator. not impossible, just IMHO, improbable


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 17, 2012)

If I understand the literature that's been written about the famous armed search mission during Santa Cruz of Strong and Irvine who bombed the Zuiho, they were flying a pie shaped search pattern as described by Kettbo in a nearby sector to that of the SBD pair that reported and then attempted to bomb the IJN carrriers. Strong, performed a predictive navigation solution and decided he could just make it to the reported CV position from his sector and make an attack before returning home. So their flight path probably included some portion of their original search pattern followed by a dog leg to the reported position and then an approximately direct path back to Enterprise's point option position. According to Stafford (*The Big E*, not always the most reliable source) he landed with tanks nearly empty after nearly 4.5 hours. Even this mission may not be a good indicator of the armed SBD's max range as they were evidently dodging and sparring with Zeroes while in the vicinity of the IJN fleet. If we assume a 20% reserve on a 4 hour mission, then a land-based SBD-3 may have been able to do a 5 hour mission carrying a 500# bomb. Of course even a mission from a land base is going to require some reserve so 5 hours is probably a theoretical maximum and not one thay is likely to be used in practice.


----------



## stona (Aug 17, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Point is that there are a lot different combinations of both planes with some rather different capabilities.



Yes,and the point is quite correct.

I can't find any evidence for the Jumo 213 ever being fitted to "Doras",certainly not in service. There were a lot of problems with the engine in development and by the time it was sorted out it had been ear marked for the Ju 88.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2012)

> Val doesn't get much attention, but was the single most successful enemy ship buster of the war


I have doubts about that. How many tons of merchant shipping were sunk by Val dive bombers? What warships were sunk primarily by Val dive bombers (i.e. not Kate torpedo bombers)?


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2012)

Seems unlikely with the possible exception of a few prototypes.

Jumo 213 engine production didn't start catching up to demand until mid 1944. About the same time Ju-87 production ended.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 17, 2012)

from wikipedia: (Don't know whether this list has been filtered to eliminate credit for combined Kate and Betty torpedo kills)

Allied warships sunk by Aichi D3As; type, nation, date of loss, location
HMS Cornwall, British heavy cruiser, 5 April 1942 - Indian Ocean
HMS Dorsetshire, British heavy cruiser, 5 April 1942 - Indian Ocean
HMS Hector, British armed merchant cruiser, 5 April 1942 - Indian Ocean
HMS Tenedos, British destroyer, 5 April 1942 - Indian Ocean
HMS Hermes, British aircraft carrier, 9 April 1942 - Indian Ocean
HMAS Vampire, Australian destroyer, 9 April 1942 - Indian Ocean
USS Langley, American seaplane tender (sunk by U.S. forces after attack) 27 Feb 1942 - Pacific Ocean[14]
USS Peary, American destroyer, 19 February 1942 - Australia (Darwin)[15]
USS Pope, American destroyer, 1 March 1942 - Pacific Ocean
USS De Haven, American destroyer, 1 February 1943 - Pacific Ocean
USS Aaron Ward, American destroyer, 7 April 1943 - Pacific Ocean
USS Brownson, American destroyer, 26 December 1943 - Pacific Ocean[16]
USS Sims, American destroyer, 7 May 1942 - Pacific Ocean
USS Benham, American destroyer, 15 November 1942 - Pacific Ocean
USS Abner Read, American destroyer, sunk by kamikaze 1 November 1944 - Pacific Ocean[17]
USS William D. Porter, American destroyer, sunk by kamikaze 10 June 1945 - Japan (Okinawa)
As the war progressed, there were instances when the dive bombers were pressed into duty as fighters in the interceptor role, their maneuverability being enough to allow them to survive in this role


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2012)

2 x CA
1 x WWI era CV
1 x U.S. aircraft ferry (i.e. USS Langley during 1942)
11 x DD.
1 x Merchant.

Significant accomplishments but not in the same league as Ju-87, Ju-88 and SBD dive bombers.

D3A has three handicaps in this competition.
- Small bomb load. 250 kg is tiny for a dive bomber. Most fighter aircraft can carry at least that much.
- Small production numbers. Only 1,486 built.
- D3A normally had to fight through heavy enemy air defenses (AA plus CAP).


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 17, 2012)

Quote from Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War by Rene J. Francillon

"...the aircraft achieved considerable success during the first ten months of the war and sank more Allied fighting ships than any other type of Axis aircraft." I guess that trumps the Ju 87 and Ju 88 then. As for having to fight through heavy enemy air defences, that's not a shortcoming of the type - I suspect that applies to every carrier based aircraft employed in the Pacific, although I can't be certain  

A factor in favour of the D3A, which it had over the Stuka (apart from speed) was its versatility; it could operate from sea and land bases, whereas your basic unmodified Ju 87 could not operate from both (although a version was specifically built for the Graf Zeppelin - yes, I know)

Ju 87 was without a doubt the best in the ETO, but gets beaten by the Dauntless because of its diminishing importance as the war progressed. As for the D3A, obsolete type that produced exceptional results and deserves its place in the sun, it's replacement was probably the best single engined bomber of the war; thankfully its qualities were not able to be exploited to any real effect during the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> 2 x CA
> 1 x WWI era CV
> 1 x U.S. aircraft ferry (i.e. USS Langley during 1942)
> 11 x DD.
> ...



Can you list all the warships sunk by the Ju 87?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 17, 2012)

Vals sank many more ships than that. though it is hard to pinpoint accurately the exact numbers of ships, the japanese airforces were responsible for the sinking or disabling of more than a milion tons of shipping by June 1942. From June 1942 through to september 1944, the Japanese Air Forces sank about 2m tons of allied shipping. In the last year of the war, more than 1000 allied shis were sunk or damaged, many of them by kamikazes, and many of these were Vals.

The germans never got anywhere near that tonnage sunk. They sank 750000 tons in 1939-40, and a similar amount in 1941 9mostly by FW200s). in 1942 losses were down to about 500000 tons, including the med, but by 1943, it was below 250000 and continued to head south for the remainder of the war. 

Very few aircrews of the Ju87 were ever trained to attack shipping, and aircraft not specially trained for the purpose were remarkably unsuccessful


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2012)

Tonnage sunk isn't the only thing that counts. Fear of German dive bombers (real or imagined) was a constant factor for the RN during 1940 and 1941. It was probably decisive for German victories in Norway and the Balkans. The RN didn't think they could continue logistical support in the face of German air power. Fear of German dive bombers was probably also decisive in the Aegean during 1943.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> Tonnage sunk isn't the only thing that counts. Fear of German dive bombers (real or imagined) was a constant factor for the RN during 1940 and 1941. It was probably decisive for German victories in Norway and the Balkans. The RN didn't think they could continue logistical support in the face of German air power. Fear of German dive bombers was probably also decisive in the Aegean during 1943.



Then dont make claims that state that the tonnage sunk by Vals was not as significant. If you are going to discredit the Val on tonnage sunk, then back up your statement with facts.


----------



## Tempik (Aug 17, 2012)

il2 is not dive bomber


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 18, 2012)

davebender said:


> 2 x CA
> 1 x WWI era CV
> 1 x U.S. aircraft ferry (i.e. USS Langley during 1942)
> 11 x DD.
> ...



The 11 DDs mentioned above is significant.... Ask a verteran SBD pilot how hard it was to hit an IJN DD. DDs were probably the hardest target a dive bomber could face. I think one pilot likened it to something like trying to hit a scurrying mouse with marble dropped from above. A testament to both the quality of the VAL as a dive bomber and the pilot flying it.


----------



## stug3 (Aug 29, 2012)

The Skua should not have been included in this poll as it was withdrawn from operations by the end of 1941. The Petlyakov Pe-2 should have though, it was as important and effective as the Sturmovik.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

SBD, could defend itself against fighters, actually launched on combat air patrols against enemy attack aircraft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2016)

James W. said:


> & famed Stuka pilot Rudel made ace too, it doesn't make a dedicated dive-bomber into a fighter though.
> The USAAF rightly never attempted to operate the A-24 in the ETO, since it would've been tragic.


The SBD had good enough flight characteristics early in the war to make it dangerous and it did account for quite a few IJN/IJA aircraft.

Rudel's victories were mostly earned in a Fw190F-8, Fw190D-9 and Fw190D-12.

As for the Banshee, the US didn't need it, they had the Apache.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2016)

James W. said:


> AFAIR, Rudel made ace flying the Stuka,
> & his Stuka A2A victories included shooting down an IL-2 with the 37mm A/T cannon.


Negative, the bulk of Rudel's victories were earned in the Fw190 type.


----------



## Andrew Arthy (Jul 15, 2016)

Up to 1 June 1944 Rudel had claimed two Lagg-3s and one Il-2 in the Stuka. He then claimed at least three aerial victories in the FW 190 F-8 (an 'Il-5' and two Il-2s). Not sure in which type he claimed his other three aerial victories (probably in the FW 190 F-8), but it is very unlikely it was in the FW 190 D-9, given he flew it on only a handful of ground-attack missions in the final month of the war.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 15, 2016)

stug3 said:


> The Skua should not have been included in this poll as it was withdrawn from operations by the end of 1941.
> View attachment 210483



Agree the Skua shouldn't be on the list but how about adding...And I'll probably get a "Like" from Wildcat for this one! ... the Vultee Vengeance? It arrived on squadrons in October 1942 so it fits the "1942 era" title for the survey.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2016)

buffnut453 said:


> Agree the Skua shouldn't be on the list but how about adding...And I'll probably get a "Like" from Wildcat for this one! ... the Vultee Vengeance? It arrived on squadrons in October 1942 so it fits the "1942 era" title for the survey.


The Skua may not have been the "best", but it claimed the first aircraft downed for Britain in the war: a Dornier Do18.

There's actually a good number of dive bombers, active during 1942, that are missing from the list.
The most prominent ones missing are:
Yokosuka D4Y1
Henschel Hs123


----------



## Hiromachi (Jul 15, 2016)

D4Y1 wins hands down. It's faster than any other dive bomber, can carry 500 kg bomb, has great range and flight characteristics. It's only weakness is the engine requireing liquid cooling. It allowed to build aerodynamically clean machine but in combat over ocean and AA defense of allied ships even a small damage to cooling system could lead to loss of the machine.
Only problem is that D4Y1 wasn't really there in 1942, 2 were assigned to Soryu during Midway events, but only as recce. As it turned out due to some issues with diving and structural limits aircraft was only used for reconnaissance in 1942. A dive bombing version came out only at the end of 1942 or beginning of 1943 and did not reach frontlines until last few months of 1943. Before that Navy could rely only on D3A, though in 1942 there was D3A2 pushed to replace all D3A1s.

Anyway, contrary to what a BLine said, no dive bomber could defend itself. That certain pilots could do so, once in a while, doesnt change the pattern. Best defense of a bomber is its speed and escorts. Period.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> Anyway, contrary to what a BLine said, no dive bomber could defend itself. That certain pilots could do so, once in a while, doesnt change the pattern. Best defense of a bomber is its speed and escorts. Period.


The SBD is the only dive bomber of the war that actually shot down more enemy aircraft than it was shot down. The SBD's ratio was 3.2 to one.

It was also used, early in the war, as a fighting "top cover" for the fleet while the fighters were on a mission or being fueled.

Not bad for a dive bomber that accounted for nearly 30% of the total tonnage lost by the Japanese.


----------



## Hiromachi (Jul 16, 2016)

> The SBD is the only dive bomber of the war that actually shot down more enemy aircraft than it was shot down. The SBD's ratio was 3.2 to one.


It was claimed, not verified. Also, I'd like to see that in numbers and split across the years of service. Interestingly, its Army "cousin" A-24 Banshee was found inadequate and suffered heavy losses already in first half of 1942 in New Guinea and Philippines. 



GrauGeist said:


> Not bad for a dive bomber that accounted for nearly 30% of the total tonnage lost by the Japanese.


Nothing weird there, considering it was used through the whole length of the war on the PTO.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> It was claimed, not verified. Also, I'd like to see that in numbers and split across the years of service. Interestingly, its Army "cousin" A-24 Banshee was found inadequate and suffered heavy losses already in first half of 1942 in New Guinea and Philippines.


The A-24 was operated under different conditions with Army crews trained with different methods. Can't really make a direct comparison.

As far as the SBD's performance, it was a very capable platform to confront IJN and IJA fighters early in the war and could make a stand if pressed. One good example would be the Battle of Coral Sea, when the USS Lexington came under concentrated attack. Her SBDs were launched to supplement the Lexington's F4F fighter screen and in the final engagement, one SBD, piloted by Ensign Leppla along with his tail gunner, accounted for 7 downed Japanese fighters, making that the highest single day victory of any dive-bomber of any nation, in WWII.

To provide a comparison of aircraft downed in the PTO (this will not include CBI numbers), I'll give you a list of all U.S. operated types (all versions per type) and their tally:

*P-26* - 2
*P-35* - 1
*P-36* - 3
*P-38* - 1,700
*P-39*/*P-400* - 288
*P-40* - 660
*P-43* - 3
*P-47* - 696
*P-51* - 297
*P-61* - 63
*P-70* - 2
*SBD* - 138
*TBF*/*TBM* - 98
*F2A* - 10
*F4F* - 986
*FM-2* - 422
*F4U* - 2,140
*F6F* - 5,160


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2016)

great...the infamous double-post strikes again!


----------



## Hiromachi (Jul 16, 2016)

> The A-24 was operated under different conditions with Army crews trained with different methods. Can't really make a direct comparison.


Well, Navy operated D3A both by land based Air Groups and on board of aircraft carriers, basic training was similar but once assigned to specific units differences grew. 
But its not about the best branch operating dive bombers in 1942 era but best dive bomber. So what matters is a machine. 



> As far as the SBD's performance, it was a very capable platform to confront IJN and IJA fighters early in the war and could make a stand if pressed. One good example would be the Battle of Coral Sea, when the USS Lexington came under concentrated attack. Her SBDs were launched to supplement the Lexington's F4F fighter screen and in the final engagement, one SBD, piloted by Ensign Leppla along with his tail gunner, accounted for 7 downed Japanese fighters, making that the highest single day victory of any dive-bomber of any nation, in WWII.


He was credited. What was actual score should be cross checked with Japanese records. But to add, D3As also managed to score victories over Wildcats and few other types. Il-2s (even though its not actually a dive bomber, but I guess not much could be done in this regard to represent USSR) scored victories over 109s. And Ju-87s managed to score victories over both Allied and Soviet aircraft. 
In such case though one has to add that SBD was operating without external ordnance which gives opportunity to fly at full performance and close to the edge.

Point remains, and Midways proves, that dive bombers without escort were sustaining heavy losses when CAP engaged. 



> To provide a comparison of aircraft downed in the PTO (this will not include CBI numbers), I'll give you a list of all U.S. operated types (all versions per type) and their tally:


That's not exactly what I was looking for. What I meant was the data on victories in regard to type of the aircraft shot down and date of the event. How many of the SBD victories were fighters, how many were recconaissance floatplanes, etc.


----------



## ww2restorer (Jul 17, 2016)

what is a Sturmovik? Its Shturmovik IL-2 or Штурмовик Ил-2 in Russian. It is also a ground attack aircraft, not a Dive bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> what is a Sturmovik? Its Shturmovik IL-2 or Штурмовик Ил-2 in Russian. It is also a ground attack aircraft, not a Dive bomber.



Try again.

In English it is spelled *Sturmovik.
*
In Russian Cyrillic it is spelled *Илью́шин Ил-2* or *Штурмови́к Šturmovík*
_
Илью́шин Ил-2 = " Illyusion Il-2"

Штурмови́к Šturmovík = "Ground Attack Aircraft"
_
Or something like that. I won't pretend to actually know Russian, but every online source spells it and translates it as such.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 17, 2016)

Thanks Adler, I thought we were discussing a breed of dairy cow or possibly northern cloud formations.


----------



## ww2restorer (Jul 17, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Try again.
> 
> In English it is spelled *Sturmovik.
> *
> ...


I will tell my Russian wife she cannot read and write her language.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ww2restorer (Jul 17, 2016)

*Штурмови́к actually translates to Shturmovik (attack aircraft). *_*Šturmovík whatever language that is, translates to sturmovik, commonly used for a cheap computer game.*_
*From official Ilyusion documents it was a called the самолеты Ил-2, however I guess they are incorrect.*


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 17, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> I will tell my Russian wife she cannot read and write her language.


My Bulgarian Fiancee doesn't mind it when I don't adhere strictly to Cyrillic pronunciations and I don't give her trouble when she has difficulty with American English.

In the West, the generally accepted pronunciation and spelling for the Il-2 is "Sturmovik" and if you look at the game written by a Russian: Oleg Maddox, it's released as "IL-2: Sturmovik".


----------



## ww2restorer (Jul 17, 2016)

Best wishes to your Fiancée. My wife is from Moscow and has PhD in languages, teaches Russian at the local university. She concurs that Bulgarian is similar to Russian with the Cyrillic text, however is very different from many forms of Russian. In fact my wife tells me that in Russia alone, being so huge that there is over 3000 different dialect's. I know nothing of Mr Maddox and why he dropped the 'H' All documents from Ilyusion have the H or its equivalent.in Cyrillic.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 17, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> Best wishes to your Fiancée. My wife is from Moscow and has PhD in languages, teaches Russian at the local university. She concurs that Bulgarian is similar to Russian with the Cyrillic text, however is very different from many forms of Russian. In fact my wife tells me that in Russia alone, being so huge that there is over 3000 different dialect's. I know nothing of Mr Maddox and why he dropped the 'H' All documents from Ilyusion have the H or its equivalent.in Cyrillic.


Thanks and Cyrillic may seem complicated to some, but if a person takes the time to study it, it's actually a very simple language, quite unlike the English language!

My sweetheart, Rosi (Роси) points out that Bulgarian is the mother toungue and all other Cyrillic countries have their own evolved variations, much like English speaking nations have evolved from the English of Great Britian, like Australia, America, etc.

As far as Oleg and the Sturmovik naming, I think he understands that most of the Western nations are familiar with "Sturmovik" as it is, and didn't challenge the norm.

This can also be said with many German words when spoken by English speaking people, like "Junkers" for example. The proper way to pronounce it, is "Yunkers", just as Wehrmacht is pronounced "Vehrmakt". Rolling the "R" is optional (depending on one's skill)!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> I will tell my Russian wife she cannot read and write her language.



That still does not change the fact that in English it is spelled Sturmovik. While you are at it, write to most English language sources and tell them it is wrong.

Thanks though...

Probably the same reason I don't correct people from English speaking countries when they call _Köln_ Cologne or _München_ Munich. It is just how it is spelled in their language...


----------



## ww2restorer (Jul 18, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Thanks and Cyrillic may seem complicated to some, but if a person takes the time to study it, it's actually a very simple language, quite unlike the English language!
> 
> My sweetheart, Rosi (Роси) points out that Bulgarian is the mother toungue and all other Cyrillic countries have their own evolved variations, much like English speaking nations have evolved from the English of Great Britian, like Australia, America, etc.
> 
> ...


Quite correct on the Slovac origins. Personally I am getting too old to learn yet another language, let alone another alphabet. As for german being misspoken, you are 100% correct, I gringe every time I hear about people driving Voltswagon's. I don't know about the rest of the word, but in my circle of life and business I have always seen Shturmovik.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 18, 2016)

Im married to a Russian as well, who happens to work as an interpreter (at one stage).

Russians can be very pedantic and difficult when it comes to issues of translation, but the truth is you often cant be as precise as one might want. 

Tatyana (my wife) tells me that "Shturmovik" i s probably a more faithful anglicised translation because there should be a 'h" in ther somewhere, however there is no such thing as a correct translation. For us mere mortals, dropping the h makes the word easier to comprehend, is still wrong, but good enough.

try looking up the correct spelling for some Russian warships. There can be more versions and translations of the same word as to make your head spin

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ww2restorer (Jul 18, 2016)

parsifal said:


> Im married to a Russian as well, who happens to work as an interpreter (at one stage).
> 
> Russians can be very pedantic and difficult when it comes to issues of translation, but the truth is you often cant be as precise as one might want.
> 
> ...


Agree 110%


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

A dauntless is MUCH better for a surprise attack while still just have a siren that scares you. And besides stukas were easy prey for the British.


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

I meant the stukas have sirens. Just a typo.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2016)

When a Dauntless entered it's steep dive and deployed it's massive dive flaps, you can be sure that they weren't silent with that wind rushing through them.

Not as demoralizing as the wail of a Jericho Trumpet like the Stuka's, but the SBD was far from being "sneaky".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2016)

Blitzrockie said:


> A dauntless is MUCH better for a surprise attack while still just have a siren that scares you. And besides stukas were easy prey for the British.



lol

All dive bomber is easy prey.


----------



## Hiromachi (Jul 19, 2016)

1000+ HP radial screaming in a dive is loud enough. Besides, that's really least important factor. I think that in this area it matters more which one can cause a larger explosion (aka payload) and deliver it with greater accuracy to the target. 

To be fair any of those dive bombers is good and each of them scored unusual results. Though I stand by D4Y1, it reached 298 knots in level flight (552 km/h) which was a speed record for that kind of aircraft in IJN at given time. It later on it evolved into D4Y2 and D4Y3 pushing the aircraft to speeds 580 km/h. Shame no Judy is in flyable condition anymore.


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

While ALL dive bombers are loud, the dauntless is a better aircraft.1, After allied air supiority Stukas were not very effective.2 The A 36 was reported to have a louder scream.3Late in the war dauntless bombers were always being escorted Stukas almost never had fighters protection because Allied bombers were hitting airfields and Allied fighters shooting the German fighters down.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2016)

Blitzrockie said:


> While ALL dive bombers are loud, the dauntless is a better aircraft.1, After allied air supiority Stukas were not very effective.2 The A 36 was reported to have a louder scream.3Late in the war dauntless bombers were always being escorted Stukas almost never had fighters protection because Allied bombers were hitting airfields and Allied fighters shooting the German fighters down.


Have to disagree about the Dauntless being "better" for several reasons: it would dive at near vertical, attaining a good amount of speed, which would make noise not only from it's frontal area of the radial engine, but it's enormous dive flaps displacing the rushing air.

The A-36 would not have made much more noise than the early marks of the P-51, it's braking fences on the top and bottom of the wings not being very large in area.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2016)

Blitzrockie said:


> While ALL dive bombers are loud, the dauntless is a better aircraft.1, After allied air supiority Stukas were not very effective.2 The A 36 was reported to have a louder scream.3Late in the war dauntless bombers were always being escorted Stukas almost never had fighters protection because Allied bombers were hitting airfields and Allied fighters shooting the German fighters down.


Simply rubbish, the Stuka performed very well in its role in the Battle of Britain when it could be protected by LW fighters, however in war there are cockups and if ever the Stukas were caught without protection they were wiped out The Germans noticed that on any days combat where 4 groups of Stukas were involved 1 got decimated that is why it was stood down.


----------



## Hiromachi (Jul 19, 2016)

Did summer break for schools start this week in US or what ?



> 3Late in the war dauntless bombers were always being escorted Stukas almost never had fighters protection because Allied bombers were hitting airfields and Allied fighters shooting the German fighters down.


Which adds exactly what to the discussion or review of the aircraft itself ? No fault of Ju-87 that it not always had escort.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> *Did summer break for schools start this week in US or what ?*
> 
> 
> Which adds exactly what to the discussion or review of the aircraft itself ? No fault of Ju-87 that it not always had escort.



lol

Sure seems like it...


----------



## parsifal (Jul 19, 2016)

Its also not true that the stuka was always dead meat if caught without escort. On eastern front, and in the west, in those situations where an integrated air defence system was not present, stukas more than held their own with tolerable losses and a high mission success rate.

The dauntless was a great aircraft, but these comparisons are just sheer nonsense to be blunt. Dauntlesses in the pacific were never faced by such heavy and thick air defences as opposed Stuka operations in the west, or even the eastern front. forty fighters was a big deal in the Pacific, whereas in the ETO it was the norm to be faced with 100+ defenders at times. early in the war, less often the case, later in the war much more the norm. it is a safe claim to say the SBD was never asked to face opposition like that


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 20, 2016)

Okay, let's try and sort out the Dauntless vs. Stuka issue by quantifying their strengths in the following ways

I. Performance

Dive Angle: The Stuka was designed for dive angles as steep as 90-degrees and could execute automatic pull-outs; the Dauntless seemed to be limited for practical purposes to around 70-degress (if I'm not mistaken), and required a manual pull-out.
Maneuverability: The Dauntless was said to be quite maneuverable, with responsive controls. I don't know how the Stuka compared, though I wouldn't be all that shocked if it flew decently
Range with & without Payload: The range of the SBD-3 and -5 have to be factored in as if they were operated in land-operations, not carrier-based operations due to differences in the amount of time spent warming up waiting for takeoff, and loitering around waiting to land. Sure, the Dauntless wasn't operated this way, but if it was to be compared to the Stuka, both have to be operated under land-based requirements.
II. Payload: 

Typical Payload
Maximum Payload


----------



## Hiromachi (Jul 20, 2016)

> Dive Angle: The Stuka was designed for dive angles as steep as 90-degrees and could execute automatic pull-outs; the Dauntless seemed to be limited for practical purposes to around 70-degress (if I'm not mistaken), and required a manual pull-out.


Japanese executed their dives at 60 degree angle and achieved 83 % accuracy in early 1942 battles in D3A. It does not necessarily mean steeper the better.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 23, 2016)

My favorite is the SBD. The Dauntless contributed significantly to the Four Carrier battles victories in 1942. At Midway it was the only Naval plane to score hits. 

There were Four strategic victories in the Four Carrier battles in 1942. With a lesser plane events might have gone differently.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 24, 2016)

Are there any Post Cold war accounts of the Sturmovik? How effective really was it. The Soviets certainly did build a ton of them.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> Are there any Post Cold war accounts of the Sturmovik? How effective really was it. The Soviets certainly did build a ton of them.


Some remained in service with nations like Bulgaria and Hungary after the war, but the IL-10 ( the IL-2's successor) saw more post war action, like in Korea and during the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 24, 2016)

I ment in the past 10 years. The Soviet press was so closed, you have search to find first hand accounts,


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> I ment in the past 10 years. The Soviet press was so closed, you have search to find first hand accounts,


Ahh...gotcha.
There's several good books based on pilot's memoires.
Check out "Red Star against the Swastika" by Vasily B. Emelianenko. This book is Mr. Emelianenko's memoirs of his time flying the IL-2 on the eastern front. By the way, for his service, he was awarded the "Hero of the Soviet Union".

You can also look for "Red Sky, Black Death" by Anna Timofeyeva-Yegorova. This is her own biography about her experiences with the IL-2 on the eastern front and she also was awarded the "Hero of the Soviet Union".

And then there's the Osprey book titled "IL-2 Shturmovik Guards Units of World War 2" by Oleg Rastrenin, which has a great deal of interviews with IL-2 pilots as well as crew members in it. I personally haven't read this book, but I have heard many good reviews of it.

There was also a good article earlier this year by RT (Russian Times) about the reunion with the IL-2 and it's veteran pilots. While RT is usually a slanted political mouthpiece on current affairs, they certainly are qualified to cover the veteran's reunion and did a good job. You can see it here: WWII pilots revisit their planes, share wartime stories in touching video


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2016)

As a generalisation, the VVS found the Il-2 just right for the task. In the west we would put them on a par with the Fairey battle or the TBD.

They were heavily armoured but with some vulnerable spots. Cheap to build, poor engine life, easy to fly. just what a soviet pilot with maybe 10 hours of flying time and a very limited life expectancy should be given


----------



## stona (Jul 28, 2016)

parsifal said:


> Its also not true that the stuka was always dead meat if caught without escort. On eastern front, and in the west, in those situations where an integrated air defence system was not present, stukas more than held their own with tolerable losses and a high mission success rate.



Surely that's because in the absence of an integrated air defence system the Ju 87s were much less likely to get caught in the first place?

Even with an integrated system the Ju 87s could be effective. In the early stages of the BoB they carried out attacks, sometimes unescorted, particularly on south coast ports and Channel shipping, and were gone by the time the RAF turned up.

Of course if they did get caught by the RAF they were very vulnerable. They also had a tendency to burst into flames when hit making them in the words of one RAF pilot _'my favourite target'_. They were most vulnerable _after _they had attacked, as the sought to reform and make their escape.

I think this applies to any dive bomber, I'm not sure that any of the others mentioned in this thread would have done any better than the Ju 87 in the same situation.

The Ju 87 was withdrawn from the BoB following the August losses, but it had as much to do with changing Luftwaffe tactics as it did with any perceived shortcomings of the aircraft itself.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

