# Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?



## fliger747 (Jun 12, 2019)

Winkle Brown was always entertaining to read, he would give his impression on first seeing a given aircraft. I don't always agree with his sense of beauty, but interesting. He describes seeing the SBD as being a decidedly pre war looking aircraft, this plane was the scourge of the Pacific?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 12, 2019)

If the SBD can be described as 'a decidedly pre war looking aircraft ', then the Stuka and Val certainly belong to ww1? What to say about Swordfish and Albacore?

Jokes aside - SBD didn't operated in vacuum. Apart from the 1st half of 1942, it usually enjoyed good support by Allied/friendly fighters, maintenance was ranged between decent and excellent, it operated against a numerically inferior enemy, and, last but not least, it was excellent in doing what was designed to do - accurate dive bombing. It's weapon (= bombs) worked as good as possible, opposite to the US torpedoes in the 1st 20 months of the war. US pilots were well trained, some with good pre-war experience, too.
It also carried a sized bomb-load, engines and fuel got better, enemy was effectively defeated by 1944, and Japanese anti-aircraft suite was sorely lacking against modern and numerical opposition. US aircraft also carried radar as the times went by, again a nod for SBD in this case.
Add (not just) the Midway success, and it all works in SBD's favor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 12, 2019)

The SBD was rugged and just that good....and it helps to be in the right place at
the right time.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=Jw6a9eA-WJo&usg=AOvVaw1ot-oKYKZ5aV1nk8eDeyph

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 12, 2019)

Surprisingly the loss rate amongst SBD crews was the lowest of any USN Aircraft. They were in desperation in several early actions sent out as ersatz fighters to go after the torpedo planes. WWII was the rather short heyday of the dive bomber.


----------



## davebender (Jun 12, 2019)

SBD was about the only American bomber that could reliably hit a ship size target. That makes it look great compared to everything else we flew.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 12, 2019)

The SBD was in the right place at the right time. It actually was not judged as being very effective, although the crews clearly were excellent. At both Coral Sea and Midway the US concluded it was not dropping big enough bombs. The SB2C was supposed to fix that, and eventually it did, but it took a while before it was available and even longer before it was effective.

The TBF and TBM ended up being used as bombers more than they did torpedo planes. They could carry a lot more than the SBD.

Funny story from just after the Marianas Turkey Shoot. The USN launched a strike on the IJN fleet and on return the aircraft were desperately short of fuel and landing on any carrier they could find. An SBD landed on one of the newer carriers that had not been equipped with the airplane. The pilot was told to "Taxi forward and fold your wings." He replied that the wings on the SBD did not fold and the response was, "Well, fold them anyway!"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 12, 2019)

Leaving aside the hardware, I'd not be surprised if the USN diver bomber pilots were _very _well trained.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 12, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> Surprisingly the loss rate amongst SBD crews was the lowest of any USN Aircraft.


The SBD, like the Hellcat, was a "sweet spot" airplane, the result of mastery of the innumerable compromises that go into any design to produce an honest, vice-free airplane that performs to the limit of its available power, while remaining docile and predictable in its handling. Ed ("simplicate and add lightness") Heinneman was renowned for the handling qualities and performance of his designs. In the aeroNAUTICAL world, that's a big step towards a low loss rate. Add to that a stable dive, precision controllability, and two acres worth of dive brakes, and you've got a bird that gets the job done first time, and saves the attrition of re-attack.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jun 12, 2019)

davebender said:


> SBD was about the only American bomber that could reliably hit a ship size target. That makes it look great compared to everything else we flew.


B-25s skip bombing were pretty good.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jun 12, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The SBD, like the Hellcat, was a "sweet spot" airplane, the result of mastery of the innumerable compromises that go into any design to produce an honest, vice-free airplane that performs to the limit of its available power, while remaining docile and predictable in its handling. Ed ("simplicate and add lightness") Heinneman was renowned for the handling qualities and performance of his designs. In the aeroNAUTICAL world, that's a big step towards a low loss rate. Add to that a stable dive, precision controllability, and two acres worth of dive brakes, and you've got a bird that gets the job done first time, and saves the attrition of re-attack.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Some honor must go to another brilliant designer, Jack Northrop, whose BT-2 was the core of the SBD.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 12, 2019)

A very good design for its period.
Performance was good enough. 
Manned by the "First Team" of very well trained Naval Aviators in 1942.
The right airplane, at the right time, with the right pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 12, 2019)

davparlr said:


> Some honor must go to another brilliant designer, Jack Northrop, whose BT-2 was the core of the SBD.


And who was one of Ed Heinneman's mentors.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 12, 2019)

davparlr said:


> B-25s skip bombing were pretty good.


Later on, and after much innovation outside the box. And helped by another "sweet spot" airframe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 12, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> The SBD was in the right place at the right time. It actually was not judged as being very effective, although the crews clearly were excellent. At both Coral Sea and Midway the US concluded it was not dropping big enough bombs. The SB2C was supposed to fix that, and eventually it did, but it took a while before it was available and even longer before it was effective.
> 
> The TBF and TBM ended up being used as bombers more than they did torpedo planes. They could carry a lot more than the SBD.
> 
> Funny story from just after the Marianas Turkey Shoot. The USN launched a strike on the IJN fleet and on return the aircraft were desperately short of fuel and landing on any carrier they could find. An SBD landed on one of the newer carriers that had not been equipped with the airplane. The pilot was told to "Taxi forward and fold your wings." He replied that the wings on the SBD did not fold and the response was, "Well, fold them anyway!"


I don't know if you can write off the SBDs outstanding record as simply being in the right place at the right time. Other types, the Devistator for example, were in the same places at the same times and unfortunately didn't fair so well.
It had an extremely low loss rate. I think I saw one of the other posters say the lowest of USN types. That doesn't seem like something that could be the result of luck i.e. being in the right place at the right time. Especially since it saw front line service form the first day of US involvement in the war to the end.
It also was the only bomber of the war with a positive kill ratio( 1.3 to1 if memory serves) again doesn't sound like something that would stem from luck. At least not on a long consistant basis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 12, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I don't know if you can write off the SBDs outstanding record as simply being in the right place at the right time. Other types, the Devistator for example, were in the same places at the same times and unfortunately didn't fair so well.



There was more to the Dauntless than just being in the right place at the right time but that is the secret to it's success at Midway.
Just being in the same battle on the same day doesn't count as being in the same place at the same time. 
If Dauntlesses had taken the place of Devastators in the early attacks would they have fared much better? Same pilots with the same training, no stories of how well Swede Vejtasa did at coral sea. (he had been flying since July of 1939).
If Devastators had found themselves over the Japanese carriers at the same time/location as the Dauntlesses did (and with the same crews) would they have done much worse? (OK US Devastators didn't have dive brakes or at least very good ones, French ones did though) 

There isn't any question the Dauntless was the better plane but circumstances often have at least something to do with legends.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 13, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> There was more to the Dauntless than just being in the right place at the right time but that is the secret to it's success at Midway.
> Just being in the same battle on the same day doesn't count as being in the same place at the same time.
> If Dauntlesses had taken the place of Devastators in the early attacks would they have fared much better? Same pilots with the same training, no stories of how well Swede Vejtasa did at coral sea. (he had been flying since July of 1939).
> If Devastators had found themselves over the Japanese carriers at the same time/location as the Dauntlesses did (and with the same crews) would they have done much worse? (OK US Devastators didn't have dive brakes or at least very good ones, French ones did though)
> ...


I absolutely agree that circumstances played a huge part in the success at Midway. As they do in most battles now that I think about it but my point was that the SBD had a long consistent record of success from the beginning to the end of the war. At some point you have to conclude there is a good design and not just good fortune.
Also I do think had the Devistators and SBDs circumstances been switched at Midway that the Dauntless would have faired better, again because they had a long consistent record of doing so. How much better I don't know. That was a tuff spot to be in but judging from there record I don't think it's going out on a limb to say at least somewhat better.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 13, 2019)

The SBD


pinehilljoe said:


> A very good design for its period.
> Performance was good enough.
> Manned by the "First Team" of very well trained Naval Aviators in 1942.
> The right airplane, at the right time, with the right pilots.


The SBD was manned by pilots trained in old procedure at the start of the war, this changed quickly in the months following December 1941.
The first encounter between the SBD and the IJN was with VS-6 and VB-6 on 7 December 1941 and they did not fare well, friendly fire excluded.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 13, 2019)

I think it's also the company it keeps as the Devastator and Helldiver are considered bad and so by default the Dauntless is good. But Dauntless was also used as a reserve fighter so that's quite the plus for its handling and performance. 

Plus being a naval fighter that didn't want to kill you on landing and take off must have been very special.

The phrase x factor is overused and there is another thread about what non spec sheet aspects make an aircraft good. The Dauntless is the prime example of this. The Swordfish is another. 

Most aircraft losses in ww2 were not combat related so an easy to fly, safe friend that doesn't want to kill you will always get high scores.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 13, 2019)

The TBD's and the few F4F's absorbed essentially all the Zeros that were defending the IJN fleet at Midway, and in fact the only attacks on SBDs appeared to have occurred on their way home. If the Zeros had been up at altitude on patrol before the SBD's push over things would have not have gone nearly so well. On the other hand, if the TBD's had arrived unannounced with little or no fighter interception they still would not have done well because their torpedoes were built by Federal Govt feathermerchants more interested in preserving their jobs than in producing a decent weapon. The TBD was not that much older than the SBD but it was the first monoplane all metal carrier aircraft the USN adopted and the small difference in time was a period of very rapid advancement, roughly equivalent to the difference between a P-40 and a P-51.

If the USN had been equipped with, say, A-17's, at Midway or Coral Sea I don't think it would have made much, if any, difference. 

Medal of Honor winner Maj Howard had flown SBDs before he went to the AVG and thought that trying to use SBDs for carrier defense was incredibly stupid. At Coral Sea most of the SBD's launched to try to intercept incoming Kates just flew like a dive bomber and achieved nothing. The very few that flew like a fighter did much better - and the rear gunner proved to be of very little value as a result.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 13, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> The SBD was rugged and just that good....and it helps to be in the right place at
> the right time.
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQkKmMpeTiAhUCi6wKHSM2CVIQwqsBMAF6BAgJEAQ&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw6a9eA-WJo&usg=AOvVaw1ot-oKYKZ5aV1nk8eDeyph



IJN records do not confirm VeJtasa's SBD kill claims.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 13, 2019)

The SBD benefited from the fact that the IJN had no air warning radar until late 1942, and none at Midway.

The TBD was a really poor aircraft with severe airframe limitations, low power and severely overweight. Consequently it performed poorly and it's official stats border on being pure fiction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jun 13, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> There was more to the Dauntless than just being in the right place at the right time but that is the secret to it's success at Midway.
> Just being in the same battle on the same day doesn't count as being in the same place at the same time.
> If Dauntlesses had taken the place of Devastators in the early attacks would they have fared much better? Same pilots with the same training, no stories of how well Swede Vejtasa did at coral sea. (he had been flying since July of 1939).
> If Devastators had found themselves over the Japanese carriers at the same time/location as the Dauntlesses did (and with the same crews) would they have done much worse? (OK US Devastators didn't have dive brakes or at least very good ones, French ones did though)
> ...


You are correct. The real victor at Midway was the unorchestrated but effective, series of events that led up to the annihilation of the Japanese carriers starting with the early attacks of the Midway forces of B-17s, B-26s, and TBFs (which were no more successful than the obsolete TBDs) which kept the Japanese on their heels, and then then fortuitous and fatal attack by the TBDs which was followed immediately by the practically fighter unchallenged attack of the SBDs. The TBDs were no doubt obsolete, but so was their missions, i.e., dropping faulty torpedoes from very low altitudes and very low airspeeds (I think about 130 mph). At Coral Sea the TBDs did okay, excluding the awful torpedo performance, where reasonable fighter cover was provided.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Jun 13, 2019)

Most forum members know that I'm a hewge SBD fan. Not just because it was my first book (in print since 1976!) but because I enjoyed the blessing to help restore our A-24B as an SBD-5 and got about 6-8 hours flight time. A couple of years ago I wrote a tribute in Naval History Magazine called "The Plane that Won the War" and laid out the reasons--certainly well known here. A couple of B-17 partisans got cranky but they were easily ignored.

Thing is: imagine the US Navy and Marine Corps without the SBD in the year after Pearl. For that matter, imagine no F4Fs. That left SB2Us and F2As...
Yeah.

The main reason the Dauntless was a war-winner in 42 is that it was flown largely by prewar professionals who were extremely good at what they did. The "platform" (to use a XXI century term) was very well suited to the role, and that combination produced results when results were essential. Before we started flying ours, a couple of experienced pilots said "It flies like a big SNJ." And that's true. At cruise you could "drive" the bird with a thumb and two fingers on the stick. I got to know Ed Heinemann well and he said the ailerons were the factory's pride. Do not recall how much (or if) they were changed from the Northrop BT-1.

(Other warbird owners asked why we didn't dive our bird. But the original seals were then 30 years old, and I remember the boldface caution in the pilot's manual: THE SBD-5 AIRPLANE WILL NOT MAINTAIN LEVEL FLIGHT WITH THE DIVE FLAPS EXTENDED. 

Sidebar: I was oaflishly proud to tell Ed something he did not know. The holes in the dive and landing flaps (all 318) were exactly the diameter of a tennis ball. How I came to know that is another story...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Jun 13, 2019)

TBF and TBM ended up being used as bombers more than they did torpedo planes. 
Given the poor quality of USN torpedoes during the early 1940s what else could they do?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 13, 2019)

Why the hell Dave received a dislike just above?? Not hailing the Hawker Hurricane to high heavens?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 13, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Why the hell Dave received a dislike just above?? Not hailing the Hawker Hurricane to high heavens?


I just think its an unfair comment 'what else would you do with them'. Us Brits used the Avenger successfully for ASW and as a bomber, but never to drop torpedoes. Well we had the Swordfish for that, didn't we? At least the FAA was sensible enough to use them for low visibility or night attacks as opposed to the USN which used their torpedo bombers in daylight opposed attacks. I thought the Avenger was pretty good when used sensibly, just like the Swordfish.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 13, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I just think its an unfair comment 'what else would you do with them'. Us Brits used the Avenger successfully for ASW and as a bomber, but never to drop torpedoes. Well we had the Swordfish for that, didn't we? At least the FAA was sensible enough to use them for low visibility or night attacks as opposed to the USN which used their torpedo bombers in daylight opposed attacks. I thought the Avenger was pretty good when used sensibly, just like the Swordfish.


The TBF/M was designed as a Torpedo bomber, therefor, attacking with torpedoes would be the logical thing to do with a torpedo bomber.

The fact that it was able to transition to bombing was a plus. And the Avenger was used extensively in attacking Japanese positions during the Island campaigns and it was one of those instances where President Bush's TBM-1C was shot down after delivering an accurate bomb strike on a Japanese command center.

But Dave's comment was spot on and didn't warrant a negative mark

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 13, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I just think its an unfair comment 'what else would you do with them'. Us Brits used the Avenger successfully for ASW and as a bomber, but never to drop torpedoes. Well we had the Swordfish for that, didn't we? At least the FAA was sensible enough to use them for low visibility or night attacks as opposed to the USN which used their torpedo bombers in daylight opposed attacks. I thought the Avenger was pretty good when used sensibly, just like the Swordfish.



Not that hard, eh - a worded comment, instead just slapping a 'dislike' like you are slapping the 'disagree' to me.
Avenger was not able to use British torpedoes, since those were too long to fit in the bomb bay (circa 3 ft longer than the US Mk.13). 
'We' didn't have anything in ww2, Swordfishes were property of RN, and both Swordfish and Albacore were flying target practice against a half-decent aerial opposition.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 13, 2019)

Here's a faint negative taken during a training exercise over the Gulf of Mexico in 1944. That's the old man in #19. They had night trainings in these, as well, over illuminated die markers. The old man carrier-qualified on the "Speedy D" in 1944, June, off the Sable, in Lake Michigan, where they had to do 8 landings for that. Just a little more historical on these...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 13, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Not that hard, eh - a worded comment, instead just slapping a 'dislike' like you are slapping the 'disagree' to me.
> Avenger was not able to use British torpedoes, since those were too long to fit in the bomb bay (circa 3 ft longer than the US Mk.13).
> 'We' didn't have anything in ww2, Swordfishes were property of RN, and both Swordfish and Albacore were flying target practice against a half-decent aerial opposition.


The best use we had of the Albacore was as a dive bomber and night raids in the Western Desert. Don't knock it. Even the Luftwaffe used the Cr 42 for night attacks. The Ruskies were luckier, they had the Po-2 flown by their night witches.


----------



## Barrett (Jun 13, 2019)

Ref. Jim Howard flying SBDs:
I knew Jim tolerably well and in fact contributed to his memoir. He never-ever mentioned SBDs. Prewar he flew F3Fs in VF-6 aboard Enterprise.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 13, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The SBD benefited from the fact that the IJN had no air warning radar until late 1942, and none at Midway.
> 
> The TBD was a really poor aircraft with severe airframe limitations, low power and severely overweight. Consequently it performed poorly and it's official stats border on being pure fiction.



An old joke. 
2 gentleman was been chased by a tiger and one of them puts his trainers/sneakers/running shoes on.
The other guy asks if he intends to outrun a tiger? 
The answer was "no, I only have to outrun you."

If the Dauntless was garbage then the IJN was utterly worthless.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 13, 2019)

Anything at Midway flying at 50 ft at 120 mph through the middle of the Japanese fleet was going to get plastered by the Zero’s. 2 of the 4 B26’s were shot down as were 5 of the 6 Avengers. The only reason the 2 B26’s survived were because they had armor, self sealing tanks, good defensive firepower and after dropping their torpedoes they buried the throttles and those big R2800’s allowed them to at least match the Zero’s speed at SL. I doubt a flight of B17’s would have survived that same run at SL if their top speed was limited to 120 mph like a Devistator was

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 13, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The SBD benefited from the fact that the IJN had no air warning radar until late 1942, and none at Midway.



These weren't anything to sneeze at in dogfights. Then again, they weren't designed as fighter-aircraft. They were rather designed to do their business, then get the hell out. Their firepower was for defensive more than offensive purposes.



RCAFson said:


> The TBD was a really poor aircraft with severe airframe limitations, low power and severely overweight. Consequently it performed poorly and it's official stats border on being pure fiction.



The TBDs/TBMs shoulder a lot of criticism. Much of it is deservedly-so. My Dad's buddy flew these. The actor, Paul Newman, was his radioman/gunner, just as an interesting note. But there's no question, they'd have sunk those carriers, but for the enemy fighter-cover. I'll also add, no make of torpedo bomber, from whomever the manufacturer, could have withstood that enemy fighter-cover any better, going into mouth of their targets, as they had to, that low, unless they had proportionate fighter-cover, themselves.

The Speedy Ds didn't need fighter-cover, like the TBDs/TBMs did. And that's what happened, there, in a nut...


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 13, 2019)

The Basket said:


> An old joke.
> 2 gentleman was been chased by a tiger and one of them puts his trainers/sneakers/running shoes on.
> The other guy asks if he intends to outrun a tiger?
> The answer was "no, I only have to outrun you."
> ...



Who said the SBD was garbage?

The fact is that the IJN didn't intercept any of the SBDs at Midway (and few elsewhere) until they were in their attack dives and, then only a handful were intercepted. This wasn't due to any inherent quality of the SBD except that it cruised at 15-20k ft and the IJN failed to see them. If we replace the SBDs with Albacores and fly the Albacores along the same mission profile, with the same bomb load, then we'd expect similar results, both in terms of bomb hits and in shot down Albacores down prior to weapon release. After weapon release we'd expect Albacore losses to be heavier depending on the then current location and status of IJN CAP.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 13, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> These weren't anything to sneeze at in dogfights. Then again, they weren't designed as fighter-aircraft. They were rather designed to do their business, then get the hell out. Their firepower was for defensive more than offensive purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



SBD kill claims have to be taken with a very large grain of salt as was their ability to mix it in dogfights The SBD-3 had less than a 1000hp at altitude and still weighed ~9000lb without a bomb. Granted, unlike the TBD the SBD airframe was stressed for high G manoeuvres and their pilots could fly to the limit knowing that they had a basically unbreakable airframe. The USAAF was distinctly underwhelmed by their A-24s, which was a lighter variant of the SBD.

It wasn't their speed that protected the SBD (it cruised at ~130 knots), rather it was their cruise altitude which made it difficult for IJN CAP to spot and intercept them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 13, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> SBD kill claims have to be taken with a very large grain of salt as was their ability to mix it in dogfights The SBD-3 had less than a 1000hp at altitude and still weighed ~9000lb without a bomb. Granted, unlike the TBD the SBD airframe was stressed for high G manoeuvres and their pilots could fly to the limit knowing that they had a basically unbreakable airframe. The USAAF was distinctly underwhelmed by their A-24s, which was a lighter variant of the SBD.
> 
> It wasn't their speed that protected the SBD (it cruised at ~130 knots), rather it was their cruise altitude which made it difficult for IJN CAP to spot and intercept them.


They were just called "Speedy Ds." But yes, they weren't fighter-aircraft, but they were tough ones. Agreed all around...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 13, 2019)

"Speedy Three" was the nickname for the SBD-3 and it was also called "Slow But Deadly".

I understand the skepticism about the SBD's ability to fight, but the USN thought it was capable of the task. Not many dive-bombers were used as supplemental CAP.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 13, 2019)

In the book No Higher Honor they describe how one TBD pilot was told, "Yes, the TBD can't fly fast. But it sure can fly slow better than anything." I mean, look at the wing on that airplane! Escaping the Zeros, that pilot kept that in mind, flew slow away from the battle area rather than full throttle, and did a tight turn each time a Zero lined up on him. He apparently ran the Zeros out of ammo and one IJN pilot passed him either shaking his fist or giving him a salute - he did not know which - and then broke off and head back to his carrier - which the SBD's probably had just sunk.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 13, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> "Speedy Three" was the nickname for the SBD-3 and it was also called "Slow But Deadly".



"Slow But Deadly" is more a description that became popular through repetiveness because it sounds cool, is my take on that, as I've never heard it, at least not from the generation. That makes me think it came after. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.



GrauGeist said:


> I understand the skepticism about the SBD's ability to fight, but the USN thought it was capable of the task. Not many dive-bombers were used as supplemental CAP.



That's right, it was capable. And there were times it was put to that capacity, after it let go its load.


----------



## Barrett (Jun 13, 2019)

Ref. WW II USN torpedoes: yes the 1941-43 models left a whole lot to be desired. Their air-launched parameters were in large part responsible for the TBD debacle at Midway although that's more complex than The Sooole Survivor liked to tell. Fact is, tho: no TBDs were lost to enemy action in flight until the morning of 4 June 42. (Discounting those that sank with CV-2.) 

The head of BuOrd when the WW II torpedoes were developed AND NEVER ADEQUATELY TESTED was later FADM Wm. Leahy who was recalled to duty as FDR's briefcase carrier. IMO he only got his ill-deserved 5th star so the Brit field marshals would return his calls. He's the one who (in)famously said "As an explosive expert I can say that the atom bomb will not work."

Anyway: not until late 43 were US subs deployed with reliable torpedoes, similar situation with air-launched. The late-great Bill Martin (Mr Night Carrier) said that VT-10 dropped 31 torpedoes in 43-44 and none ran hot, straight & normal. that's why he developed night bombing tactics for TBFs. In a self-respecting navy people would've gone away for that scandal but of course it didn't happen.

(Sidebar: I used to correspond with "Gummi" who runs the wonderful Uboat.net site up there in Iceland. He said that the Kriegsmarine ordies who designed defective magnetic detonators went to jail. I had to tell him that ours made admiral.)

Anyway: every innovation I know of in US torpedo technology came from industry, not the navy. There's a fascinating story about Hedy Lamarr's involvement with frequency-agile technology, mainly for comm, but eventually applied to acoustic torpedoes I believe. (My brother knew her daughter and said Hubba Hubba...) 

From latter 1944 the "ring tail" variety of aerial torps entered combat, debuted by VT-13 in USS Franklin. They worked well, with higher and faster drop parameters than previous models.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Not many dive-bombers were used as supplemental CAP.



Blackburn Skua, except it might have been primary CAP. 

There is also a world of difference between using SBDs against 3 seat B5N2s





and a single seat fighter powered by the same engine. 
The Kate was originally slightly better than the poor old Devastator (which was entering service when the Prototype Kate flew), Kates used in WW II got a new higher powered engine than the early versions used. Devastator used the same engine for the whole production run, A whopping 850hp max. at altitude. 

An interesting dog fight would have been SBD-3s against D3A1 Vals.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 13, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> "Slow But Deadly" is more a description that became popular through repetiveness because it sounds cool, is my take on that, as I've never heard it, at least not from the generation. That makes me think it came after. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.


Americans of that time were well known for colloquilisms and nicknames for just about everything.

The TBF was known as the "Turkey", the P-47 was the "Jug", the BT-13 was the "Vibrator", the PT-22 was the "Maytag", the SB2C was the "Sonofabitch 2nd Class" and the list goes on.
In addition to hearing the SBD referred to as the "Slow But Deadly", I also heard it referred to as the "Barge".


----------



## pinsog (Jun 13, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Blackburn Skua, except it might have been primary CAP.
> 
> There is also a world of difference between using SBDs against 3 seat B5N2s
> View attachment 541712
> ...



Love to hear your thoughts on a Val dogfighting SBD. SBD is tougher, better armed, 2 50’s forward and 2 30’s in the back. Val had 2 30’s forward and a Lewis gun (I think) in the back. Val is super agile, could an SBD ever get behind a Val?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 13, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> The SBD was rugged and just that good....and it helps to be in the right place at
> the right time.
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQkKmMpeTiAhUCi6wKHSM2CVIQwqsBMAF6BAgJEAQ&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw6a9eA-WJo&usg=AOvVaw1ot-oKYKZ5aV1nk8eDeyph




Damn I miss that show.

I think dive bombers as a type, at least the more modern ones, have a certain advantage - because they were designed for high G pull-outs, they could make high-G turns. When it's also a fairly strongly made aircraft, like the SBD or also, the Stuka, a good pilot willing to put it through it's paces can evade fighters and flak pretty well.

Dive bombing was also (I think) generally a safer way to attack, certainly safer than torpedo bombing.

The SBD was one of those great designs that was just far enough of the curve at the moment, without necessarily seeming to be very advanced, that it was effective. A lot of little things like having reliable dive brakes, sufficient instruments to navigate, good radios, figuring out how to keep the bomb-sights / windscreen from fogging up in a dive from 10,000 ft, could make the difference between success and failure. 

The navy pilots in particular were also quite well trained. Half of them in the early days at least were trained as scout / bomber rather than just bomber pilots, and the scout guys got some pretty good air combat training in addition to navigation and dive bombing. I'm sure that helped.

As for the Swede, I believe his victories are legit. He did quite well as a fighter pilot after his experiences with the SBD.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 13, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The SBD, like the Hellcat, was a "sweet spot" airplane, the result of mastery of the innumerable compromises that go into any design to produce an honest, vice-free airplane that performs to the limit of its available power, while remaining docile and predictable in its handling. Ed ("simplicate and add lightness") Heinneman was renowned for the handling qualities and performance of his designs. In the aeroNAUTICAL world, that's a big step towards a low loss rate. Add to that a stable dive, precision controllability, and two acres worth of dive brakes, and you've got a bird that gets the job done first time, and saves the attrition of re-attack.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Well put


----------



## Schweik (Jun 13, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Later on, and after much innovation outside the box. And helped by another "sweet spot" airframe.



The A-20 did pretty well as a skip-bomber too, and the Russians used it as a torpedo bomber with some success.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 13, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Love to hear your thoughts on a Val dogfighting SBD. SBD is tougher, better armed, 2 50’s forward and 2 30’s in the back. Val had 2 30’s forward and a Lewis gun (I think) in the back. Val is super agile, could an SBD ever get behind a Val?



They did use them against Vals and Kates and they shot quite a few down. Against Zeros it was usually far more dismal, Swede's epic feat nothwithstanding.

I wouldn't say that it was thought of as a good idea to use SBD's as CAP incidentally, it was just an act of desperation. They didn't have enough aircraft - they needed scouts, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, ASW patrol and escort fighters and CAP fighters. And on carriers that only carried 70 some odd aircraft. It's really kind of a serious flaw in Carrier design, and one of the reasons why Carriers usually weren't so great at attacking ground targets. You can put a bomb in the middle of Henderson field and they can fill it up in two days. You put a bomb in the center of the Akagi and it is going to be in dry dock for two years if you are lucky.

The actual non-bombing job SBD's did most other than scouting was as ASW patrol. American Admirals were deathly afraid of IJN submarines. They always had to divert 5 or 10 of them at least to go looking for subs around the Carriers, and some slipped through anyway.


I agree with the notion that it was largely a matter of the SBD appearing at the right moment of musical chairs in the accelerated development cycle of pre and early war designs. It makes a lot of sense to me. The SBD wasn't so new and innovative that it didn't actually work yet when they first got it (like the Helldiver) but it wasn't designed when all the realities of combat were still only dimly understood (and therefore obsolete) like the Devastator or Vindicator (or Swordfish etc.) ... and it wasn't oversized for a carrier plane like the Avenger. It had been designed to do as well as it could with the engine it had and the realistic design limits regarding bomb load, range etc. Certainly it was the best carrier based naval bomber of the war.

The D3A Val was also a remarkably good dive bomber IMO but due to the Japanese design philosophy it turned out to be less effective in attrition war. Once the Japanese momentum was checked sufficiently

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 13, 2019)

Schweik said:


> They did use them against Vals and Kates and they shot quite a few down. Against Zeros it was usually far more dismal, Swede's epic feat nothwithstanding.
> 
> I wouldn't say that it was thought of as a good idea to use SBD's as CAP incidentally, it was just an act of desperation. They didn't have enough aircraft - they needed scouts, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, ASW patrol and escort fighters and CAP fighters. And on carriers that only carried 70 some odd aircraft. It's really kind of a serious flaw in Carrier design, and one of the reasons why Carriers usually weren't so great at attacking ground targets. You can put a bomb in the middle of Henderson field and they can fill it up in two days. You put a bomb in the center of the Akagi and it is going to be in dry dock for two years if you are lucky.
> 
> ...



A Kate isn’t a big deal for an SBD, bigger, no forward weapons, not going to outturn an SBD. A Val was very agile without bombs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Love to hear your thoughts on a Val dogfighting SBD. SBD is tougher, better armed, 2 50’s forward and 2 30’s in the back. Val had 2 30’s forward and a Lewis gun (I think) in the back. Val is super agile, could an SBD ever get behind a Val?


 A lot depends on the situation. A big problem is that a lot of the performance numbers are for when each plane is carrying a bomb of some sort. Without the bomb speed changes somewhat but both climb and the ability to sustain a turn increase. And here we start getting into unknowns. The Val is lighter with a bigger wing. The Val has a higher ceiling loaded than the SBD-3 has clean with 150 gallons of fuel on board by about 3000ft. They are not going to fighting at anywhere near the service ceilings but you get the idea. 

As a point of inforamtion the SBD-3 was supposed to climb to 15,000 as a scout (no bomb) with 150 gallons in protected tanks in 10.9 minutes. Now compare that to even the worst single seat single engine fighter you can find that was used in WW II. A Gladiator could get to 20,000ft in that amount of time with almost a minute to spare. 
At altitude and we are talking about 10,400ft to 16,000ft the engine in the SBD was good for 800hp and the take-off weight with armor and protected tanks and 150 gallons of fuel was 8277lbs. At low altitude (0-4500ft) in low gear the engine was good for 950hp. 

These dive bomber fighters (all three) may be well able to do a high G turn but their ability to actually sustain more than a partial turn without slowing down to near stall speed or having to loose altitude is certainly questionable.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2019)

pinsog said:


> A Kate isn’t a big deal for an SBD, bigger, no forward weapons, not going to outturn an SBD. A Val was very agile without bombs.



That is part of my problem with the SBD as a CAP plane, apparently the US commanders knew full well it's limitations and pretty much kept the SBDs at altitudes/positions to try to intercept the Kates. All well and good. But in many of these internet discussions we are told how wonderful the SBD was because it could be used as an emergency or secondary CAP fighter. Well, if it was useful against only one out three of the enemies primary aircraft that is better than nothing but not quite the picture that is often painted.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 13, 2019)

Wasn’t it at Coral Sea that the SBD chased a Kate for 50-75 miles and finally pulled up abreast of him (don’t know the distance apart) and the rear gunners of both planes blazed away until the SBD won the gun battle.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2019)

i have no idea but if that SBD pilot was 50 miles away from his own carrier he sure wasn't defending it from any other attackers


----------



## pinsog (Jun 13, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> i have no idea but if that SBD pilot was 50 miles away from his own carrier he sure wasn't defending it from any other attackers



It was revenge after the attack so the Kate had no torpedo. I think that story was in The First Team, someone will chime in and tell us where that happened. I think they said the SBD had about a 3 knot advantage on the Kate and finally caught him.

Edit: when I think about it, I think they shot at each other until both back seaters ran out of ammo and the SBD turned back, but they later at some point, determined that that particular Kate didn’t make it back.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 13, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> SBD kill claims have to be taken with a very large grain of salt as was their ability to mix it in dogfights The SBD-3 had less than a 1000hp at altitude and still weighed ~9000lb without a bomb. Granted, unlike the TBD the SBD airframe was stressed for high G manoeuvres and their pilots could fly to the limit knowing that they had a basically unbreakable airframe. The USAAF was distinctly underwhelmed by their A-24s, which was a lighter variant of the SBD.
> 
> It wasn't their speed that protected the SBD (it cruised at ~130 knots), rather it was their cruise altitude which made it difficult for IJN CAP to spot and intercept them.


I've heard that before in reference to the SBDs outstanding( for a bomber) kill loss ratio. That is that you have to discount it or take it with a grain of salt. A couple thoughts 1 many of the kills were within sight of navy personnel aboard ships 2 yes all types of ww2 aircraft were subject to overclaiming but why would the SBD be more prone to this phenomenon than other types? Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the kill ratio of the SBD at greater percentage than all other aircraft( I can think of several reasons it should be discounted at a lesser rate but leaving those aside) then the kill ratio is valid for comparison and stands as the best of any bomber of the war.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 13, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I wouldn't say that it was thought of as a good idea to use SBD's as CAP incidentally, it was just an act of desperation. They didn't have enough aircraft - they needed scouts, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, ASW patrol and escort fighters and CAP fighters. And on carriers that only carried 70 some odd aircraft. It's really kind of a serious flaw in Carrier design


The fact that the USN could use SBDs as supplemental CAP was a plus for the carrier, which in those days, were very limited on their aircraft compliment - the early US carriers typically had a compliment of 78 to 90 aircraft.

So this essentially doubled the USN's Carrier's CAP capabilities and also provided protection while the Carrier was recovering her fighter compliment to refuel/rearm, etc. The SBD was also used as an advance scout, flying in teams ahead of the taskforce at preset patterns and intervals. It was the scouts of VS-6 and VT-6 from the Enterprise that flew into the melee at Pearl Harbor on 7 December, too.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 13, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I've heard that before in reference to the SBDs outstanding( for a bomber) kill loss ratio. That is that you have to discount it or take it with a grain of salt. A couple thoughts 1 many of the kills were within sight of navy personnel aboard ships 2 yes all types of ww2 aircraft were subject to overclaiming but why would the SBD be more prone to this phenomenon than other types? Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the kill ratio of the SBD at greater percentage than all other aircraft( I can think of several reasons it should be discounted at a lesser rate but leaving those aside) then the kill ratio is valid for comparison and stands as the best of any bomber of the war.



From 7 Dec 1941 to 31 Dec 1942 SBDs claimed 88 IJN (28 VT/VB + 60VF) aircraft for the loss of 39 SBDs (USN Aviation Stats). If I go through First Team V1&2 am I going to find 88 kills attributed to SBDs? For example at Coral Sea:


> feet, took another look around, then set course for Task Force 17. By 1115 when the last Yorktown aircraft departed, the carrier Shōkaku appeared in bad shape, her crews battling fierce fires. The Yorktown pilots claimed six 1,000-lb. bomb hits and three torpedo hits on a carrier they believed was the Kaga. SBD crews reported eleven Zeros destroyed, while VF-42 claimed three (one to McCuskey, two to Woollen). Total air group losses in the target area amounted to two SBDs from Bombing Five. The crews described the stricken enemy carrier as burning fiercely at the bow with a flame resembling an “acetylene torch,”13 apparently fueled by aviation gasoline. They thought the carrier was a goner...
> 
> ...Sixteen Zeros from the Shōkaku and the Zuikaku participated actively in the defense of MO Striking Force, and their losses were two fighters shot down and two more shot up. Japanese claims were extremely high, something like thirty-nine planes shot down! The Zuikaku Fighter Unit reported shooting down thirteen fighters, six dive bombers, and three torpedo planes, while the Shōkaku fighter pilots claimed five fighters, nine dive bombers, and two torpedo planes, not counting probable kills or damaged aircraft. High scorer in Japanese reports was Okabe Kenji, credited with three fighters and three dive bombers shot down, and one of each of those types as probables.19 As far as can be determined, the Japanese fighters actually shot down two SBD dive bombers and three F4F fighters in both attacks. The Japanese certainly were enthusiastic claimers...
> 
> ...


The SBDs attacking the IJN claimed 11 Zeros and maybe got one, but most likely got none. SBDs defending TF-17 claimed 6 Zeros and got none, while claiming 11 attack aircraft and getting 6.

So 17 Zero kill claims and maybe one actual kill.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 13, 2019)

Schweik said:


> and it wasn't oversized for a carrier plane like the Avenger.


Huh? A folding wing Avenger takes up more space than a stiff wing Dauntless? Something wrong with this picture, don't you think?
My uncle flew Avengers off jeep carriers for Atlantic convoy protection, and he said that despite its size, it was the most comfortable plane in the fleet to operate off a small, slow moving deck. Superb slow speed handling, solid, reliable control response, and good visibility on approach, plus soft, long throw oleos. He said you had to try real hard to make it bounce on landing.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 13, 2019)

The SBD’s did account for a few large Japanese 4 engine flying boat recon planes during the Guadalcanal campaign. They shot down enough that the Wildcat pilots were getting mad about it. Shot some down within sight of the carrier.


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 14, 2019)

Was the one fifty cal in the TBF turret more effective than the twin 30's of the SBD?


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 14, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> From 7 Dec 1941 to 31 Dec 1942 SBDs claimed 88 IJN (28 VT/VB + 60VF) aircraft for the loss of 39 SBDs (USN Aviation Stats). If I go through First Team V1&2 am I going to find 88 kills attributed to SBDs? For example at Coral Sea:
> 
> The SBDs attacking the IJN claimed 11 Zeros and maybe got one, but most likely got none. SBDs defending TF-17 claimed 6 Zeros and got none, while claiming 11 attack aircraft and getting 6.
> 
> So 17 Zero kill claims and maybe one actual kill.


I could go through the combat records of any plane and pick out instances where 11 were claimed and they only realy got 6( most likely some of the other 5 were damaged but not destroyed) or they claimed 12 and got one.
And that's my point . Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots to a greater degree than other pilots than the "take it with a grain of salt" aplies more or less equally to all aircraft and after the discounting, at least by way of comparison you end up right back where you started.
So ya, go ahead and lop some off the SBDs record if you want but if you are going to be consistent you have to do the same for everything else and look at that you still have the best kill loss record of any bomber of the war, better than some fighters by the way.
Even if you want to lop of 40 or 50% off it's record it still knocked down almost as many enemy as at lost. Not bad for a plane that half the time( on the way in) was lugging a 500 or 1000 lb bomb. Oh, and for a bomber still the best of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Huh? A folding wing Avenger takes up more space than a stiff wing Dauntless? Something wrong with this picture, don't you think?
> My uncle flew Avengers off jeep carriers for Atlantic convoy protection, and he said that despite its size, it was the most comfortable plane in the fleet to operate off a small, slow moving deck. Superb slow speed handling, solid, reliable control response, and good visibility on approach, plus soft, long throw oleos. He said you had to try real hard to make it bounce on landing.
> Cheers,
> Wes




I'm sure it handled nicely for it's size but to me what you ended up with there was basically an oversized ASW airplane that was about as nimble and swift as a city bus, and not particularly effective at sinking enemy ships. To kill ships you are better off with an SBD or even a later issue Helldiver. For an attack plane against island targets you are probably better off with the Hellcat or a Corsair for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I could go through the combat records of any plane and pick out instances where 11 were claimed and they only realy got 6( most likely some of the other 5 were damaged but not destroyed) or they claimed 12 and got one.
> And that's my point . Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots to a greater degree than other pilots than the "take it with a grain of salt" aplies more or less equally to all aircraft and after the discounting, at least by way of comparison you end up right back where you started.
> So ya, go ahead and lop some off the SBDs record if you want but if you are going to be consistent you have to do the same for everything else and look at that you still have the best kill loss record of any bomber of the war, better than some fighters by the way.
> Even if you want to lop of 40 or 50% off it's record it still knocked down almost as many enemy as at lost. Not bad for a plane that half the time( on the way in) was lugging a 500 or 1000 lb bomb. Oh, and for a bomber still the best of the war.



Yeah really good point Michael. And even if they only shot down 6 Kates at Coral Sea each of those could have meant saving one of the big ships, if you add up all 6 that seems pretty likely to be a hit to me. Those SBD's may have saved a carrier.

The other thing to keep in mind is as emergency / backup CAP, they did not actually have to shoot down enemy bombers to succeed - they just had to prevent them from making dive bombing attacks or torpedo runs. To disrupt attacks in other words, which they did seem to be able to do. They may or may not have been able to dominate a Val but they weren't in any major risk of being shot down by one either. Against bombers, the SBD had two heavy guns in the nose where they are easier to aim, it was very maneuverable and stressed for tight turns, and handled well.

They clearly did shoot down torpedo bombers, and float plane / scouts, and probably some A6M and D3A as well.

The problem was in spite of some pilots managing to rise to the occasion, SBD's were certainly not in the same league as a Zero, and they only had so many guys like Swede Vejtasa. Most of the accounts I've read of the SBDs that faced zeroes in Coral Sea while flying CAP sound pretty nightmarish. Only the extremely heavily built nature of the plane allowed most of the survivors to live to tell about it. By contrast, in dive bombing missions they seem to have usually been able to escape without too much problems. Different type of scenario.

Again, I think they only resorted to doing that because of the extreme danger their ships, especially the carriers themsleves, were facing. They had to send half of their planes to attack the enemy, could only spare so many fighters for CAP, and they specifically did IIRC use the SBD's down low so as to catch torpedo bombers, i.e. so that they didn't bring their fighters too low to intercept dive bombers like happened to the Japanese at Midway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I could go through the combat records of any plane and pick out instances where 11 were claimed and they only realy got 6( most likely some of the other 5 were damaged but not destroyed) or they claimed 12 and got one.
> And that's my point . Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots to a greater degree than other pilots than the "take it with a grain of salt" aplies more or less equally to all aircraft and after the discounting, at least by way of comparison you end up right back where you started.
> So ya, go ahead and lop some off the SBDs record if you want but if you are going to be consistent you have to do the same for everything else and look at that you still have the best kill loss record of any bomber of the war, better than some fighters by the way.
> Even if you want to lop of 40 or 50% off it's record it still knocked down almost as many enemy as at lost. Not bad for a plane that half the time( on the way in) was lugging a 500 or 1000 lb bomb. Oh, and for a bomber still the best of the war.



While i agree that there is no reason to discount the claims of SBD's more those of any other aircraft, it doesn't change the fact that it's kills to losses ratio is based on over claiming.

In the ETO and MTO, the USAAF heavy bombers also had an effective aerial kills to loss rate, combined for the two theaters, it's 2.78 to 1 (according to the USAAF Statiscal Digest). 
However, we know that the gunners' claims were exaggerated, for understandable reasons, so the actual exchange rate is likely to be very different. 

No one seems to have any difficulty in discounting the bomber gunners' claims


----------



## pinsog (Jun 14, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> Was the one fifty cal in the TBF turret more effective than the twin 30's of the SBD?



The turret would definitely be better than a pintle mounted weapon as far as aiming and control. 1 50 with a 750 or so rpm vs 2 30’s at 1,000 rpm per gun would start a whole debate on its own. A few big powerful bullets vs a swarm of smaller bullets. I don’t know which I would chose.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2019)

Hmmm...a single .50 MG in an electronically operated turret versus a twin .30 MG on a free-mount against non-armored enemy aircraft...

That's a tough call (said with slight sarcasm).


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I could go through the combat records of any plane and pick out instances where 11 were claimed and they only realy got 6( most likely some of the other 5 were damaged but not destroyed) or they claimed 12 and got one.
> And that's my point . Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots to a greater degree than other pilots than the "take it with a grain of salt" aplies more or less equally to all aircraft and after the discounting, at least by way of comparison you end up right back where you started.
> So ya, go ahead and lop some off the SBDs record if you want but if you are going to be consistent you have to do the same for everything else and look at that you still have the best kill loss record of any bomber of the war, better than some fighters by the way.
> Even if you want to lop of 40 or 50% off it's record it still knocked down almost as many enemy as at lost. Not bad for a plane that half the time( on the way in) was lugging a 500 or 1000 lb bomb. Oh, and for a bomber still the best of the war.



The SBDs claimed 88 kills during 1942 and 28 of those 88 claims were made at Coral Sea. Actual kills at Coral Sea were maybe 1 Zero and 6 attack aircraft for 28 claims. I don't think you read my post correctly:

_*"From 7 Dec 1941 to 31 Dec 1942 SBDs claimed 88 IJN (60VF + 28 VT/VB ) aircraft for the loss of 39 SBDs (USN Aviation Stats). If I go through First Team V1&2 am I going to find 88 kills attributed to SBDs? For example at Coral Sea:*_

_*The SBDs attacking the IJN claimed 11 Zeros and maybe got one, but most likely got none. SBDs defending TF-17 claimed 6 Zeros and got none, while claiming 11 attack aircraft and getting 6."*_

So 17 Zero kill claims and maybe one actual kill. I haven't summarized the entire two volumes of First Team because that would take a very long time, but I have no doubt that the same ratio will hold up, namely that the number of actual Zero kills will be 4 or 5 out of 60 claimed and ~15 actual kills from the 29 attack aircraft claimed. Extrapolating from the Coral Sea results we get about 20 kills from 88 claims


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 14, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The SBDs claimed 88 kills during 1942 and 28 of those 88 claims were made at Coral Sea. Actual kills at Coral Sea were maybe 1 Zero and 6 attack aircraft for 28 claims. I don't think you read my post correctly:
> 
> _*"From 7 Dec 1941 to 31 Dec 1942 SBDs claimed 88 IJN (60VF + 28 VT/VB ) aircraft for the loss of 39 SBDs (USN Aviation Stats). If I go through First Team V1&2 am I going to find 88 kills attributed to SBDs? For example at Coral Sea:*_
> 
> ...


I didn't misread your post. I took the worst example of overclaiming and the least you gave to be fair and used them as examples that could aply to any aircraft.
The final war end ratio I've read several places is i believe 1.3 or 1.2 to 1. Amost an even trade. The ratio of claims you are using for the coral sea is much more optimistic for the SBD. 88 to 39. About 2.2 to 1. So I think it is safe to say that the same ratios will not hold up throughout claims. I've always read the 1.3 to 1 number refered to as verified claims.
For the ratios you gave to hold consistent( 4 to 1 overclaiming) SBDs would have to suddenly drop there claims to losses ratio by about 75 % to arive at the 1.3 to 1 ratio comonly given for the war end total.
That seems shall we say unlikely. Again the claiming numbers you are giving are much more optimistic for the SBD than( about double) than that which is commonly given as "verified claims. So it would seem some sort if verification did indeed go on( although I'm not sure what that entails) and for sure the same ratios will not hold up throughout claims at least not the varified claims numbers commonly given.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm sure it handled nicely for it's size but to me what you ended up with there was basically an oversized ASW airplane that was about as nimble and swift as a city bus


Any Avenger that performs as un-nimble and as un-swift as a city bus is being operated by a poorly trained crew who haven't been taught how to get the most out of their airplane. Obviously, it wouldn't be as swift as a fighter; that wasn't its role, but it was considerably faster than its predecessor, and not in danger of holding up the strike force.
It's nickname "turkey" came from its appearance in approach configuration, not its flying qualities, and the deckapes adopted the name as they cursed and sweated while manhandling it around on deck.


Schweik said:


> and not particularly effective at sinking enemy ships.


Mostly attributable to the ineffective torpedoes. But I agree an ineffective weapon makes for an ineffective weapons system. And by the time the torpedo issues were sorted out, the bulk of the war's torpedo type work was past.
OTOH, it could carry four depth charges and a full bag of fuel and still perform like a lightly loaded aircraft. And Uncle Ned said they could carry a rack full of rockets which were lethal to a surfaced sub.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 14, 2019)

Just another point. Just to pull out of these fast and steep dives, these machines had to be rugged, and the trim had to hold, under stresses to airframe and pilot so incredible these pilots were momentarily blacking out.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 14, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> While i agree that there is no reason to discount the claims of SBD's more those of any other aircraft, it doesn't change the fact that it's kills to losses ratio is based on over claiming.
> 
> In the ETO and MTO, the USAAF heavy bombers also had an effective aerial kills to loss rate, combined for the two theaters, it's 2.78 to 1 (according to the USAAF Statiscal Digest).
> However, we know that the gunners' claims were exaggerated, for understandable reasons, so the actual exchange rate is likely to be very different.
> ...


Four engine bombers had 4 or 5 guys shooting at the same incoming fighter and sometimes all making a claim for the same plane. On the SBD there's only one set of guns forward and one backward. Can't both be shooting at the same plane simultaneously.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Four engine bombers had 4 or 5 guys shooting at the same incoming fighter and sometimes all making a claim for the same plane. On the SBD there's only one set of guns forward and one backward. Can't both be shooting at the same plane simultaneously.




No but just like Defiants, gunners from multiple planes could be be firing at one attacker and all make claims. This was a big reason for over claiming by the B-17s and B-24s, multiple aircraft firing at the same attacker, not just multiple gunners in the same plane. 

AS for the Avenger. yes the torpedo sucked, but that doesn't mean the Avenger it self sucked or that it sucked at other jobs, for instance it's large bomb bay could not only carry four depth charges, it could carry four 500lb bombs or two 1000lbs which is a useful load compared to most SBDs or even Helldivers. I believe the Helldiver could only carry two 500lb bombs inside or one 1000lb bomb? Or two depth charges for anti sub work. 
The US also had the luxury of putting it's carriers rather close to the Japanese Islands it was attacking which makes it rather easy for the fighters to carry heavy bomb loads. 
Later Avengers were plumbed for a pair of 100 gallon drop tanks and they were rated to (but seldom did) carry a torpedo or large bomb with 335 gallons of internal fuel and 200 gallons in drop tanks for a rather impressive combat _radius _of over 400 miles. Try that with a Hellcat carrying even a 1000lb and a drop tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 14, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> No but just like Defiants, gunners from multiple planes could be be firing at one attacker and all make claims. This was a big reason for over claiming by the B-17s and B-24s, multiple aircraft firing at the same attacker, not just multiple gunners in the same plane.
> 
> AS for the Avenger. yes the torpedo sucked, but that doesn't mean the Avenger it self sucked or that it sucked at other jobs, for instance it's large bomb bay could not only carry four depth charges, it could carry four 500lb bombs or two 1000lbs which is a useful load compared to most SBDs or even Helldivers. I believe the Helldiver could only carry two 500lb bombs inside or one 1000lb bomb? Or two depth charges for anti sub work.
> The US also had the luxury of putting it's carriers rather close to the Japanese Islands it was attacking which makes it rather easy for the fighters to carry heavy bomb loads.
> Later Avengers were plumbed for a pair of 100 gallon drop tanks and they were rated to (but seldom did) carry a torpedo or large bomb with 335 gallons of internal fuel and 200 gallons in drop tanks for a rather impressive combat _radius _of over 400 miles. Try that with a Hellcat carrying even a 1000lb and a drop tank.


Good point but with only one person shooting in a given direction per plane the overclaiming should be about the same as for fighter aircraft that could also have several guys pummeling the same plane at the same time. Perhaps somewhat higher but nowhere near a 4 engine bomber. At least the same potential dynamic does not exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2019)

We've been over this before in this forum, but you didn't need 20,000 of bombs to sink a carrier or even a battleship. Last time we debated this I dug up the two Japanese battleships sunk by US dive bombers, and we know they sunk numerous carriers and a large number of cruisers, destroyers, transports, oilers and so on. There seems to be a philosophical debate, both here in this forum and in the Anglo-American military world, whether a bomber is primarily a 'bomb truck' designed to carry the heaviest possible load to the general vicinity of the enemy, or if precision actually matters. In the US to this day we still have B-52s in the arsenal as conventional bombers, but most of the bombing is done in a relatively precision manner, not always with expensive laser or GPS guided bombs or hellfire missiles, but mostly by fighter-bombers, mostly in coordination with forward air controllers or ground spotters, and mostly _very _accurate by the standards of WW2.

In Naval combat in WW2 the Americans didn't have guided missiles (the Germans did and they worked pretty damn well but that is another story). But precision mattered. Dive bombers were lethal due to their comparative accuracy*, not due to their bomb load. It was important to disable or destroy ships as quickly as possible and with the least number of aircraft possible, not so much to move mud as the war-losing strategy in Vietnam had it. In Naval war, the risks were too great to stick around and sling thousands of tons of bombs. Damage had to be, and was, done quickly so that the carriers could get out of danger. The Marines famously developed some of the best yet ground spotting coordination with forward air controllers etc., I believe mostly with their fighter-bombers, to get the most out of ground attack (so that the aircraft would suffer less attrition).

As for air to air claims, my understanding is that most of the SBD claims were by the pilot with the main guns. When attacked at least most of the time, SBDs did not just sit in a static formation and let their gunners defend them. They did sometimes, but more often especially if the risks were high they were basically dogfighting, using their tight turning ability to evade and maneuver. Fighter pilots also did claim the same targets, but it's not in the same ballpark as a "box" of twelve B-24s or B-17s all shooting (and many claiming) the same fighter that blunders too close to their guns.



* as compared to the truly dismal accuracy of four engine heavies or level bombers in general

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 14, 2019)

"Fact is, tho: no TBDs were lost to enemy action in flight until the morning of 4 June 42."

Yep, I think that is true. It appears that the main killer of TBD's before Midway was getting lost. At Coral Sea they put four F4F's down with the TBD's and lost all four Wildcats, but no TBD's. Apparently at least some of the torps worked as well. Thatch decided on that approach at Midway as well, and always said, "I only had six fighters. If I'd just had eight it would have made a big difference."

But as for torps, even as the USN struggled with the low production rate and poor performance of their existing torpedoes, the new air launched Acoustic Homing Torpedo MK 24, developed by a team at Harvard University together with industry, had its first successful test on 7 Dec 1942 and first lethal use on 14 May 1943. Given that outstanding record of both development and production, the USN had the team work on fixing the older torpedoes as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> For an attack plane against island targets you are probably better off with the Hellcat or a Corsair for a variety of reasons.





Schweik said:


> Last time we debated this I dug up the two Japanese battleships sunk by US dive bombers



The Avenger can carry just as big a load and more varied against land targets and trying to dive bomb a 10-15meter wide bunker under palm trees is a whole lot different than dive bombing 100-200 meter long ships.

I would also like to know which two Japanese Battleships were sunk by dive bombers ALONE? 
If you are counting battleships sunk at Kure at the end of the war..........."The shallow anchorage precluded the use of torpedoes."

A lot of damage was done by Hellcats carrying 1000lb bombs but then Hellcats can't dive bomb at the angles that the Dauntless and Helldiver did. 

The Avenger could carry 
twelve 100lb bombs
four 500lb bombs
one 1000lb GP bomb
two 1000lb AP bombs
one 1600lb AP bomb
one 2000lb GP bomb
one torpedo
two 1000lb GP bombs in tandem.

late avengers (TB-3s) could carry a 500lb on each wing, four 5 in rockets under each wing or a Douglas gun pack of two, .50 cal guns and 340 rounds of ammo under each wing. 

The small bombs had a max release angle of 30 degrees, the 500lb bombs were 20 degrees max (they were arrange two side by side with one pair behind the other in the bomb bay) but the 1000lb bombs could be released at up to 63 degrees and 1600lb could be released at 66 degrees. 

That doesn't make the Avenger a dive bomber but it does give a number of useful attack profiles and a lot of options for a task force commander.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 14, 2019)

"In Naval combat in WW2 the Americans didn't have guided missiles..."

In fact the Mk 24 FIDO acoustic homing torpedo was the first air launched guided missile ever used in actual combat.

Much later in the war the Bat missile was launched from VPB-109 Privateers with some success. It was a radar guided fire and forget weapon. It's biggest flaw was that after it was locked onto a target the crew might have no idea what target that was. The next biggest flaw was that the airframe was made out of plywood and did not take well to being hauled around the Pacific under the wing of an airplane and then stored outside, with the result that its glide range was often less than advertised.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> In Naval combat in WW2 the Americans didn't have guided missiles (the Germans did and they worked pretty damn well but that is another story).


The USN also had the Interstate TDR, which might be considered a "drone" by today's standards and saw limited against shipping and heavily defended positions in the Pacific

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 15, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I didn't misread your post. I took the worst example of overclaiming and the least you gave to be fair and used them as examples that could aply to any aircraft.
> The final war end ratio I've read several places is i believe 1.3 or 1.2 to 1. Amost an even trade. The ratio of claims you are using for the coral sea is much more optimistic for the SBD. 88 to 39. About 2.2 to 1. So I think it is safe to say that the same ratios will not hold up throughout claims. I've always read the 1.3 to 1 number refered to as verified claims.
> For the ratios you gave to hold consistent( 4 to 1 overclaiming) SBDs would have to suddenly drop there claims to losses ratio by about 75 % to arive at the 1.3 to 1 ratio comonly given for the war end total.
> That seems shall we say unlikely. Again the claiming numbers you are giving are much more optimistic for the SBD than( about double) than that which is commonly given as "verified claims. So it would seem some sort if verification did indeed go on( although I'm not sure what that entails) and for sure the same ratios will not hold up throughout claims at least not the varified claims numbers commonly given.



Carrier based SBD's had a claims to losses ratio of 2.5 to 1 and land-based SBD's a ratio of 0.9 to 1. The combined ratio is 1.3 to 1; and that is still the _claims _not verified enemy losses. 

USN stats also show 306 victories for 28 lost to enemy aircraft for an exchange ratio of 10.9 to 1 for the PB4Y, beating the SBD by a stretch 'in the most enemy aircraft shot down by a bomber 'department.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 15, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Four engine bombers had 4 or 5 guys shooting at the same incoming fighter and sometimes all making a claim for the same plane. On the SBD there's only one set of guns forward and one backward. Can't both be shooting at the same plane simultaneously.



Point is that that the bomber air gunners' claims are readily and universally accepted as over claiming. While over claiming by fighters and other aircraft may not have been as optimistic as the air gunners; it still is a factor, yet it seems to be happily ignored by many aviation enthusiasts when extolling the virtues of there favorite aircraft.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 15, 2019)

The PB4Y-2 was perhaps unique among bombers in that in the course of their patrols it was normal to chase down and attack enemy aircraft as long as they were not fighters. They did pretty well against fighters, as my friend's Privateer showed when it and an a wingman were attacked by 12 George II fighters, shot down two of them and still made it home with one feathered engine, a blown up radio, and some wounded.

It was pretty typical for Privateers intercepted by Japanese fighters to see one or two firing passes, after which the Japanese pilots often seemed to recall pressing business elsewhere and depart.

On another occasion a Privateer from another unit was patroling near Iwo Jima and was shot down by a horde of Zeros. The unit then sent out three Privateers to that area and when the Zeros came out shot down one after another, until the Zeros gave up and went back to Iwo. And they were never bothered in that area again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 15, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Carrier based SBD's had a claims to losses ratio of 2.5 to 1 and land-based SBD's a ratio of 0.9 to 1. The combined ratio is 1.3 to 1; and that is still the _claims _not verified enemy losses.
> 
> USN stats also show 306 victories for 28 lost to enemy aircraft for an exchange ratio of 10.9 to 1 for the PB4Y, beating the SBD by a stretch 'in the most enemy aircraft shot down by a bomber 'department.


Verry cool info on the Pb4y, a plane which i had only seen mention of a couple times in my life. I've read several articles( at least 3 ) claiming the SBD was the only bomber type of the war to hold that honor.
The SBD having a positive exchange rate is still remarkable however and I think that it turns out another bomber type had an even better record doesn't diminish its achievement in any way. Yes I know a good chunk may have to be lopped off for overclaiming but that goes for all planes and I'm still not seeing a reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots more than others. There may be one, I'm just not seeing it if there is.
Also, I'm no expert but a few thoughts that occur to me about verifying claims with Japanese( or German) loss records. Certainly it's going to be more accurate than raw claims but it seems intuitive to me that it would swing to far, if just a bit( or possibly more than a bit) in the other direction. For example, what about Japanese aircraft that made it back but were so badly damaged they had to be written off later. Some of these might not be listed as a loss initially but upon digging into them further might be. No way to know what percentage of damaged aircraft this represents but surly it is a percentage albiet probably a small one. Then also the completeness of Japanese records available now. Yes I know this is something that it used by those wishing to inflate US kill ratios but just because some abuse this issue doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to it in some cases. Thirdly, even in cases where it would appear that we are compairing to all Japanese loss records there may have been planes in a particular area that we would never know about in the first place if the records do not exist today. If one of those planes were shot down we would go to the known Japanese units in the area, look at there loss records, and come to the conclusion that the loss did not indeed happen.
These are just a few issues that would seem to make the verification of claims with Axis loss records, although certainly more accurate than raw claims, swing at least a bit to far in the other direction.
These are just a few that occur to me off the top of my head. I'm sure there are probably a few other such factors as well. Each of these issues may be marginal when looked at individually but together, along with probably a few others I'm not thinking of, certainly make at least somewhat of an underestimation of claims when verifying with Axis records.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 15, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Point is that that the bomber air gunners' claims are readily and universally accepted as over claiming. While over claiming by fighters and other aircraft may not have been as optimistic as the air gunners; it still is a factor, yet it seems to be happily ignored by many aviation enthusiasts when extolling the virtues of there favorite aircraft.


Agreed 100%. That is why I keep referencing looking at the claims in a relative or comparative manner and pointing out that reductions for overclaiming must be done for all aircraft, not just the SBD. 
The point being if you lop off say 50% of the SBDs claims you stilm have a pretty impressive record considering the type of plane it was and what it was doing most of the time and of course in the absence of a good reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots more than others would have to lop off 50% of the claims of all other types as well for comparison.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 15, 2019)

All I know is I’ll take the word of the gunner in combat over any historian or juvenile whose only acquaintanceship with same is what he imagines he can infer from circumstances or from being proficient at playing video games...


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 15, 2019)

Interesting discussion on the PB4Y. The old WWII four engine bomber are now retired from fire fighting, but not so many Summers ago I would have a PB4Y fly right over my house sometimes several times a day, heading North. Still get DC6's droning Northward on occasion. To pilots the racket is a music.

Reactions: Like Like:
 1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 15, 2019)

As for overclaiming, it could go both ways.

One Marine F4F pilot was defending Guadalcanal one day when he looked down to see three Zeros shooting up a PBY. An Admiral had come to visit in the PBY and the Marines had asked to borrow it. They borrowed it to go attack IJN shipping and the Zeros took offense at that.

Desperate to get the Zeros off the "P-boat", the Wildcat pilot dove down, just spraying them with .50 cal to scare them off. All three Zeros broke off, so his mission was accomplished and he claimed no kills. But after the war he found out he had shot down all three of those Zeros. One took a hit in the fuel tank and it ran out of gas on the way home. One took a hit in an oil line and ran out of oil on the way home. One took a hit in the engine and it quit on the way home. It only took a single .50 cal round in each of those Zeros to down them, and the Wildcat pilot was not even trying.

Of course the Zeros had a long trip home that time, too.

By the way, most of the fire fighting P4Y-2's had the R-1830's replaced with R-2600's out of B-25's.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Agreed 100%. That is why I keep referencing looking at the claims in a relative or comparative manner and pointing out that reductions for overclaiming must be done for all aircraft, not just the SBD.
> The point being if you lop off say 50% of the SBDs claims you stilm have a pretty impressive record considering the type of plane it was and what it was doing most of the time and of course in the absence of a good reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots more than others would have to lop off 50% of the claims of all other types as well for comparison.



We're loping off over 90% of the kill claims for IJN fighters and ~50% of other claims but since the SBD's claimed 60 fighters and 28 others that leads to about a 75% reduction in overall claims. It is obvious that SBDs were overclaiming fighters to a very large degree.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> As for overclaiming, it could go both ways.
> 
> One Marine F4F pilot was defending Guadalcanal one day when he looked down to see three Zeros shooting up a PBY. An Admiral had come to visit in the PBY and the Marines had asked to borrow it. They borrowed it to go attack IJN shipping and the Zeros took offense at that.
> 
> ...


The only way the above info about IJN losses could be known would be via a careful examination of their combat records and recorded losses. This is what Lundstrom did in his two volume First Team books.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 15, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> We're loping off over 90% of the kill claims for IJN fighters and ~50% of other claims but since the SBD's claimed 60 fighters and 28 others that leads to about a 75% reduction in overall claims. It is obvious that SBDs were overclaiming fighters to a very large degree.


Maybe your lopping off 75% of claims and that's your prerogative to do so for yourself if you wish but I'm not. Please see above post on why all lagitamit claims will not nescesarily show up in the available loss records of oposing forces.
Taking these factors into account and although we can disagree on the percentage affect these will have surely you cannot deny some influence on the varifyability of claims numbers using Axis records.
Taking these factors into account I'm guessing a 40 or 50% lopping is more realistic but who knows for sure.
And that's still a hell if a record by the way. That would mean the the SBDs shot down about 7 for each 10 of there own lost. Considering it's a pre war dive bomber design that spent half the time toting a 500 or thousand pound bomb and setting up for the attack.
And another point, if we really want to pin down the efficacy of the SBD in an air to air context we would have to look at only the contacts with enemy planes made without a heavy bomb in tow. What do the numbers look like then. Not sure exactly but I am sure it improves quite a bit


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The only way the above info about IJN losses could be known would be via a careful examination of their combat records and record losses. This is what Lundstrom did in his two volume First Team books.



Given that no SBDs were lost to enemy air action during the first 7 months of US involvement in WW2, and the known defensive shortfalls of the IJN during the Battle of Midway, I'm intrigued to know whether later operating environments were more challenging from an adversary defensive perspective? 

Please note this isn't an attempt to undermine the SBD's performance...I really just want to understand how often the SBD went up against serious air defence opposition? Some of the key shortfalls of Japanese air defence, relative to other combatants, were lack of radar to detect incoming raids and poor C2 of CAP forces. I'd be intrigued to understand how the SBD might have faired against an adversary that had these types of air defence capabilities.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 15, 2019)

And another thought, surely at least a few of those SBDs or any plane for that matter that were written off at lost to enemy aircraft where in fact lost to mechanical trouble, AA, etc. This will affect kill/ loss ratios also.
My point being that it's not as cut and dried as looking at what we lost, looking at what is absolutely 100% verifiable by available axis records, doing a little math, and voila you have the absolute for sure numbers.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 15, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Given that no SBDs were lost to enemy air action during the first 7 months of US involvement in WW2, and the known defensive shortfalls of the IJN during the Battle of Midway, I'm intrigued to know whether later operating environments were more challenging from an adversary defensive perspective?
> 
> Please note this isn't an attempt to undermine the SBD's performance...I really just want to understand how often the SBD went up against serious air defence opposition? Some of the key shortfalls of Japanese air defence, relative to other combatants, were lack of radar to detect incoming raids and poor C2 of CAP forces. I'd be intrigued to understand how the SBD might have faired against an adversary that had these types of air defence capabilities.


In terms of absolute numbers lost I think it's safe to say the SBD, or any plane would not fair as well against better deffenses but as far as a kill/ loss ratio there is no reason having more or fewer contacts with the enemy should change that. The strengths and weeknesses or the planes and the realative skill of the pilots of the oposing sides remains the same. I.e. the absolute numbers would surely go up but the ratios should remain realatively stable.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 15, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> In terms of absolute numbers lost I think it's safe to say the SBD, or any plane would not fair as well against better deffenses but as far as a kill/ loss ratio there is no reason having more or fewer contacts with the enemy should change that. The strengths and weeknesses or the planes and the realative skill of the pilots of the oposing sides remains the same. I.e. the absolute numbers would surely go up but the ratios should remain realatively stable.



I wasn't looking at the issue solely from the perspective of kill/loss ratios. I was asking with regard to all functions the SBD performed. Midway provides one example where the SBD was, in some respects, lucky to avoid the Japanese fighters, which got me wondering whether Japanese air defence shortfalls during other combats presented the SBD with similar tactical advantages?


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 15, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I wasn't looking at the issue solely from the perspective of kill/loss ratios. I was asking with regard to all functions the SBD performed. Midway provides one example where the SBD was, in some respects, lucky to avoid the Japanese fighters, which got me wondering whether Japanese air defence shortfalls during other combats presented the SBD with similar tactical advantages?


From what I've read I think you premonition is correct as far as absolute numbers lost. The SBDs for some reason seemed to have good luck showing up without opposition on at least several occasions.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Given that no SBDs were lost to enemy air action during the first 7 months of US involvement in WW2, and the known defensive shortfalls of the IJN during the Battle of Midway, I'm intrigued to know whether later operating environments were more challenging from an adversary defensive perspective?
> 
> Please note this isn't an attempt to undermine the SBD's performance...I really just want to understand how often the SBD went up against serious air defence opposition? Some of the key shortfalls of Japanese air defence, relative to other combatants, were lack of radar to detect incoming raids and poor C2 of CAP forces. I'd be intrigued to understand how the SBD might have faired against an adversary that had these types of air defence capabilities.



The SBDs suffered losses from Zeros at Coral Sea and and at Midway.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 15, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> All I know is I’ll take the word of the gunner in combat over any historian or juvenile whose only acquaintanceship with same is what he imagines he can infer from circumstances or from being proficient at playing video games...




Within a few hours, yes. After that, well, memory is malleable. This is one of the reasons eyewitness testimony is far from the "gold standard" in evidence that it's often been purported to be.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 15, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Given that no SBDs were lost to enemy air action during the first 7 months of US involvement in WW2, and the known defensive shortfalls of the IJN during the Battle of Midway, I'm intrigued to know whether later operating environments were more challenging from an adversary defensive perspective?
> 
> Please note this isn't an attempt to undermine the SBD's performance...I really just want to understand how often the SBD went up against serious air defence opposition? Some of the key shortfalls of Japanese air defence, relative to other combatants, were lack of radar to detect incoming raids and poor C2 of CAP forces. I'd be intrigued to understand how the SBD might have faired against an adversary that had these types of air defence capabilities.


Well there was at least one SBD lost to enemy air action at Pearl Harbor. Was something I'd never heard of or read about before reading Mr Tillmans book and my memory on the details are a bit fuzzy but the gyst of it is that some SBDs were headed into Pearl Harbor when the attack occurred and one of them attacked a Zero only to end up colliding with it. I think both planes went down. 
So I guess you could say an SBD scored the first American victory of the war...........sort of.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 15, 2019)

"The only way the above info about IJN losses could be known would be via a careful examination of their combat records and recorded losses. This is what Lundstrom did in his two volume First Team books."

Yep, well, the F4F pilot that described what occurred in the book Top Guns, edited by Joe Foss, did not claim those three Zeros as kills at the time. He must have been told by a researcher after the war.

An observation I read many years ago was that fighter pilot kills were always revised upward when more data came in after the war. No one ever seems to take kills away and tell people they are no longer aces.

But given the relative fragility of Japanese aircraft I think it entirely possible that aircraft claimed as damaged or not even claimed at all were in fact kills.

I read of an incident where a radar picket destroyer was yelling for help off of Okinawa. They got ahold of two Hellcats that were out of ammo and returning to their carrier. The Hellcats said they were out of ammo and could not help but the ship begged, saying there were a couple of Vals iinbound, the ship was badly damaged and could not take any more hits. By charging their guns the Hellcats could fire ONE round from each .50 cal. And with the target a Val and using .50 cal API ammo that turned out to be enough; they flamed the Vals.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 15, 2019)

16 USMC SBD-2's launched from Midway and attacked the IJN fleet. They were intercepted by Zeros and eight SBD's were shot down. The remainder that made it back were badly shot up.

The Enterprise lost 14 SBD's at Midway, including some that had to ditch due to running out of gas.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 15, 2019)

They built 5,936 Dauntless dive bombers, Not all went overseas and/or saw combat.

Some sources say the Dauntless scored 138 air to air victories, some give a bit different numbers.

Aside from bragging rights the number of air to air victories is too small to make any statistically valid conclusions from. 

I seriously doubt any SBDs fought their way through a Japanese CAP while loaded with bombs. That is to say maneuvering and using the front guns. Perhaps they stayed in groups and used the rear guns to try to hold off attackers.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 15, 2019)

Five SBDs were lost in the Marshalls Raid on 1 Feb 1942, three were shot down by A5Ms.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> They built 5,936 Dauntless dive bombers, Not all went overseas and/or saw combat.
> 
> Some sources say the Dauntless scored 138 air to air victories, some give a bit different numbers.
> 
> ...


Yes it's hard to imagine a SBD toting a 1000lb bomb dogfighting a Zero and comming out on top to often. For whatever reason however they did have an amazing survivability rate. One of the other posters said the lowest loss rate of any USN type. 
That would be something no matter what but considering it's mission and the years it was used most heavily that is really something. Maybe a combination of durability and stability( from which the rear gunner can more effectively shoot) on the way in(with bomb)and add the ability to manuver well on the way out(sons bomb).
Would be interesting to know exactly why it was so apparently dificult to shoot down.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2019)

Saburo Sakai was nearly killed by an SBD's rear gunner and an SBD's rear gunner of VS-6 downed a zero at Pearl Harbor, making that the first aerial kill for the USN against Japan in WWII.

So aside from the SBD intercepting enemy aircraft in a CAP or Scout capacity, the SBD rear-gunner's twin .30 MGs did account for themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 16, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Saburo Sakai was nearly killed by an SBD's rear gunner and an SBD's rear gunner of VS-6 downed a zero at Pearl Harbor, making that the first aerial kill for the USN against Japan in WWII.
> 
> So aside from the SBD intercepting enemy aircraft in a CAP or Scout capacity, the SBD rear-gunner's twin .30 MGs did account for themselves.


I'm assuming that SBD ( the one at Pearl) Harbor)was from the same flight as the one that shot up an A6m and then collided with it?
Seems the SBDs acquitted themselves fairly well right from the start.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I'm assuming that SBD ( the one at Pearl) Harbor)was from the same flight as the one that shot up an A6m and then collided with it?
> Seems the SBDs acquitted themselves fairly well right from the start.


No and I don't recall a collision being documented in the confusion as VS-6 (and some VB-6) approached Pearl that Sunday morning.
Three SBDs were shot down by A6Ms, several were damaged by USN/USAAC anti-aircraft fire, who either ditched or managed to set down in spite of the friendly AA, several SBDs engaged (either directly or by rear-defensive fire) IJN aircraft, either downing them or driving them off.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 16, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Verry cool info on the Pb4y, a plane which i had only seen mention of a couple times in my life. I've read several articles( at least 3 ) claiming the SBD was the only bomber type of the war to hold that honor.
> The SBD having a positive exchange rate is still remarkable however and I think that it turns out another bomber type had an even better record doesn't diminish its achievement in any way. Yes I know a good chunk may have to be lopped off for overclaiming but that goes for all planes and I'm still not seeing a reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots more than others. There may be one, I'm just not seeing it if there is.
> Also, I'm no expert but a few thoughts that occur to me about verifying claims with Japanese( or German) loss records. Certainly it's going to be more accurate than raw claims but it seems intuitive to me that it would swing to far, if just a bit( or possibly more than a bit) in the other direction. For example, what about Japanese aircraft that made it back but were so badly damaged they had to be written off later. Some of these might not be listed as a loss initially but upon digging into them further might be. No way to know what percentage of damaged aircraft this represents but surly it is a percentage albiet probably a small one. Then also the completeness of Japanese records available now. Yes I know this is something that it used by those wishing to inflate US kill ratios but just because some abuse this issue doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to it in some cases. Thirdly, even in cases where it would appear that we are compairing to all Japanese loss records there may have been planes in a particular area that we would never know about in the first place if the records do not exist today. If one of those planes were shot down we would go to the known Japanese units in the area, look at there loss records, and come to the conclusion that the loss did not indeed happen.
> These are just a few issues that would seem to make the verification of claims with Axis loss records, although certainly more accurate than raw claims, swing at least a bit to far in the other direction.
> These are just a few that occur to me off the top of my head. I'm sure there are probably a few other such factors as well. Each of these issues may be marginal when looked at individually but together, along with probably a few others I'm not thinking of, certainly make at least somewhat of an underestimation of claims when verifying with Axis records.



You sum up the difficulty equating claims with losses quite well and again, of cause it pertains to all planes, not just SBD's. 

Even if the SBD only actually shot down a half,, a third or even a quarter of those enemy aircraft that they claimed, that is still not bad at all for a dive bomber; but the SBD's most significant achievement is sinking those carriers at Midway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 16, 2019)

People are posting a lot of anecdotes about individual encounters but, interesting as they are, they don't paint an overall picture of the SBD's combat record. How many missions of which types did it fly? In those missions, how many encounters with enemy aircraft (and what types of enemy aircraft)? 

Put simply, a low loss rate could just be down to the fact that a particular aircraft type, either through smart tactical planning or sheer dumb luck, ended up not being intercepted very often (relative to other types). 

I just don't know enough about the SBD in particular or, frankly, the wider Pacific Theatre campaign, to know whether the SBD and a rough or easy time of it going into combat.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 16, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> You sum up the difficulty equating claims with losses quite well and again, of cause it pertains to all planes, not just SBD's.
> 
> Even if the SBD only actually shot down a half,, a third or even a quarter of those enemy aircraft that they claimed, that is still not bad at all for a dive bomber; but the SBD's most significant achievement is sinking those carriers at Midway.


I think your absolutely right about both. Seems it would be verry dificult...... no imposible to know exactly what percentage of initial claims were acurate.
Imho, to many people think if it doesn't show up on axis loss records it didn't happen. For all the reasons I enumerated( and I'm sure probably several more that those more knowledgeable than I could think of) while they certainly give us alot of aditional information are not going to be perfectly acurate either.
My guess would be somewhere between 1/2 to 2/3 of the way from claims to axis loss records in most cases would be the real number but I don't think there's anyway to ever know for sure.
Also agree that however many Japanese or German( not sure if thay claimed any German aircraft) aircraft SBDs shot down it's main job and accomplishment were the sinking of ships. It's just that being so survivable and doing realatively well in air combat all things considered almost certainly helped it be so effective at it's primary job.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 16, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> No and I don't recall a collision being documented in the confusion as VS-6 (and some VB-6) approached Pearl that Sunday morning.
> Three SBDs were shot down by A6Ms, several were damaged by USN/USAAC anti-aircraft fire, who either ditched or managed to set down in spite of the friendly AA, several SBDs engaged (either directly or by rear-defensive fire) IJN aircraft, either downing them or driving them off.


Hmmm......I'll have to go back and re read the opening chapter of "Dauntless" and make sure I'm not miss remembering that (always a possibility, the old memory bank isn't what it used to be)


----------



## pinsog (Jun 16, 2019)

Read The First Team Volume 2 and you will get a good idea of what the SBD was capable of. If it wasn’t a Zero, it was a target. SBD’s shot down several 4 engine flying boats, so many it was making the Wildcat pilots mad. Also, read about the attack on Hornet and Enterprise where Hornet was lost. SBD’s returning from a strike on the Japanese carriers jumped right into the defensive fight over the 2 carriers. I need to brush up on the battle, but as I recall most of their attacks were revenge attacks, jumping torpedo and dive bombers that had already dropped their weapons but they definitely contributed to the slaughter of the attacking Japanese force. The Japanese may have crippled Hornet, leading to her loss, and damaged Enterprise, but there weren’t many Japanese aircrew left to brag about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2019)

Something to consider when judging the success of the Dauntless against Vals, Kates and even the Mavis is that this was the standard IJN defensive machine gun for the early part of the war.





for all practical purposes a WW I Lewis gun. Using identical ammo the British .303. It fired at about 600rpm (10rps) so the 97 round drum is good for just under 10 seconds. 

I am not saying it was harmless, the British managed to shoot down a few 109s using the old Lewis mounted in Ansons and the like.

But the Dauntless used a belt feed AMN2 machine gun with double the rate of fire and from 1942 on mounted two of them ( the Marine planes at Midway had the single mounts?) so a Dauntless could put four times the bullets per second into the air (might have taken longer to reload?) 

The Mavis was also one of the proverable flying gas tanks. with a possible max fuel capacity of 2950 Imp gallons. Even if the tanks are not full (or not all are in use) are they free of fumes?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 16, 2019)

Having a target rich environment (ships) must have helped a lot I reckon that changing the planes wouldnt change the results massively. It was the pilots not the plane they were strapped to.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2019)

One thing to keep in mind about the SBD kill claims at Coral Sea is that, if as someone reported, the estimate in "First Front" was that Japanese records indicate the loss of 1 x D3A Val and 5 x 5N Kates to the SBDs, some or all of these could definitely have been thought of as Zeroes to the American pilots. Enemy aircraft identification was never that good in combat, where the enemy aircraft was often little more than a distant and fast moving dot, and was not usually seen close up for more than a few seconds and under extreme stress.

The Japanese aircraft looked superficially similar, with similar paint schemes etc., so I suspect part of the "disconnect" in fighter claims may have been due to mis-identification.

From previous close analysis of such records involving other aircraft types, heavily damaged (written off) and missing aircraft are sometimes not counted as victories when they probably should have been. It does also happen that a batch of records turns up that had not originally been known about, for example Christopher Shores not having the Italian records when he wrote 'Fighters over Tunisia' he made it look like the Allied pilots were overclaiming much more than it now turns out they actually were. It's always risky to assume that we know everything about a given battle or incident.

Aside from Coral Sea and Midway SBD's saw quite a bit of action around Guadalcanal. I found this book to be a good read which seemed to portray a pretty balanced view of the experiences of the pilots and crew. It covers a lot of issues I didn't know about like the fogging up of bomb-sights and that the earlier torpedoes actually worked, in contrast to the second batch that became available.

Amazon product






By the way the H6K Mavis had a 20mm cannon in a tail turret position. The larger H8K "Emily" which replaced it had 5 x 20mm cannon.

A lot of the float-planes shot down by the SBD's around Guadalcanal were actually the smaller FM1 and E13 etc. types though, launched from cruisers and battleships. I think they did also get a couple of the bigger multi-engine ones.


I would not call the PB4Y aircraft a bomber, it was really a maritime patrol plane. It wasn't having to force it's way through CAP to attack ships, that is a different type of mission. Very similar B-24s were used to attack ships quite a bit in the Pacific but they rarely seemed to ever hit anything. Generally speaking though, earlier war Japanese fighters had a hard time dealing with such heavily armed and armored bombers.

The PB4Y's had some interesting encounters with other large multi-engined seaplanes.

This is an H6K shot down by a PB4Y







There was a detailed account somewhere of a long air battle on October 1943 between a PB4Y1 and a BV 222, in which the latter shot down the former. I tried to find it just now but my google-fu failed me. I do remember the PB4Y was lacking protective armor or self-sealing tanks. Not sure if they all had that removed though it would make sense for the mission profile.

S

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2019)

I meant to add, that the fact that PB4Y and B-24s didn't seem to be able to do much damage to ships meant that their priority as a target for Japanese fighters was certainly much lower than a torpedo bomber or a skip-bomber like an A-20 or B-25, let alone a dive bomber with a proven track record of sinking carriers.

So the IJA and IJN fighters may have had good reason to 'find other pressing business', like perhaps to go attack a more Operationally significant target.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 16, 2019)

Here are a couple of really neat wartime shots of SBD's. Note the one with the dented cowling. You just know that kind of fender bender had to happen all the time.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2019)

That first one is one I'd never seen before, it's fantastic. Evokes the exotic beauty and electric aquamarine waters of the Tropical seas they were fighting over, something we tend to forget about with all the black and white photos. Reminds me of the artwork of Romain Huigault. 

The beauty of that area - at least from certain vantage points- makes the whole Pacific war that much more surreal.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2019)

E13 Jake




Most had no forward firing guns, most (all?) of the ones that did came later and mounted a pair of 20mm guns at a downward angle in the belly for boat strafing. 

FM1 Pete




It did have a pair of 7.7mm guns in the cowl and was pretty zippy for a biplane (230mph?) Some accounts say it was used as a fighter on occasion. 

Schweik is correct in that the Mavis did have a 20mm gun in the tail. It was drum fed and hand aimed. I don't know what the traverse and elevation limits were.










There were four other gun positions with the type 92 7.7mm gun, on most planes the bow and dorsal positions were open, that is to say they were closed by a removable or sliding hatch and the gun could stowed inside the plane. When needed the gunner opened the hatch and mounted the gun into position and then operated it with head shoulders (or more ) exposed to the windstream. The waist guns were in blisters.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2019)

If you are implying that they confused a F1M or E13 for a Zero, I was not suggesting that. I _was_ suggesting that they may have easily confused a B5N or a D3A for A6M.

E13 and F1M were fairly easy pickings. H6K maybe not as much, certainly the 20mm can pack a punch in a chase, although the H6K wasn't fast and didn't climb that well so it may have been relatively easy to avoid. Still not a sitting duck.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 16, 2019)

Is that the biplane float fighter that the Wildcats had so much trouble with? They couldn’t hardly get a shot at them because they were so maneuverable, like swatting flies with a hammer. One shot down a Wildcat with its front guns.

The FM1 Pete wasn’t easy pickings, the Wildcats had trouble with them due to maneuverability


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2019)

I don't know about a biplane, the F1M was a recon plane, though it did have two light machine guns in the nose and may have fought some in the Aleutians. Top speed is listed as 230 mph / 370 kph and that is probably a bit generous.

Maybe you are thinking of the A6M2-N, Nakajima float plane version of the Zero?






If there was an actual biplane floatplane fighter in the war I'd like to know about it.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2019)

Hmmm. I may have been wrong about the "Pete," per the Wiki:

_"The type was also used as an area-defense fighter and engaged in aerial combat in the Aleutians, the Solomons and several other theaters. In the New Guinea front, it was often used in aerial combat with the Allied bombers and Allied fighters. "_


----------



## pinsog (Jun 16, 2019)

They talk about them in The First Team being used as aircover over, I believe, some small convoys trying to get to Guadalcanal. Better than nothing. They could harrass SBD’s and Avengers and were difficult for Wildcats to cope with due to extreme maneuverability.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 16, 2019)

Well. the PB4Y-1 (converted B-24) as used by the USN and PB4Y-2 Privateer flew almost all of their missions at 2000 ft or lower. Their accuracy against ships was not bad at all, although they tended to be much more cautious with warships.

A friend of mine was a radio operator on PB4Y-2, the only unit that used the Bat missile in combat. He said he had a parachute but never even put it on. At the altitudes they were flying at it would have been useless.

The Mitsubishi F1M2 F1M biplane, code named Pete, was indeed used as a fighter by the IJN, although mainly because at the island bases it was located at it probably was the only thing available.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 16, 2019)

Just finished _"Never Call Me a Hero"_, the memoir of N. Jack "Dusty" Kleiss, who fought with VS-6 from Pearl Harbor to Midway. 
Highly recommended reading. His commentary on the TBD and the Mk 13 torpedo are quite damning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 16, 2019)

YEs, I have that book but have not read it. I recently finished reading No Higher Honor about the original USS Yorktown aircraft carrier and also have but have not read Stay the Rising Sun about the USS Lexington.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 16, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Within a few hours, yes. After that, well, memory is malleable. This is one of the reasons eyewitness testimony is far from the "gold standard" in evidence that it's often been purported to be.


Well, I think they know what they hit. That’s not to say they were all honest about it, but then the possibility of dishonesty is a factor in every claim. It has to be taken into account. Over-claiming is a reality. But to be fair, it’s a reality all around.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2019)

In a lot of cases it was not a question of "honesty", but of what they saw from their vantage point in a few seconds of fast action. They fired, they saw a puff of smoke or perhaps a few pieces came off, or appeared to, the plane fired at did some sort of odd maneuver (out of control? violent evasive action?) and so on. Trouble can be that several gunners all firing at the same time saw a similar sequence of events but didn't realise how many other guns were firing at the same target. 

Did that Zero that went passed roll inverted and then dive because it had been hit or because it carburator wouldn't handle negative Gs, like an early Merlin, so they can't just bunt into a dive. If there are clouds the target plane may disappear into them and resume somewhat normal flight. 
It is hard for one man to really keep aware of all that is going on. The Fire service was nowhere near as dangerous as flying combat missions but standard procedure is to have two man minimum on the attack hose, the nozzleman controls the nozzle and sprays the water. The 2nd man (usually an officer ) helps move the hose and maintains situational awareness. The nozzleman can get fixated on the fire in front of him and miss fire breaking out to side, behind or overhead. It is the officers job to watch out for these things. Back seater in a single engine attack plane has nobody watching out for him, he has to identify the most imminent threat. Fire at it, observe tracer if there is any, call out warnings to the pilot and watch for 2nd and 3rd attackers. A lot to do. 

The was some dishonesty, there was also a lot of honest _impressions _that turned out to be incorrect. The British were shooting down He 113s for well over a year, Do 17s were misidentified as Ju-88s. Ju-88s and He 111s were mistaken for each other. In a lot of these cases the pilot (or gunner) shot down or damaged _something, _just not what they thought it was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2019)

I actually agree with Shortround on that. I think they usually thought they got the kills they claimed, on all sides.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 17, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Hmmm. I may have been wrong about the "Pete," per the Wiki:
> 
> _"The type was also used as an area-defense fighter and engaged in aerial combat in the Aleutians, the Solomons and several other theaters. In the New Guinea front, it was often used in aerial combat with the Allied bombers and Allied fighters. "_


One of the interesting aspects of the air war in the North Western Area (NWA) was the aerial combats fought against Japanese floatplanes located at Taberfane Island. This was the location of 934 Kokutai, who in 1943, was equipped with Jakes, Petes and Rufes. The Petes and Rufes often intercepted RAAF Hudsons, Dutch B-25s and USAAF B-24's. The arrival of 31 sqn RAAF with their Beaufighters soon inflicted many losses on this unit. It wasn't uncommon for Beaufighters and Petes to mix it up it up over Taberfane, usually with the Beaufighters coming out on top.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 17, 2019)

That getting it right when claiming victories was difficult, can be gauged by those random accounts of encounters where *both* sides returned claiming victories but not suffering any losses.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 17, 2019)

When the IJN hit the Yorktown at Midway a bomb blew up in the intake duct, blowing out all of the fires in the boilers and creating a huge black cloud of soot from the stacks. Dead in the water and with a huge pall of black smoke overhead, the IJN crews "knew" they had killed that carrier. But that damage was easy to fix and the Yorktown was under way again when the next wave of IJN attackers came in. Since they "knew" they had killed the first carrier they figured it was a different ship and attacked again. The damage from that attack resulted in an Abandon Ship order, but in fact a salvage crew was later put back aboard and was in the process of saving the ship when an IJN submarine attack inflicted fatal damage.

So there were three carrier kills the IJN could claim, based on what they saw occur.


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 17, 2019)

The B-17's thought they had made many hits, a ship might disappear in a group of bomb splashes! Every destroyer became a cruiser and every cruiser a battleship.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2019)

Greg Boeser said:


> Just finished _"Never Call Me a Hero"_, the memoir of N. Jack "Dusty" Kleiss, who fought with VS-6 from Pearl Harbor to Midway.
> Highly recommended reading. His commentary on the TBD and the Mk 13 torpedo are quite damning.



Why don't you give us a sample. Particularly interested in what he had to say about the TBD.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2019)

Wildcat said:


> One of the interesting aspects of the air war in the North Western Area (NWA) was the aerial combats fought against Japanese floatplanes located at Taberfane Island. This was the location of 934 Kokutai, who in 1943, was equipped with Jakes, Petes and Rufes. The Petes and Rufes often intercepted RAAF Hudsons, Dutch B-25s and USAAF B-24's. The arrival of 31 sqn RAAF with their Beaufighters soon inflicted many losses on this unit. It wasn't uncommon for Beaufighters and Petes to mix it up it up over Taberfane, usually with the Beaufighters coming out on top.




Is it too much to ask that somebody do a movie with heavy emphasis on the air and naval combat in this area? I'd really like to see some of that in play. Also the equivalent in the Solomons where it's all a bit more picturesque.

One of the things Christopher Shores pointed out in his Mediterranean Air War series is how effective and deadly Beaufighters were. They sometimes took heavy losses but they seem to have inflicted steady and sometimes quite heavy losses on Axis aircraft, including on types that other fighters didn't seem to be able to catch very often like Ju 88s. They were also often showing up at opportune times to strafe E boats or whatever the equivalent was in the Med. They seem to have been useful in nearly every Theater. One of the indespensible Allied aircraft.

Googled Taberfane Island and mostly got a bunch of comptuer game screens. But I found this:






And this, allegedly from 31 Sqr RAAF






Looks like a pretty thorough WIki on the campaign too, though no idea how accurate

North Western Area Campaign - Wikipedia

There is a rather dramatic account of a "Mavis" being attacked by a Kittyhawk and both getting shot down in the subsequent action near Darwin. It sounds like that 20mm tail gun did pack a punch after all:

_"Four of the flying boats took off from Ceram at 2.00 a.m. but the fifth aircraft, piloted by Sub-Lieutenant Mirau, was delayed with engine trouble and did not take off until 4.00 a.m. Mirau's aircraft was alone when, at about 10.30 a.m., it sighted the Houston convoy steaming towards Timor. Mirau reported this by radio and was told to continue shadowing the convoy, which he did for a further three hours. Before heading back to Ceram he made an unsuccessful bombing attack on the convoy from 4,000 metres, using 60 kilogram bombs. The crew of the flying boat were just settling down to lunch when, as described earlier, they were attacked by an American Kittyhawk. _

_Mr M. Takahara (who, after the war, became an executive director of one of Japan's largest stockbroking firms) was the flying boat's observer at the time, and one of only two crewmen to escape the encounter unscathed. His recollections of the incident, which were published recently in Japan, provide a rare personal insight into the nature of the Japanese air war over northern Australia. The following extract from Takahara's third-person narrative account describes what happened after the Kittyhawk was sighted:_

_The fighter then came at them from the rear. As it approached, Takahara blazed away at it with the cannon. At the same time shots from the fighter tore through the body of the flying-boat. When the fighter was right upon them they saw that white smoke was issuing from its tail. As the fighter dived towards the sea Takahara fired a whole magazine (50 rounds) into it. They saw the fighter hit the water ... Takahara discovered that his wireless operator had been hit and ... the flying-boat, too, with flames coming out of the door forward of the tanks ... Takahara felt the shock as they hit, opened the door and then lost consciousness. He came to in the water.[6]_

_Takahara and the other five crewmen who survived the crash were able to draw some comfort from the knowledge that the Japanese Army Air Force did eventually capitalize on their success in locating the Allied convoy. The next morning they saw twenty-seven Japanese bombers flying south to attack the convoy. The flying boat crew were subsequently captured on Melville Island and eventually interned at Cowra, where they took part in the famous break-out in August 1944."_


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2019)

And another description of a PBY getting attacked by Japanese fighters:

_"A United States Navy Catalina[8] from the U.S. Navy's Patrol Squadron 22 was investigating the ship's unreported presence when it was set upon by nine Zero fighters.[9] The Catalina pilot, Lieutenant Thomas H. Moorer, survived the attack and subsequently submitted a comprehensive report, which is now considered to be the earliest contemporary account of an aerial combat in northern Australia.

_
_At 0800, February 19 I took off from Port Darwin in command of PBY-5 Bu. No. 2306 and headed on a northerly course to conduct a routine patrol in the vicinity of Ambon ... an unreported merchantman was observed off north cape of Melville Island ... When about ten miles [sixteen kilometres] from the ship I was suddenly attacked by nine fighters which approached directly from the sun ... At that time I was proceeding down wind at 600 ft [190 metres]. I endeavoured to turn into the wind but all fabric except starboard aileron was destroyed ... There was no alternative but to land down wind and this procedure was rendered even more hazardous by the fact that the float mechanism had been destroyed by gunfire ... noise caused by bullets striking the plane was terrific ... I struck the water at a great force but after bouncing three times managed to complete the landing ... The portwaist gun was untenable due to extreme heat but LeBaron ... manned the starboard gun and vigorously returned the enemy fire ... One boat was discovered to be completely full of holes but [a second] boat was launched through the navigator's hatch. By this time the entire plane aft of the wings was melting and large areas of burning gasoline surrounded the plane.[10]_​_
The crew of the Catalina were subsequently rescued by the Florence D., which came alongside and identified itself. Soon afterwards, however, the ship was also attacked and sunk by twenty-seven dive-bombers from the 1st Air Fleet. This was in effect the last anti-shipping strike of 1942. Japanese tactics had changed altogether by January 1943 when they resumed anti-shipping operations in the Arafura Sea and Torres Strait. The vital supply route to Darwin was constantly patrolled by small float-plane formations equipped with either Petes, Jakes or Nakajima B5Ns (Kates). A tactic commonly employed by Japanese pilots was to switch off the engine and dive out of the sun, which meant that the aircraft was neither heard nor seen until it had dropped its bomb. The supply ship HMAS Patricia Cam was sunk in this fashion near Wessel Island on 22 January 1943. The store ship Macumba was also sunk by float-planes at Millingimbi on 10 May, although on this occasion a Spitfire from No. 457 Squadron managed to shoot down one of the float-planes.__[Note 4]"_

Love the silent dive bombing strategy.

Drama! Maybe we should write a screenplay!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 17, 2019)

Here's the order of arrival and action of VS-6/VB-6 on Sunday morning, 7 December 1941.

By the way, it was a bit of irony that the Enterprise launched her scouting groups at the same time the IJN was launching it's attack groups.

First to arrive was VS-6/16: pilot Patriarca/gunner DeLuca and VS-6/15: pilot Willis/gunner Ducolon. As they were lining up to land at Ewa, came under attack by IJN aircraft, VS-6/16 taking hits by a D3A.
The flight turned back, VS-6/15 was shot down with Willis/Ducolon MIA, VS-6/16 landed at Burns Field, Kauai.

Next to arrive was VB-6/3: pilot Gonzalez/gunner Kozelek and VB-6/12: pilot Weber/gunner Keany. 25 miles from Oahu, VB-6/3 was shot down with Gonzalez/Kozelek MIA, VB-6/12 evaded attaks by a D3A.
Arriving at 8:20 a.m. off Keana point were VS-6/14: pilot Deacon/gunner Coslett and VS-6/9: pilot Roberts/gunner Jones. Flying through groups of A6Ms and D3As, VS-6/14 and VS-6/9 attempted to land at Hickam Field, where they came under considerable defensive fire. VS-6/14 took damaged and was forced down, ditching 200 yards off the beach and were injured by ongoing defensive fire but were rescued by a USN boat. VS-6/9 managed to land at Hickam despite the intense AA and gunner Jones employed his MGs as AA during the next attack wave.

Next, VS-6/AG Commander: pilot Young/gunner Nichols and VS-6/2: pilot Teaff/gunner Jinks came under attack by A6Ms off Barber's Point. Both VS-6/1 and VS-6/2 managed to evade the fighters and arrived at Ford island at 8:35 a.m. and managed to land in spite of the defensive AA. Both aircraft were lightly damaged but all crewmen were uninjured.

At 8:25 a.m., VS-6/4: pilot Dickenson/gunner Miller and VS-6/9: pilot McCarthy/gunner Cohn came under attack off Barber's Point by A6Ms. In spite of taking evasive action, VS-6/9 was shot down, pilot McCarthy successfully baled out, gunner Cohn was KIA. VS-6/4 continued to take evasive action, during which gunner Miller shot down an attacking A6M but VS-6/4 was now being overwhelmed by attackers, being set on fire. Pilot Dickenson successfully baled out near Ewa Field, gunner Miller was KIA.

VS-6/1: pilot Hopping/gunner Thomas became seperated from VS-6/3: pilot Vogt/gunner Pierce during their patrol. VS-6/1 made it through to Ford Island in the midst of a dive-bombing attack, but landed virtually unscathed. VS-6/3 arrived shortly after, but came under attack by a group of A6Ms from the Kaga near Ewa field. Eyewitnesses stated that VS-6/3 went on the attack against the A6Ms and during a turning fight, which VS-6/3 was closing on an A6M which stalled and VS-6/3 collided with the enemy aircraft. Pilot Vogt and gunner Pierce were KIA.

VS-6/11: pilot Fogg/gunner Dennis and VS-6/8: pilot Dobson/gunner Hoss both arrived over Ford Island amidst intense defensive AA. VS-6/8 managed to land un-damaged inspite of the AA, VS-6/11 turned back and landed at Ewa Field.

VS-6/7: pilot Hilton/gunner Learning and VB-6/5: pilot Kroeger/gunner Chapman arrived off Barber's Point at 8:45 a.m. and tried to land at Ewa Field but were waved off, so the flight headed to Ford Island nut were turned back by intense AA. The flight returned to Ewa and successfully landed.

Last to arrive, VS-6/10: pilot Gallagher/gunner Merritt and VS-6/5: pilot West/gunner Hanson, landed without incident at Ewa Field.

And it appears I was wrong about not recollecting a mid-air collision.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 17, 2019)

At Pearl Harbor a number of the USAAF fighter pilots had been invited to attend a pig hunt and roast at a private residence over on the Big Island. They flew over in a B-18 on Saturday, spent the night, and got up on Sunday only to find out about the attack. The B-18 had no guns on board, but they flew back anyway.


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 17, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> The B-17's thought they had made many hits, a ship might disappear in a group of bomb splashes! Every destroyer became a cruiser and every cruiser a battleship.



I've spent a lot of time in the outback Australian deserts and it's very easy to see things that aren't there or miss identify what they are.

Weather Elements: The Superior Mirage: Seeing Beyond


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 17, 2019)

Float versions were produced of the Wildcat and Spitfire V, though not produced as far as I know. I wonder what the ins and outs were of single float versus twin floats? Then there was the C47 on floats...


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> One of the things Christopher Shores pointed out in his Mediterranean Air War series is how effective and deadly Beaufighters were. They sometimes took heavy losses but they seem to have inflicted steady and sometimes quite heavy losses on Axis aircraft, including on types that other fighters didn't seem to be able to catch very often like Ju 88s. They were also often showing up at opportune times to strafe E boats or whatever the equivalent was in the Med. They seem to have been useful in nearly every Theater. One of the indespensible Allied aircraft.


31 sqn was particularly effective in its long range strikes against Japanese airfields and floatplanes bases in this AO. Against 934 Ku I have 8 destroyed in air combat and 19 destroyed on the ground. RAAF Beauforts, Spitfires & Hudsons shot down a further 8 floatplanes.



Schweik said:


> There is a rather dramatic account of a "Mavis" being attacked by a Kittyhawk and both getting shot down in the subsequent action near Darwin. It sounds like that 20mm tail gun did pack a punch after all:


The P-40 pilot was Lt Robert Buel USAAF. He was the first allied airman KIA in air combat over Northern Australia.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> _The supply ship HMAS Patricia Cam was sunk in this fashion near Wessel Island on 22 January 1943. The store ship Macumba was also sunk by float-planes at Millingimbi on 10 May, although on this occasion a Spitfire from No. 457 Squadron managed to shoot down one of the float-planes.__[Note 4]"_
> 
> Love the silent dive bombing strategy.
> 
> Drama! Maybe we should write a screenplay!


A movie set in this theatre would be great. RE the Patricia Cam, its sinking took a sinister turn - https://www.ozatwar.com/japsbomb/kentishaffair.htm

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 18, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> Float versions were produced of the Wildcat and Spitfire V, though not produced as far as I know. I wonder what the ins and outs were of single float versus twin floats? Then there was the C47 on floats...



From what I remember, twin floats tend to have less drag than a single float, but either type could double or worse a reasonably clean aircraft’s zero-lift drag.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

It's funny Supermarine started out as a float plane company, but the Allies never came up with a good float plane fighter until the War was basically over. The Curtiss SC which was probably the last good plane made by that company. It would have been an interesting contender in 1942 or even 43 in some of those more remote areas. I'm not sure if it could hang with a Rufe or not but it should have been close, it had a 30 mph speed advantage and decent armament of two .50 cal guns (though the Rufe had 20mm). The only flaw is it didn't have very good range for a scout.

















I think the float plane scout fighter and general purpose / scout bomber aircraft was a good idea for certain regions and definitely had a niche.

I remember reading the He 115's were doing that same trick of cutting engines off for a glide-attack to surprise ships at one point.

Having float plane aircraft like that available in the arsenal means the ability to project air power, albeit of a somewhat lesser capability, into remote areas and without risking an aircraft carrier. Once in position they could be supplied by a seaplane tender or even a submarine.

The French had some interesting float plane designs though of course they never came to their potential...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2019)

The French float plane fighters had no potential. All the Loire 210 (lower two photos) needed was new wing, a new engine, more guns, a whole new system of bracing the floats and to get rid of the braces on the tailplane. Top speed was under 190mph.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

Well, you may be forgetting the Loire 210 was really a pre-war design? Perhaps you should compare it with the float plane competition... lets do just that since I love seaplanes.

*The French Seaplane scouts*
Loire 210 - 186 mph, 4 x .30 cal, range 750 km (from 1939)
Bernard H 110 - 204 mph, 2 x .30 cal, range 750 km (one prototype in 1935)
Latécoère 298 - 167 mph, 3 x .30 cal, range 1,500 km (it was a torpedo bomber w. 1500 lb bomb load, from 1938)

*Single engine seaplane scouts from around the world*
Fairey Seafox - 124 mph, 1 x .30 cal, range 708 km (biplane, from 1937)
Supermarine Walrus- 130 mph, 2 x .30 cal, range 966 km (biplane, from 1935)
Curtiss SOC "Seagull"- 165 mph, 1 x fixed .30, 1 x rear firing .30 cal, range 1,086 km (biplane, from 1935)
Vought OS2U "Kingfisher" - 164 mph, 1 x fixed .30 cal, 1 x rear .30 cal, range 1,296 km (from 1940)
Grumman J2F "Duck"- 190 mph, 1 x rear firing .30 cal, range 1,255 km (biplane, from 1936)
IMAM Ro. 43 - 186 mph, 2 x .30 cal, range 1,500 km (biplane, Italian, from 1935)
Nakajima E8N "Dave" - 186 mph, 2 x .30 cal, range 898 km (biplane, from 1935)
Aichi E13A "Jake" - 234 mph, 1 x .30 cal mg, range 2,089 km (from 1941)
Yokosuka E14Y - 153 mph, 1 x .30 cal (this was a submarine based lightweight aircraft, from 1942)
Aichi E16A _Zuiun _"Paul" - 270 mph, 2 x 20mm, 1 x 13mm, range 1,176 km (from 1944)
Mitsubishi F1M "Pete" - 230 mph, 2 x fixed .30 cal, 1 x rear firing .30 cal, range 740 km (from 1941, biplane)
Arado Ar 196 - 193 mph- 2 x fixed 20mm, 2 x .30 cal, range 1,080 km (from 1938)
Northrop N-3PB - 257 mph, 4 x 12.7mm, range 1,609 km (small number used from April 1941)
Curtiss SO3C "Seamew" (aka "Sea Cow")- 172 mph, 1 x 12.7mm fixed, 2 x 12.7mm rear, range 1,800 km (1942, considered a design failure and withdrawn from service by 1944)
Nakajima A6M2-N "Rufe" - 270 mph, 2 x 20mm, 2 x .30 cal, 1,148 km (from 1942)
Curtiss SC-1 "Seahawk" - 303 mph, 2 x .50 cal, range 1,006 km (from 1945)

*Multi engine seaplanes and flying boats*
He 115 - 200 mph, 3 x 30 cal mg
CANT Z.506 - 230 mph, 1 x 12.7mm and 3 x .30 cal mg
PBY Catalina - 190 mph, 2 x 12.7mm, 3 x .30 cal
Do 18 - 155 mph , 2 x .30 cal
Do. 24 - 205 mph, 1 x 20mm, 2 x .30 cal
H6K "Mavis" - 211 mph, 1 x 20mm, 4 x .30 cal
H8K - 290 mph, 5 x 20mm cannon, 5 x .30 cal (from March 1942)
Short Sunderland III- 210 mph, 2 x 12.7mm, 14 x .30 cal
BV 138 - 177 mph, 2 x 20mm, 1 x 13mm, 1-3 x .30 cal
BV 222 - 205 mph, 3 x 20mm, 5 x 13mm (from August 1941)

That is what I could come up with. Did I miss any? Range is from the wiki's so could certainly be off.

Of the single engine planes, I'd say the French ones are a bit better than the middle just comparing armament and speed. The Loire is about in the middle of the pack on speed but more heavily armed than most, it looks quite good next to the Kingfisher (for combat at least, if not range) which was probably the most important Allied float plane scout, and competetive with the "Dave" which would be the Japanese equivalent. The Rufe of course stands out above all the others but it didn't become operational until 1942. The "Paul" also looks good but only 24 were made and it was not in the War until 1944. The "Jake" really stands out by it's incredible range, which is the single trait probably most valuable for most of these planes as scouts - range really needed to be good. The FM1 by contrast had quite limited range though it was much better for combat.






The only Allied single engine seaplane which even comes close to the "Rufe" by the mid-war period was the (to me, quite impressive) Northrop N-3P but it was also made in very small numbers (less than 20) and basically only used by the Norwegians out of Iceland. It was heavily armed, fast and had a good range. It was actually supposed to get 2 x Oerlikon 20mm cannon but wasn't armed in time for the outbreak of the war. The Ar 196 was a dangerous opponent just because of the heavy armament and you can see where the F1M "Pete" looks pretty good based on speed and what we know of it's maneuverability, though it was lightly armed. The Seahawk looks good but as I said already it really came too late.

As for the Loire 210, I think a slightly bigger engine would have made it quite effective. It had a 720 hp but that could have been upgraded to a 900 or 1,000 hp engine fairly easily, which should have put the speed well over 200 mph and thereby quite competitive with most of the other single-engined types up to 1942 or so. Just the fact that it was a monoplane would make it superior to most of the other early war designs. Not sure why it would need a different wing. The guns are pretty decent by early war standards but adding a 20mm cannon would significantly improve it's utility.

The other one I posted, the Bernard H 110 managed 200 mph with a 700 hp engine which isn't bad for 1935 though the manufacturer went bankrupt.

Of the mult-engined planes, some of the early war ones could be intercepted but many are too heavily armed for that Loire, with the H8K, Sunderland, BV 138 and BV 222 all probably well out of reach. The H8K, Sunderland and BV 222 were heavily armed enough so as to be dangerous for even front line land based fighters to attack. H8K in particular really looks like a beast on paper though I know many were shot down.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

The thing to keep in mind about seaplanes is that they could operate in remote areas often far out of reach of land based aircraft. A float plane that can tangle with short to medium ranged carrier or land based planes like the "Rufe" (and I guess to a lesser extent, the "Pete") is kind of a next-level creature. Most of them will only face other float planes and long range maritime patrol aircraft like a FW 200 or a PB4Y, and then often only rarely.

If the enemy makes sufficient efforts it can get carrier planes or long ranged land based fighters / mulitrole planes like a Beaufighter or a Ju 88 in range of your seaplane base, it could be trouble for the seaplanes. But they could also just be moved to another more remote base (depending on the Tactical / Operational situation).

The ideal role for the seaplane was to project power where aircraft would not normally be. Like from remote pacific Islands without land bases, or as scout planes paired with surface warships like Cruisers or armed merchantmen. Think how useful a "Rufe" would have been for the Royal Navy as an alternative to a Sea Hurricane for North Sea convoys. No need to ditch in the sea after chasing away that Fw 200.

For that matter the Northrop N-3P might have been a good alternative too.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2019)

Aichi M6A "Seiran"
Max. range: 738 miles
Max. speed: 295mph
Armament: one flexible 13mm MG, one Type 91 torpedo or two 550lb. bombs/one 1875lb. bomb.

Yokosuka E14Y "Glen"
Max. range: 575 miles.
Max. speed: 153mph.
Armament: one flexible 7.7mm MG, two 168lb. bombs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Aichi M6A "Seiran"
> Max. range: 738 miles
> Max. speed: 295mph
> Armament: one flexible 13mm MG, one Type 91 torpedo or two 550lb. bombs/one 1875lb. bomb.
> ...



Good catch! I forgot the sub-launched seaplanes. Another fascinating sub-genre. I left out the M6A because I don't think it ever saw combat, despite the promising design. The E14Y was used though so I've added it to my post.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 18, 2019)

I got to see the Northrop N-3P up close. Tthey raised from a fjord and Northrop workers restored. It was featured at the Torrance Armed Forces Day parade in 1982. Beautiful airplane, like a sleeker SBD, which was also originally designed by Northrop.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

It really is a beautiful aircraft.






Interestingly Douglas made an export version of the Northrop A-17 as the A-33, which they called a "ground attack fighter". I saw nothing about dive bombing though it did seem to have dive brakes for dive bombing based on the photos. Performance was comparable to the SBD with basically the same engine, and it had 2 x .50 and 4 x .30 cal guns, as well as supposedly a 2,000 bomb load (four wing hard points stressed for 500 lbs each).

The Douglas SBD was also derived from a Northrop design, the BT-1 so there seems to be some link to the two aircraft families so to speak. Northrop was a subsidiary of Douglas.

Despite the clean lines it was not as impressive as you would like. Probably a bit of extra drag caused by the very large (47') wingspan, and the wheels were exposed on the front which probably also caused drag.

It did see some action in the Dutch air forces but was used as as fighter and quickly slaughtered according to the Wiki


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

It brings up another question about the SBD. How good of a fighter could you make if you stripped away dive brakes, rear gunner, rear gun and ammo, rear gunner armor, special dive-bombing bomb rack, the extra set of controls for the rear gunner, the back half of the cockpit and so on. That should save a good bit of weight, maybe 1,000 lbs? That might get close to Wildcat performance.

SBD-5 empty weight was ~ 6,400 lbs, F4F-4 was 5,800 lbs. If you dropped the SBD down to an empty weight of 5,500 lbs or so I would think it might make a competitive carrier fighter. Probably more useful in Scout-dive bomber configuration but it's interesting to think about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 18, 2019)

I saw the M6 Seiran they were restoring at Sliver Hill, sitting right next to the Enola Gay. The type almost saw combat., They were going to bomb the Panama Canal. The sub surfaced and received a radio message about the atomic attack on Hiroshima. They, tossed the airplane overboard and returned to Japan.

Personally I think the Marines on Midway would have been much better off with the F3F-3 than the F2A. I talked to a former USMC pilot who said that when the F2A came out the Marines at San DIego were mad as hell. The East Coast USMC got the new F2A and they were stuck with the old F3F's. Little did they know.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

And yet the Finns did so well with it. It may have just needed some weight cut out.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

Apparently the Latécoère 298 saw some action. From the wiki:

_"The Laté 298s first saw action during the Battle of France in 1940. They were used at first for maritime patrol and anti-submarine duties, but did not meet any German ships. Later, as the Wehrmacht drove through France, they were used to harass and interdict armoured columns. Despite not having been designed for this role, they suffered fewer losses than units equipped with other types._

_After the armistice of June 1940, the French Navy under the Vichy regime was allowed to retain some Laté 298 units, and captured aircraft were used by the Luftwaffe._

_After Operation Torch, French units in Africa sided with the Allies. In this guise, the Laté 298 was used for Coastal Command missions in North Africa, in cooperation with Royal Air Force Wellingtons._

_The Laté 298's final combat missions were flown during the liberation of France, where they were used to attack German shipping operating from strongholds on the Atlantic coast._

_The last Laté 298s were retired from active service in 1946, but continued to serve as trainers until 1950."_

A float plane torpedo bomber with that kind of range seems like it could have had an impressive niche both in the Pacific and the Med. I wonder what kind of combat record it had, did it sink any German ships? How good were the French torpedoes?


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 18, 2019)

The stripped down SBD, gunner and aft cockpit removed etc, probably looks almost exactly like a Zero..


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 18, 2019)

A stripped SBD looks even more like a T-6 made to look like a Zero. It would no more be a competitor to the Zero than would a modified T-6.

The Finns had the early F2A's, provided from US Navy stocks, not export models built to European standards. They lacked many of the weight adding upgrades of the later models.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2019)

The E14Y was also one of the few enemy aircrat to ever attack the continental U.S.

In September '42, an E14Y launched from I-25 attacked twice (9th and 29th), near Brookings Oregon.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> A stripped SBD looks even more like a T-6 made to look like a Zero. It would no more be a competitor to the Zero than would a modified T-6.



Well the T-6 had / has a 600 hp engine (and managed 200 mph with that), the SBD like the F4F had a 1,200 hp engine, so with double the horsepower I think they would actually be closer to competitive.

The T-6 is also a two-seater whereas the hypothetical SBD fighter would be a single-seat aircraft.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 18, 2019)

Don't forget about the N1K1

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 18, 2019)

Well, the Aussies did build a single seat T-6 with an R-1820, the Boomarang, armed the same as a Spitfire V. And it never shot down an enemy aircraft. They used to get P-39's to escort it on ground attack missions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Don't forget about the N1K1
> 
> View attachment 542225



Damn, how did I forget? The best float plane fighter ever. Does anyone have stats (speed and range) for it in floatplane configuration all I can find are the land based fighter version.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> Well, the Aussies did build a single seat T-6 with an R-1820, the Boomarang, armed the same as a Spitfire V. And it never shot down an enemy aircraft. They used to get P-39's to escort it on ground attack missions.



True, and good point, though I don' think AT-6 is the same as an SBD. Performance though is about what I would expect at roughly 300 mph. 

But if an SBD could sometimes shoot down a Zero with a top speed of ~ 250 mph I would expect it would do better if it could make 300 mph, right?

I think the main problem with the Boomerang is that it took the Aussies too long to develop it and it showed up in the field as a fighter in April 1943, by then a 300 mph fighter was way too far behind the curve. You wouldn't want to tangle with an A6M5 or a Ki-61 in that. A 300 mph fighter in 1941 or early 1942 though, maybe is a little bit more plausible.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 18, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> Well, the Aussies did build a single seat T-6 with an R-1820, the Boomarang, armed the same as a Spitfire V. And it never shot down an enemy aircraft. They used to get P-39's to escort it on ground attack missions.


Its predecessor the Wirraway did shoot down a plane.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 18, 2019)

Yes, the Whirraway did score some kills, and it was a bit less advanced than an AT-6. I would attribute that success to Aussie desperation and a target rich environment.

You know I just remembered something. My high school physics teacher flew the last test flight in the XSBD-1 before the USN accepted it. He was a USN aviator stationed at Long Beach in the late 30's. The last test the USN wanted was a dive from 20,000 ft with a live 500 lb bomb. The Douglas test pilot refused, saying that he would not fly with live ordnance. They asked my teacher and he said that he certainly would do that test, since he did it with much older aircraft every day. So he flew the test flight, which took 30 min, and Douglas paid him $500. He said that $1000/hour was the highest wage rate he ever made.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2019)

Although the Boomerang wasn't ideal as a fighter, it proved it's worth in the ground attack role.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2019)

I believe there were three MKVBs with floats and one MK IX? More sets of floats were built but never used.

I would note however that this is NOT a scout and neither are the French single seaters, unless we are using the term "scout" in it's WW I context. The Sopwith Camel was a "scout".
How long the French kept using the tem "scout" for a single seat fighter plane I don't know. 

By the 1930s some AIr Forces and Navies had started calling the 2-3 seat reconnaissance planes "scouts".

The French single seaters were intended to drive off enemy recon planes or disrupt air attacks. While they might do fairly well against many of the float planes listed they were going to be pretty useless against most any land based fighter. 

I would also be cautious of the term "observation" in regards to many of these planes. There was a wide spread theory in the 1930s that battleship or Cruiser launched float planes/flying boats could be used during the _big gun battle_ to "observe" the fall of the shells and radio corrections back to the ship to increase the accuracy and effective range of the ships guns. 
This may have been done in a few fleet exercises and was done by the Warspite in Norway, much to the detriment of the German destroyer force. Obviously it only works if the enemy has both lousy AA guns and accompanying aircraft of even less performance than the planes doing the observing or "spotting".


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> This may have been done in a few fleet exercises and was done by the Warspite in Norway, much to the detriment of the German destroyer force. Obviously it only works if the enemy has both lousy AA guns and accompanying aircraft of even less performance than the planes doing the observing or "spotting".


A Fairey Seafox spotter plane was used by Ajax in the River Plate.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2019)

Thank you


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you


From wiki the Graf Spee's plane was out of service, I read a book on the BoRP when I was a kid and Ajax had to undertake maneuvers to recover it at some time during the battle, they cant stay up there forever.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 18, 2019)

pbehn said:


> A Fairey Seafox spotter plane was used by Ajax in the River Plate.



The USS Savannah lost three floatplanes that were trying to observe shoots in Sicily.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> True, and good point, though I don' think AT-6 is the same as an SBD. Performance though is about what I would expect at roughly 300 mph.
> 
> But if an SBD could sometimes shoot down a Zero with a top speed of ~ 250 mph I would expect it would do better if it could make 300 mph, right?
> 
> I think the main problem with the Boomerang is that it took the Aussies too long to develop it and it showed up in the field as a fighter in April 1943, by then a 300 mph fighter was way too far behind the curve. You wouldn't want to tangle with an A6M5 or a Ki-61 in that. A 300 mph fighter in 1941 or early 1942 though, maybe is a little bit more plausible.



to turn a Dauntless into a 300mph airplane you need to stick an R-2600 into it. No version of the R-1820 or R-1930 is going to do the trick at 14-20,000ft. Turbo engines might do the trick at higher altitudes. 

Grumman tried this with an Avenger trying to make an attack plane.




They picked up 3-5mph over a standard Avenger. Bottom step was faired to a point. 

If you have 800hp driving your SBD-3 at 250mph at 16,000ft the cube rule says you need 1382hp to go 300 mph.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2019)

When I was a kid one of my friends fathers had flown Kingfishers off the Battleship Colorado. He did a number of spotting missions for shore bombardments. But I think using float planes during fleet engagements had pretty much disappeared.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2019)

The Avenger was a bus, so much drag. Empty weight is almost twice that of an SBD, it is a totally different animal. If they could get that T6 derived Boomerang to 300 mph with a 1,200 hp engine, they could have gotten an SBD to go that fast. Might have required trimming the wing down a little bit but I'm not even sure about that.

Spotting shells with scout / observation planes was rare in naval practice for the same reason the Norden bombsight didn't work - there were usually clouds or mist or smoke in the way... or the engagement was at night. Naval gunfire exchanges were also often too quick to register corrections being radioed in. I think usually what mattered more was spotting enemy ships before they came into contact, hence scouting from observation. The SBD itself was a "Scout Bomber".

And of course those were scout planes. Even three hundred km range was a fairly long distance for a surface vessel. Submarines were also routinely spotted that way, as were enemy smoke plumes. A scout, especially one that can deploy from some remote lagoon, doesn't have to be a full-fledged recon plane. The F1M was primarily a scout, despite it's short range and apparent utility as a fighter.

They did do it on land though with regular artillery quite often, that is what the L4 was all about, and the Storch too to some extent. Risky job flying one of those but they were effective as artillery spotters and in observing troop movements.


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 18, 2019)

Was just looking at the Graf Zeppelin (the Ship) at 33550 tons and 35 knots, with a proposed air group of 30 ME 109's and only 12 JU 87's. Talk about a small air group. Interesting that they were nothing to have any VT squadron. I suppose with their small Navy that they looked at it being mostly a defensive adjunct.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Avenger was a bus, so much drag. Empty weight is almost twice that of an SBD, it is a totally different animal. If they could get that T6 derived Boomerang to 300 mph with a 1,200 hp engine, they could have gotten an SBD to go that fast. Might have required trimming the wing down a little bit but I'm not even sure about that.



The Avenger was a bit of a bus, just pointing out that taking the rear seater out and faring over the opening doesn't really buy you much when comes to speed.

For the T-6 you had an engine that was good for 600hp at 6200ft (at best, some models gave 600hp at 2000 or 3000ft depending on model) so at altitude you had????
the engine in the Boomerang had 1200hp at 4900ft and 1050hp at 13,100ft compared to the 500-520hp the T-6 might have had that altitude. So yes doubling the power can get you up to around 300mph. Now, how are you going to double the power of the R-1820? But you don't need to double it since you are already somewhat faster than the T-6
BTW they cut 7 ft off wing span and 30 sq ft of wing area from the Wirraway to the Boomerang and they also lost over 2 feet of fuselage despite the longer engine. 




Boomerangs also got partial wheel covers the T-6 and Wirraway didn't have

Since the SBD is faster than a T-6 you don't need to double the power, around a 70% increase should do the trick. 
You won't save much of anything trying to turn a SBD into fighter, you might as well start over. 



Schweik said:


> Spotting shells with scout / observation planes was rare in naval practice for the same reason the Norden bombsight didn't work - there were usually clouds or mist or smoke in the way... or the engagement was at night. Naval gunfire exchanges were also often too quick to register corrections being radioed in. I think usually what mattered more was spotting enemy ships before they came into contact, hence scouting from observation. The SBD itself was a "Scout Bomber".



The spotter planes could operate closer to the enemy and sometimes have a better view than the firing ships. This pre war plan went to heck because it wouldn't work at night and it turned out that even the cruiser engagements wound up being rather twisted affairs with not a lot of straight steaming. The other change was improved radars that could range on the shell splashes and tell the fire control people if they were over or under a lot quicker than the planes could and the radar worked at night and in poor weather. 





Schweik said:


> And of course those were scout planes. Even three hundred km range was a fairly long distance for a surface vessel. Submarines were also routinely spotted that way, as were enemy smoke plumes. A scout, especially one that can deploy from some remote lagoon, doesn't have to be a full-fledged recon plane. The F1M was primarily a scout, despite it's short range and apparent utility as a fighter.



What I was getting at was that not all navies uses the same terminology and the French "scouts" weren't so much scouts or observation planes as they were float catapult fighters for ship defense.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> Was just looking at the Graf Zeppelin (the Ship) at 33550 tons and 35 knots, with a proposed air group of 30 ME 109's and only 12 JU 87's. Talk about a small air group. Interesting that they were nothing to have any VT squadron. I suppose with their small Navy that they looked at it being mostly a defensive adjunct.


Well, they did design and build the Fieseler 167




But with the on again, off again priorities for the Graf Zeppelin it may have been decided that more fighters were a better option than 10-12 torpedo bombers.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But if an SBD could sometimes shoot down a Zero with a top speed of ~ 250 mph I would expect it would do better if it could make 300 mph, right?


Maybe and maybe not. Depends on how you get it to 300 mph. If you trim down that high lift but draggy wing, you're sacrificing the SBD's greatest ACM asset, it's maneuverability. Reducing weight would help with acceleration, rate of climb and general agility, but the real "magic wand" is drag reduction on a massive scale. Replace the 1820 with a two speed 1830 and a tapered stream lined cowling, fair the canopy a la A6M, smooth up the landing gear doors, eliminate all the "dive bomber stuff" mentioned earlier, replace the dive brakes with a smooth, quick deploy fowler combat flap, retract the tail wheel and hook behind well sealed doors, and engineer the exhaust system for max thrust >250 mph. Just might get you there. A "Douglas Zero".
Problem is, a lot of the ACM success of the SBD arose out of its ambush value: "the biter bit". Fighter jocks are often prone to thinking of a dive bomber as "easy meat", sometimes to their terminal chagrin. Tricked out as a fighter, it is seen in a whole different light.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Ascent (Jun 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> They did do it on land though with regular artillery quite often, that is what the L4 was all about, and the Storch too to some extent. Risky job flying one of those but they were effective as artillery spotters and in observing troop movements.



As an aside, James Doohan (a.k.a Scotty from Star Trek) flew the Auster mark V in this role for the Canadian artillery after being wounded on Juno beach on D-Day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 19, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> Well, the Aussies did build a single seat T-6 with an R-1820, the Boomarang, armed the same as a Spitfire V. And it never shot down an enemy aircraft. They used to get P-39's to escort it on ground attack missions.


The boomerang was a development of the Wirraway which in turn was a license built NA-16, not T-6. In fact I believe the T-6 was developed from the NA-16 as well. Splitting hairs I know but many seem to think the wirraway and T-6 are the same.
As for the boomerang and not shooting down enemy aircraft, it must be remembered where it was used and in what role. The first squadrons to be equipped were all home defence squadrons based in Australia. Off the top of my head these units encountered Japanese aircraft 3 or 4 times only. Some were at night and the others were scrambles against bombers which they never caught due to lack of speed. No 4 sqn in New Guinea was a Tactical Reconnaissance squadron, not a fighter squadron. It's boomerangs operated at ground level and therefore always at a tactical height disadvantage to any enemy fighters. Even so, encounters were rare. 3 were believed shot down by Japanese fighters, 2 of these fell when they were attacked by 7 zero's. The first boomerang lost in combat was shot down by American ground fire and ace Gerald Johnson shot one down as well!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> The Finns had the early F2A's, provided from US Navy stocks, not export models built to European standards. They lacked many of the weight adding upgrades of the later models.



This is close but not quite right, the Finns were supplied with planes right off the Brewster Production line, not from Navy "stocks". However the planes had bee ordered by the navy and the Finns were allowed to jump the production queue so to speak. The Navy swapped their spots in the queue for later ones so they could get a different model. The Navy had already had the original prototype rebuilt with a newer, more powerful engine, bigger prop and other improvements.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2019)

For a reality check on the whole turn the Dauntless into a fighter thing just look at the Brewster Buffalo and the Wright powered Curtiss Hawk 75s/Mohawks which used the same basic engine. See how much smaller the wings and fuselages were. 
Douglas may have been able to design a fighter using the R-1820 engine, it just wouldn't have used many Duatless parts except screws and rivets.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> For a reality check on the whole turn the Dauntless into a fighter thing just look at the Brewster Buffalo and the Wright powered Curtiss Hawk 75s/Mohawks which used the same basic engine. See how much smaller the wings and fuselages were.
> Douglas may have been able to design a fighter using the R-1820 engine, it just wouldn't have used many Duatless parts except screws and rivets.


I'm sure that the USN would be much better off having a single seat Fulmar with a Merlin 32 in it so 1620 hp.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> For a reality check on the whole turn the Dauntless into a fighter thing just look at the Brewster Buffalo and the Wright powered Curtiss Hawk 75s/Mohawks which used the same basic engine. See how much smaller the wings and fuselages were.



Like I said before, if they could make a Na-6 or T-6 or whatever into a 300 mph fighter with the same engine and the (similar but less extensive) removal of parts you could probably have made the SBD 300 mph, maybe a little more since you would actually be taking more weight out. Which would have been decent performance for an early Carrier fighter though it wouldn't have been enough for long.

The SBD is probably a bit more aerodynamic than the Buffalo which is really fat. But even that plane got up to 320 mph with a 1,200 hp engine.

P-36 / Hawk 75s also got up to 320+ mph with the 1200 hp engines.



> Douglas may have been able to design a fighter using the R-1820 engine, it just wouldn't have used many Duatless parts except screws and rivets.



You have a knack for making very categorical statements without actually knowing if what you are saying is true.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2019)

As for the Fulmar, that has to be one of the most disappointing planes in Naval history. The Fleet Air Arm seemed to have the worst procurement policies of any major military bureaucracy in WW2.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> You have a knack for making very categorical statements without actually knowing if what you are saying is true


A trait that is by no means unique around here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2019)

We all have our opinions, that is part of the fun, but most seem to try not to confuse their opinions for facts about things as remote as WW2 air combat. Others like to try to shut down other conversations by throwing out opinions as indisputable natural laws.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> We all have our opinions, that is part of the fun, but most seem to try not to confuse their opinions for facts about things as remote as WW2 air combat. Others like to try to shut down other conversations by throwing out opinions as indisputable natural laws.


Well we all (or most of us, anyway) sometimes forget to explicitly state the understood IMHO when making appraisals or conjectures, and most of us let it slide without escalating an omission into a confrontation.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> As for the Fulmar, that has to be one of the most disappointing planes in Naval history. The Fleet Air Arm seemed to have the worst procurement policies of any major military bureaucracy in WW2.


You're wrong there, it was the right choice for the role it was needed for at the time it operated. 600 built, IIRC 133 aerial victories, so far better than the Merlin powered Seafire, IIRC 1560 built but only 99 aerial victories. So produced to victories on a par with the Corsair and Thunderbolt. However, I doubt that even the Fulmar which was a far cleaner design than the Dauntless could reach 300 mph even with a Merlin 32, its top speed would probably be the same as an FM-1 but only at low altitude, so clearly the FM-1 wins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> As for the Fulmar, that has to be one of the most disappointing planes in Naval history.



It wasnt designed to be a fighter that job just got tacked on to a light bomber because the FAA was desperate for anything that flew. It was ordered as a stop gap because the Admiralty couldnt get any of the fighter they wanted the Seafire. As a fighter it did pretty well it shot down more aircraft than any other FAA plane and had a win/loss ratio in air combat of around 10 to 1. From reading it seemed to be very manouverable and easy to take off/land on a deck, what it really needed was about 500hp extra and then it would have been a stellar performer in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 19, 2019)

fastmongrel said:


> It wasnt designed to be a fighter that job just got tacked on to a light bomber


Once again, that large, high lift wing, so essential to a bomber and granting great agility in combat, becomes a liability in the quest for speed in a fighter. And for every airframe, there's that zone of diminishing returns, beyond which larger and larger power increases result in smaller and smaller speed gains and drag reduction is the only arrow in your quiver.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> As for the Fulmar, that has to be one of the most disappointing planes in Naval history.





fastmongrel said:


> As a fighter it did pretty well it shot down more aircraft than any other FAA plane and had a win/loss ratio in air combat of around 10 to 1.


Very interesting!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 19, 2019)

fastmongrel said:


> It wasnt designed to be a fighter that job just got tacked on to a light bomber because the FAA was desperate for anything that flew. It was ordered as a stop gap because the Admiralty couldnt get any of the fighter they wanted the Seafire. As a fighter it did pretty well it shot down more aircraft than any other FAA plane and had a win/loss ratio in air combat of around 10 to 1. From reading it seemed to be very manouverable and easy to take off/land on a deck, what it really needed was about 500hp extra and then it would have been a stellar performer in 1940.



Just an edit on the record for the Fulmar. 
Victories 122, losses in air combat 16 
so not 10 to 1 but 7.6 to 1 still a very respectable ratio. Only 3 Fulmars were lost to single engine fighters 13 to Bomber defensive armament. Most of the victories were against bombers but it could mix it with Italian fighters and with its flaps in the combat position it could turn inside a CR42.
Fulmar operational history

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Once again, that large, high lift wing, so essential to a bomber and granting great agility in combat, becomes a liability in the quest for speed in a fighter. And for every airframe, there's that zone of diminishing returns, beyond which larger and larger power increases result in smaller and smaller speed gains and drag reduction is the only arrow in your quiver.
> Cheers,
> Wes



As a reconnaissance plane that big wing was an advantage allowing the Fulmar to take off and land in the dark and loiter for a long time when searching for or tracking a ship. Fulmars from HMS Victorious kept Bismark under watch.
The Story of the Torpedoing of the Bismarck


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 19, 2019)

The first production G-36A Martlet fighters ordered by France and accepted by GB had the 1000 hp R-1820. And that airplane is smaller than an SBD but still did not have what you would call sparkling performance.

One reason the Mustang Mk I elicited so little official interest from the USAAF was that it came out at a time in which everyone "knew" that a fighter that with a single engine of less than around 2000 cubic inches was a waste of time. The P-39 and P-40 were not going to cut the mustard but were all that was available and the P-43 was only a little better. Even the RAF had concluded that the future lay not with the Spitfire and Hurricane but with the Typhoon and Beaufighter. The Germans started out with engines of over 2000 cu in and were going up from there. The Japanese bought the DB-601 for the Ki61 in an attempt to get into the big cube league; the Italians did the same for the Macchi and Fiat fighters. The Russians started out with over 2000 cu in engines and went up from there. In the US the future was with the R-2800, multiple V-1710's like the P-38 and P-49, and the V-3420 for the P-58 and P-75. The R-2600 was too small for the F6F and they built only one with that.

But Sir Stanley Hooker more or less accidentally figured out how to make the SMALLEST DISPLACEMENT FRONT LINE FIGHTER ENGINE OF THE WAR perform like a much bigger engine while developing an ALTERNATIVE engine for very high altitude RAF bombers and twin engined very high altitude fighters to combat and emulate the JU-86R. Surprise! The answer was not getting bigger and bigger engines - and airplanes - but getting more power out of an engine even smaller in displacement than a V-1710! Knight him? They should have made him King! 

According to a book by a former RN officer the Fulmar was ordered at a time when the RN had to use RAF pilots for its airplanes and thus needed an extra seat so an RN officer could keep an eye on the interloping landlubber and also make sure he did not get too badly lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> See how much smaller the wings and fuselages were.
> Douglas may have been able to design a fighter using the R-1820 engine, it just wouldn't have used many Duatless parts except screws and rivets.


The SFD Fauntless doesn't go away so easy! IMHO it may not be a speed demon, but it could be an effective fighter in a "Hurricane and Spitfire" type scenario, and without an extensive airframe redesign. It's contemporary, the F4F, was essentially a boom and zoom fighter, while historically the SBD succeeded in the turn and burn mode. 
Close attention to drag and weight reduction, elimination of the "dive bomber stuff", addition of a combat flap, and replacing the 1820 with a smaller diameter 1830 with better altitude performance and a cleaner cowling and hydromatic prop, would, IMO, give you a 300+ mph fighter that could fly rings around a Wildcat in a turn, but probably not catch it in a dive. A pair of fifties added in the wings probably wouldn't hurt, either.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> The first production G-36A Martlet fighters ordered by France and accepted by GB had the 1000 hp R-1820. And that airplane is smaller than an SBD but still did not have what you would call sparkling performance.
> 
> One reason the Mustang Mk I elicited so little official interest from the USAAF was that it came out at a time in which everyone "knew" that a fighter that with a single engine of less than around 2000 cubic inches was a waste of time. The P-39 and P-40 were not going to cut the mustard but were all that was available and the P-43 was only a little better. Even the RAF had concluded that the future lay not with the Spitfire and Hurricane but with the Typhoon and Beaufighter. The Germans started out with engines of over 2000 cu in and were going up from there. The Japanese bought the DB-601 for the Ki61 in an attempt to get into the big cube league; the Italians did the same for the Macchi and Fiat fighters. The Russians started out with over 2000 cu in engines and went up from there. In the US the future was with the R-2800, multiple V-1710's like the P-38 and P-49, and the V-3420 for the P-58 and P-75. The R-2600 was too small for the F6F and they built only one with that.
> 
> ...



Good points about all the heavy fighter and giant engine designs. We do tend to look back with the benefit of hindsight, what is obvious to us now wasn't so clear back then. 

The solution to fighter speed wasn't necessarily just horsepower it was to a large extent low drag, that is the other part of the success of the Bf 109, the Spitfire, and the Mustang.

My favorite of the ridiculous heavy fighter designs was the Airacuda. A big part of these not succeeding, aside from fundamental design flaws, was the failure of the early US turbocharger designs. Love the look though, very "Buck Rogers".
















Perhaps one of the few to somewhat realize the potential of course was the Pfiel


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The SFD Fauntless doesn't go away so easy! IMHO it may not be a speed demon, but it could be an effective fighter in a "Hurricane and Spitfire" type scenario, and without an extensive airframe redesign. It's contemporary, the F4F, was essentially a boom and zoom fighter, while historically the SBD succeeded in the turn and burn mode.
> Close attention to drag and weight reduction, elimination of the "dive bomber stuff", addition of a combat flap, and replacing the 1820 with a smaller diameter 1830 with better altitude performance and a cleaner cowling and hydromatic prop, would, IMO, give you a 300+ mph fighter that could fly rings around a Wildcat in a turn, but probably not catch it in a dive. A pair of fifties added in the wings probably wouldn't hurt, either.
> Cheers,
> Wes



This is basically the point I was making. The tight turning would help evade fighters, while it should be fast enough to catch bombers. Basically like a Hurricane in the BoB. And you probably still got a lot of lift-benefit even with a shortened wing (especially at ~1,000 lighter weight), and especially if you added combat flaps (or just ordinary flaps that could be used with a partial / combat setting like a lot of fighters had). I'm not sure I'd add the wing guns though that would depend on the performance of the early version. Two .50 cals in the nose is pretty good for taking on Japanese naval aircraft.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> "In Naval combat in WW2 the Americans didn't have guided missiles..."
> 
> In fact the Mk 24 FIDO acoustic homing torpedo was the first air launched guided missile ever used in actual combat.
> 
> Much later in the war the Bat missile was launched from VPB-109 Privateers with some success. It was a radar guided fire and forget weapon. It's biggest flaw was that after it was locked onto a target the crew might have no idea what target that was. The next biggest flaw was that the airframe was made out of plywood and did not take well to being hauled around the Pacific under the wing of an airplane and then stored outside, with the result that its glide range was often less than advertised.



I stand corrected on the "Bat" - I knew about it but didn't realize it had been used operationally, albeit only very late in the game (April 1945). It could kill from 20 miles away, very impressive for the time period. Apparently also used to destroy bridges in Burma.

ASM-N-2 Bat - Wikipedia






The Mk 24 torpedo was to me an air dropped torpedo, or an ASW mine or whatever, albeit a sophisticated one. To me a missile implies flight through the air to the target as in the old meaning attributed to rocks, darts and javelins in pre-industrial times

Frankly I had thought all guided missiles in WW2 were basically experimental or desperation weapons. I was surprised to learn in Mediterranean Air War IV that the German anti-shipping ones (Fritz X and HS 293) were being used fairly routinely and with quite a bit of success in the Med around the time of the invasion of Sicily in 1943 through the Anzio landings in 1944. They were posing quite a problem, the launch aircraft such as Do 217 were vulnerable but if they managed to launch a missile the ship was often doomed or at least in bad trouble.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Good points about all the heavy fighter and giant engine designs. We do tend to look back with the benefit of hindsight, what is obvious to us now wasn't so clear back then.
> 
> The solution to fighter speed wasn't necessarily just horsepower it was to a large extent low drag, that is the other part of the success of the Bf 109, the Spitfire, and the Mustang.
> 
> ...


the Airacuda looks straight out of Central Casting of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> the Airacuda looks straight out of Central Casting of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2019)

Man there is some pot calling the kettle black in here...


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2019)

Ok, lets be candid. Here is my $.02 love it or lump it.

I'm pretty careful to be clear when I'm engaging in speculation vs. discussing facts, and I make an effort to acknowledge when I'm wrong. Certain other people here almost never admit to errors, and routinely conflate their own opinion with facts. This is usually in the service of shutting down somebody else's line of thought which is even more obnoxious. Some people can't appreciate an idea if they didn't come up with it, or if it hasn't been given their Ok as a gatekeeper.

But right or wrong there are benefits to being on the forum a long time, in terms of support.

I don't care, I gather my posts in here are rarely appreciated and usually only by a few, as I am not in lockstep on every opinion as everyone else on here. I'm also not an idiot, I am as well read and well traveled as the rest of you and I've been around WW2 aircraft since I was a kid. I'm not going just go along with being shouted down every time I post something that rubs a forum regular the wrong way for whatever arbitrary reason.

I've been accused of all kinds of ridiculous things here and I'm kind of fed up with it. But I can always just lurk / read the forum and not post. I still enjoy reading it in spite of the attitude of a few of the people. Frankly most forums have similar issues with cliques and so on which is why there are so few forums left, sadly. But I will say there are a lot of knowledgeable people here which is probably why it's still around.


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 19, 2019)

Would the Fairy Firefly have been too big for a Cruiser Floatplane?


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 19, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> Would the Fairy Firefly have been too big for a Cruiser Floatplane?[/QUOTE
> 
> IMHO it would been bad use of a good strike plane. I'd go for the Spitfire float plane as both scout, artillery spotter and interceptor, mark IX version of course. In the last year of the war in the East Indies, the P-40's in RAAF service scored more victories than their Spitfire VIII's, Beaufighters even more. I'd go for anything that could extend the range of the RAAF Spitfires, and if that means seaplane tenders, cruisers or whatever I'd go for it. Yes, there would be loss of performance, but nothing significant considering the fighters that opposed it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok, lets be candid. Here is my $.02 love it or lump it.
> 
> I'm pretty careful to be clear when I'm engaging in speculation vs. discussing facts, and I make an effort to acknowledge when I'm wrong. Certain other people here almost never admit to errors, and routinely conflate their own opinion with facts. This is usually in the service of shutting down somebody else's line of thought which is even more obnoxious. Some people can't appreciate an idea if they didn't come up with it, or if it hasn't been given their Ok as a gatekeeper.
> 
> ...



I’ll be candid, it’s your presentation.

Need a tissue?


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 19, 2019)

Float Scouts: The reason they usually had at least two crew was the sighting messages were sent via HF in morse code, that and the second set of eyes. Even if the extra eyes only increased the sighting accuracy or even by 25% the course of a battle might turn on it.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 19, 2019)

The SBD was effective in its own specialized role - dive bombing ships at sea. It was small enough to carry on aircraft carriers and carried a large enough bomb to damage or destroy capital ships when delivered in a near vertical steep dive to ensure accuracy. The USAAF found it to be far less suitable in its A-24 configuration for the type of bombing campaign required for land based operations.
Carrier conflict, with emphasis on one or two swift strikes to cripple and sink opposing fleet elements, was far different than the daily grind of attrition common to land campaigns. The SBD was just not robust enough, nor could it deliver the tonnages required to dramatically impact a land campaign. A single medium bomber could carry the tonnage of three or four SBDs farther, and with a better expectation of survival against land based interceptors. And we aren't even looking at the heavies. Land based targets tend to be spread out over a greater area than a single ship so pin point accuracy is less important to the level bomber. 
In some respects, carrier aircraft are single use weapons. Look at the loss rates at Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, etc. Could the 8th Air Force sustain operations with attrition rates that high?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Like I said before, if they could make a Na-6 or T-6 or whatever into a 300 mph fighter with the same engine and the same field stripping you could probably have made the SBD 300 mph, maybe a little more.



Not sure what this means, the Boomerang sure didn't use the same the engine as the NA-16, Wirraway, T-6 or whatever. The trainers used an 9 cylinder R-1340 engine with a single speed supercharger. The Boomerang used a 14 cylinder R-1830 engine with a two speed supercharger.

Please show estimates of how the SBD would gain 45-50mph in speed aside from your imagination.




Schweik said:


> The SBD is probably a bit more aerodynamic than the Buffalo which is really fat. But even that plane got up to 320 mph with a *1,200 hp* engine.



You keep quoting the take-off power, the Buffalo had about 1000hp at the altitude it made best speed.

Now for our "the Dauntless can do anything" fans a little reality check.






And a few dimensions from the F6F Hellcat
Wing span 42 ft 10 in or 1 ft 4in more
WIng area 334 Sq ft or 9 sq ft more (2.7%)
Over all Length 33 ft 7in or about 7 in longer. 

SO without a drastic chop job you are trying to use either a Wright R-1820 or P&W R-1830 in an airframe the size of the F6F even if a lot lighter. 
The F6f could do about 302kts (347mph) at 15,000ft using about 1625hp. 

It has been said that the Buffalo was rather portly and it was, however looks are a bit deceiving. Anything that is about 26ft long and as wide as the Buffalo is going to look rather tubby. 
Stretch the fuselage out to 33 ft or so with the same width/depth and the plane "looks" slimmer. Yes the Dauntless is slimmer side to side through the cockpits but from top to bottom? 

As to weight, the manual says an empty SBD-3 without protection went 5669lbs. 
as a "scout" with no bomb and 180 US gallons of fuel and W/O protection fuel it went 7784lbs.

Armament was 227lbs
Equipement was 318lbs
however
protection for the oil tank went ..........................30lbs
protection for the center section fuel tanks 232lbs
protection for the outer wing fuel tanks ......218lbs'
Armor and B/P glass..............................................212lbs

An SBD-3 "scout" with protection and 150US gallons of fuel went 8289lbs.

If you filled the outer tanks it would hold 260 gallons but weight went to 8986lbs.

All figures are from the manual. 

The Dauntless was an excellent dive bomber and a very good recon plane. As a fighter it left more than one thing to be desired and no minor amount of fiddling was going to turn it into even a passable fighter in 1942.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 20, 2019)

For a dedicated dive-bomber/scout born in the 1930's, the SBD performed in it's role above and beyond expectation.
To think that fiddling around with it's design in order to make a fighter out of it almost sounds like the Luftwaffe leadership wanting every single aircraft submitted for their approval to perform a multitude of tasks outside of it's design perimeters - which in turn consumed considerable time, effort and money for very little gain.
While the SBD was being designed and built (as a scouting dive-bomber), there were quite a few dedicated fighters also being designed and developed. Trying to create a fighter out of the SBD would divert much needed time, designers, developers and shop space that could otherwise be used for more important tasks.

Let the SBD do what it was designed to do and leave the dedicated fighters to do what they do...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 20, 2019)

The SBD was used as a “fighter” to counter dive and torpedo bombers, scout aircraft, and possibly maritime patrol aircraft; like a number of attack aircraft, it was maneuverable when lightly loaded. It also had enough performance, armament, and good enough handling to deal with unescorted attack aircraft. Turning it into a fighter could best be done by putting the drawings through a shredder and starting from new sheets of vellum. Douglas did a great job with the SBD; they may not have done so well with a fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 20, 2019)

Greg Boeser said:


> The SBD was effective in its own specialized role - dive bombing ships at sea. It was small enough to carry on aircraft carriers and carried a large enough bomb to damage or destroy capital ships when delivered in a near vertical steep dive to ensure accuracy. The USAAF found it to be far less suitable in its A-24 configuration for the type of bombing campaign required for land based operations.
> Carrier conflict, with emphasis on one or two swift strikes to cripple and sink opposing fleet elements, was far different than the daily grind of attrition common to land campaigns. The SBD was just not robust enough, nor could it deliver the tonnages required to dramatically impact a land campaign. A single medium bomber could carry the tonnage of three or four SBDs farther, and with a better expectation of survival against land based interceptors. And we aren't even looking at the heavies. Land based targets tend to be spread out over a greater area than a single ship so pin point accuracy is less important to the level bomber.
> In some respects, carrier aircraft are single use weapons. Look at the loss rates at Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, etc. Could the 8th Air Force sustain operations with attrition rates that high?


Interesting proposition. I wonder whether we could explore it a little deeper, as I'm less familiar with the capabilities of these other, more land-deployed, dive bombers. I think I can add this much. These SBDs were bombing moving targets, that, the whole time, were shooting back at them, while trying desperately to evade them. That was no picnic. What's more, the targets were rocking and rolling, literally, up and down, from side to side, and bow to stern, while the pilots were making adjustments for that in their dives. Give these SBDs a bridge, or a runway, or a dam, and it's like a gift, no? So what's the big deal, just their load-capabilities? Let's dissect this proposition, see where we end up on it.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 20, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> Interesting proposition. I wonder whether we could explore it a little deeper, as I'm less familiar with the capabilities of these other, more land-deployed, dive bombers. I think I can add this much. These SBDs were bombing moving targets, that, the whole time, were shooting back at them, while trying desperately to evade them. That was no picnic. What's more, the targets were rocking and rolling, literally, up and down, from side to side, and bow to stern, while the pilots were making adjustments for that in their dives. Give these SBDs a bridge, or a runway, or a dam, and it's like a gift, no? So what's the big deal, just their load-capabilities? Let's dissect this proposition, see where we end up on it.


Ive read the army used its A24s in much more shallow angle dives making them much less accurate. So it was the way in which they were used not any inherent qualities of the plane itself that made it less effective for the army.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 20, 2019)

I always attributed the SBD's success to the excellent training and dedication of the Navy dive bomber pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 20, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> I always attributed the SBD's success to the excellent training and dedication of the Navy dive bomber pilots.


Both. The machine was an easy flyer, from what I've always understood. It was just designed that way, and well-behaved. Most of the pilots that flew it, from what I've been told, loved it.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 20, 2019)

Greg Boeser said:


> The SBD was effective in its own specialized role - dive bombing ships at sea. It was small enough to carry on aircraft carriers and carried a large enough bomb to damage or destroy capital ships when delivered in a near vertical steep dive to ensure accuracy. The USAAF found it to be far less suitable in its A-24 configuration for the type of bombing campaign required for land based operations.
> Carrier conflict, with emphasis on one or two swift strikes to cripple and sink opposing fleet elements, was far different than the daily grind of attrition common to land campaigns. The SBD was just not robust enough, nor could it deliver the tonnages required to dramatically impact a land campaign. A single medium bomber could carry the tonnage of three or four SBDs farther, and with a better expectation of survival against land based interceptors. And we aren't even looking at the heavies. Land based targets tend to be spread out over a greater area than a single ship so pin point accuracy is less important to the level bomber.
> In some respects, carrier aircraft are single use weapons. Look at the loss rates at Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, etc. Could the 8th Air Force sustain operations with attrition rates that high?



All of those missions are different. 
Heavy bombers couldn’t hit ships at sea. 
Medium bombers could skip bomb but that technique wasn’t developed until later, plus I don’t know how well that would work against a carrier, cruiser or battleship with their more extensive AA batteries. 
Medium bombers couldn’t bomb factories deep inside Germany either. 
Dive bombers could hit any pin point target, whether it was a ship, bunker, bridge, etc, but it didn’t work against Germany because their AA was very good. Medium bombers were forced up to much higher altitudes in Europe due to German AA while against Japan, low level attacks by medium and even heavy bombers worked well. Unescorted, self defending bombers also worked against Japan, of course they didn’t do well against Germany. 

Just like a Jeep, truck or tank were designed for a job and neither will replace the other for its intended role. You wouldn’t haul supplies long distance with a tank and you wouldn’t assault a defended position with a truck. 

A dive bomber, medium bomber and heavy bomber each have their intended job and limitations and none will do the job the others were designed specifically to do.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 20, 2019)

Before guided weapons, there were exactly two ways for aircraft effectively to attack ships at sea: dive bombers and torpedo bombers. The USN seemed to have deprecated the latter -- USS _Ranger_ didn't even have a torpedo magazine and USN aircraft torpedoes that were problematic.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Not sure what this means, the Boomerang sure didn't use the same the engine as the NA-16, Wirraway, T-6 or whatever. The trainers used an 9 cylinder R-1340 engine with a single speed supercharger. The Boomerang used a 14 cylinder R-1830 engine with a two speed supercharger.
> Please show estimates of how the SBD would gain 45-50mph in speed aside from your imagination.



Lets remember where this little detour started. I wrote: "Well the T-6 had / has a 600 hp engine (and managed 200 mph with that), the SBD like the F4F had a 1,200 hp engine, so with double the horsepower I think they would actually be closer to competitive. The T-6 is also a two-seater whereas the hypothetical SBD fighter would be a single-seat aircraft." Then Milflyer mentioned that the Boomerang was basically a T-6 (or NA-16) with an R-1820 and it wasn't so great. I agreed, but pointed out that the performance would be about the same as the theoretical "SBF Flauntless", the main problem with the Boomerang being that just came out too late, in April 1943. In 1941 or 1942 a carrier fighter with similar performance would be theoretically more effective.

And then you predictably started making all your assertions that it was impossible. The truth is it's just speculation so the best any of us can do is an educated guess.


To make the Boomerang the Aussies removed the rear seat and shaved off a little bit of wing space, and doubled the takeoff HP of the engine from 600 to 1200 hp. (Using takeoff HP here as shorthand rather than going through the HP at every altitude from Sea Level to Ceiling). To make the SBF, I was just proposing taking out gear to reduce weight:

Rear seat and rear cockpit.
Extra radio
The extra set of flight controls for the gunner
Armor for gunner
Two .30 cal guns with their ammunition
The great big dive brakes
The bomb cradle for the dive bomb
I don't know how much all this stuff weighs but I can make an educated guess. Most of the weight saving I would assume would come from the dive brakes and the gunners station with guns etc., the bomb cradle would help with drag. In addition they could have shortened the wings slightly as they did for the Boomerang, and possibly install a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 of the Wildcat instead of the Wright 1820, maybe tighten the cowling slightly to reduce drag and tune the exhaust for better "push", and cover up a few gaps like adding wheel covers.

The boomerang was 5,373 lbs empty, vs. the SBD at 6,400 lbs empty. They also cut the wings down from a 42' span on the T-6 and NA-16 to 36' on the Boomerang.

My theory again (to be clear) was that* if* you could reduced say ~800 to 1,000 lbs weight for the hypothetical "SBF", since the dimensions would be the roughly the same as the Boomerang and the weight would be just about the same with the same engine, power / mass would be equivalent and you would probably get a ~300 mph fighter which would be suitable as a stop-gap "Scout Fighter" airplane for the early war years, which could have served as a scout and emergency fighter but still retain some bombing ability.

The only real questions as to whether the above scenario would be possible are 1) how much weight could you actually take out of an SBD to make it into a single-seat "scout fighter", and 2) how much of the speed difference between and SBD and say, a Buffalo or a Wildcat is due to drag as opposed to weight. Also how efficient (in terms of drag vs. lift) was the SBD wing in general compared to the NA-16 wing since they did have a quite different wing shape.

As for all the fuel weights quoted, you would still probably want to retain the full fuel capacity for longer range scouting missions, but of course, in a CAP situation the fuel would be reduced, either because you sent it up that way or because it was doing CAP after returning from a raid.

I don't know exact figures for drag coefficient but probably like a lot of people here, I have accurate scale models of several of the primary combat aircraft of the Pacific Theater. You can eyeball them and clearly see that the F2A and TBF are _by far _the 'thickest' in the fuselage. The Ki-43 is the thinnest followed by the A6M. The SBD is similar to the F4F but slightly thinner in horizontal profile. You can see it here:





SBD top / left F4F bottom / right.

So I guess the biggest question for me as to viability of the idea would be how much do the dive brakes weigh. That would get us a lot closer to a realistic number for the weight reduction since we can probably figure out how much the gunners armor, guns ammo and other gear weighed.

In terms of the bigger picture, without the dive bombing ability it would certainly not be as deadly as an SBD, which would really be the reason not to do it, since the SBD was more valuable due to it's lethality against ships. The "SBF" might have a small niche for example for escort carriers, as a longer ranged alternative to the F4F with a little bit better strike capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Ive read the army used its A24s in much more shallow angle dives making them much less accurate. So it was the way in which they were used not any inherent qualities of the plane itself that made it less effective for the army.



Yes, from what I understand this was the issue - it was also a problem with the early Marine Corps piloted SBD's, they did the "shallow dive" attacks as opposed to proper dive-bombing runs (which required extra training) and they suffered higher attrition and lower accuracy in their early strikes. From what I gather the A-24 was more effective both in terms of accuracy and survivability when they used as an actual dive-bomber. This was also the A-24B with a bigger engine.

However I think Greg does make a good point about Naval vs. ground targets. In a Naval battle like Midway you could afford to lose a lot of planes especially against naval targets. Less so against ground targets like when the Japanese bombed the Midway airfields. If you trade 20 aircraft for an aircraft carrier or a battleship that is an acceptable loss rate. If you lose the same 20 to put a few craters in an island airfield which can be bulldozed back into shape in two days, or even worse, to take out one tank or a couple of mortars, it's a bad trade.

Using dive bombers as tactical weapons in land combat was a different game so to speak but the Germans were able to do it with success with their Ju 87 in Russia and in the Med well into the middle of the war. From reading about the Mediterranean campaigns the A-36 (P-51A in dive bomber configuration) was a fairly important strike aircraft in Italy for the Allies.

Generally speaking by the later war, fighter bombers were preferred for tactical bombing over any kind of pure bomber type because their greater speed and ability to tangle with enemy fighters made them more survivable. For that reason the Germans switched a lot of their Stuka units over to Fw 190F etc., and the Americans switched from using light bombers of any kind over more to Corsairs and Hellcats, and Kittyhawks* in the Pacific, and to P-47s in the Med and later Europe. The other main reason though is that while early war dive bomber designs were successful, attempts to upgrade the dive bomber, basically to make a faster version, mostly failed. So the fighter had to do the job.

The advantage of the dive bomber over the fighter bomber is accuracy. A higher hit rate means less sorties and that too translates to lower attrition. If you are getting a 3% per sortie hit rate against tanks, gun emplacements or bridges with fighter bombers, and an 8% rate with dive bombers, that means less missions sent to the same target to get the job done. That has to be factored into the loss and casualty per sortie rates.


The roles we think are pegged to different types of aircraft were not always so hard and fast. In the Med, the B-24 heavy and B-25, A-20 and B-26 light / medium bombers were actually quite successful attacking as level bombers in taking out Axis airfields, (and forcing air to air combat with the German and Italian fighter units on Allied terms). This is the main way that Axis air power was broken in Tunisia and later Sicily and Sardinia etc.

Medium bombers in the skip-bombing role enhanced their surviveability through flak suppression, the method they worked out being if you have say 12 x B-25s with a eight to a dozen nose guns each plus a few with 75mm cannon they can suppress the flak sufficiently to hit with their skip-bombs. That seemed to work in the Pacific and to a lesser extent in the Med, though the latter victories I think were mostly against transport ships and Italian naval vessels, whereas the German military targets were much more heavily defended.




* they still made heavy use of SBDs, Helldivers and TBF / TBN especially for naval targets and ASW, but against ground targets especially more heavily defended ones, fighters were better. I know A-24, Helldivers and TBF were used against ground targets but their attrition was higher. The other exception in the European land war was the dedicated, heavy ground attack aircraft like the Il2 Sturmovik, Hurricane IID, Ju 87G and the HS 129. Only the Russians really made this work on a large scale though and only at great cost in casualties.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2019)

Regarding the flaws of the SBD and speed being high among them per the "slow but deadly" nickname, a lot of times what pilots were apparently thinking of as speed was the cruise speed. I read a lot of interviews with WW2 pilots in the Med and they often focus on things that modern enthusiasts don't think about nearly as much - takeoff characteristics, cockpit comfort, functionality of the radio and cruise speed are probably the big four. Another big one is reliability of the guns since guns jamming was a major problem especially in the early war but really right to the end.

Regarding speed, sometimes a plane that can go fast in theory is still cruising at very slow speed, especially if it has an external bomb load. Cruise speed for the SBD was listed as 150 mph / 240 kph, while top speed was a much higher 250 mph / 400 kph but only a certain altitude and without external stores.

Trundling along at 150 mph makes you very vulnerable to high performance fighters. It's hard to evade, it's hard to disengage, hard to fight back. Acceleration to combat speed can take a while. It also makes the flight a lot longer in terms of time.

An aircraft with a bit higher standard cruising speed / per military SOP is a lot more capable of surviving combat. This was the issue in the Med with the Blenheim, it had a cruising speed of around 100 mph. The Martin Baltimore, which the RAF had in some numbers, cruised at 224 mph which made it much more survivable, thus the RAF switched over to those (and to A-20s and a few others) for bombers, as well as to fighter bombers in lieux of the Blenheims. Kittyhawks cruised at about 200 - 250 mph depending on the type, Hurricanes around 240 mph depending on the type. Obviously both had a better chance to survive being bounced than a Blenheim.

A6M cruised about 230 mph
Ki-43 cruised at 220 - 270 mph depending on the type
D3A cruised about 180 mph
B5N cruised at 169 mph
G4M "Betty" cruised at 196 mph
TBF cruised at 153 mph
F4F cruised at 155 mph
F6F cruised at 200 mph
F4U Corsairs cruised about 215 mph
P-47 I've seen anywhere from 231 mph (P-47C) to an astonishing 350 mph (P-47N, presumably at high altitude)
P-38 cruised at 275 mph
A-20 cruised at 230 to 300 mph depending on the type (and load I'm sure)
B-25 cruised at 230 mph
B-26 cruised at 215 - 260 mph depending on the type (I assume short wing vs. longer wing)

Anyway my point is that cruising speed is one of those lesser known stats which could make a difference in a given aircraft's performance and attrition rate particularly as a bomber. SBD seems to have done Ok in spite of a slow cruising speed but it was certainly noticed by it's pilots. Obviously I know those speeds would vary depending on load and how far they were planning to fly, these are just what is listed in some books I have as I assume, military standard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Regarding the flaws of the SBD and speed being high among them per the "slow but deadly" nickname, a lot of times what pilots were apparently thinking of as speed was the cruise speed. I read a lot of interviews with WW2 pilots in the Med and they often focus on things that modern enthusiasts don't think about nearly as much - takeoff characteristics, cockpit comfort, functionality of the radio and cruise speed are probably the big four. Another big one is reliability of the guns since guns jamming was a major problem especially in the early war but really right to the end.
> 
> Regarding speed, sometimes a plane that can go fast in theory is still cruising at very slow speed, especially if it has an external bomb load. Cruise speed for the SBD was listed as 150 mph / 240 kph, while top speed was a much higher 250 mph / 400 kph but only a certain altitude and without external stores.
> 
> ...



The range cruise for the IJN aircraft listed is too high. Most IJN aircraft were designed for low speed cruise to achieve very long endurance and range.

A6M5 range cruise was 146 mph at 1500ft to acheive 1800 miles (A6M2 was similar) and at Guadalcanal the A6Ms were cruising at these speeds during their ~1200 mile flights. Ki-43 was very similar. Higher speed cruise could be used on shorter range missions.

D3A2 range cruise was 125 - 167mph at 1500ft

B5N2 range cruise was 113 to 146mph at 1500ft

G4M range cruise was as low as 114mph.



(Data from TAIC Manual no.1 which was a US Intelligence summary of IJ aircraft based upon captured flight manuals.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> how much of the speed difference between and SBD and say, a Buffalo or a Wildcat is due to drag as opposed to weight


At the risk of restating the obvious, the faster you go, the more drag "outweighs" weight as the critical factor. If you're focussed on hard and fast numbers, weight is easier to quantify than drag, but that doesn't make it the dominant factor. In raw speed terms weight affects speed in the form of the induced drag generated by the wing carrying it. This is governed by the L/D of that wing at that weight and AOA. The SBD, being a dive bomber with a load carrying and dive recovery requirement could be expected to have a wing designed for optimum L/D at high loadings. This lessens the significance of weight vis a vis top speed, but can be valuable in terms of reduced energy bleed in high G ACM scenarios. We know historically the SBD was good at this. Where weight makes a big difference is in acceleration, climb performance and general agility, to include turning ability.
The real speed enhancers in this case are serious drag reduction and anything that can be done to increase effective thrust.
I think a sleek, streamlined, lightweight "SFD", while no speed demon, could have made an effective early war secondary fighter in the F8U/F4B model and could have been a useful counter to the agility of various IJN aircraft.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## yosimitesam (Jun 20, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> Winkle Brown was always entertaining to read, he would give his impression on first seeing a given aircraft. I don't always agree with his sense of beauty, but interesting. He describes seeing the SBD as being a decidedly pre war looking aircraft, this plane was the scourge of the Pacific?



In Peter C. Smith's book "Dive Bomber!", the last paragraph of Chapter 7 sums it up beautifully. In discussing the US Navy dive bombing policy just prior to the war he wrote:* "By this date, the dive bomber was the backbone of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps air components, along with the torpedo bomber. They had the modern aircraft coming into service, with even better planes planned. They had the experience of almost two decades of experimentation and design behind them, as well as a wealth of expertise. Just as vital as these points, the Navy and its pilots believed in dive bombing, and they practiced hard."*


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 20, 2019)

yosimitesam said:


> In Peter C. Smith's book "Dive Bomber!", the last paragraph of Chapter 7 sums it up beautifully. In discussing the US Navy dive bombing policy just prior to the war he wrote:* "By this date, the dive bomber was the backbone of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps air components, along with the torpedo bomber. They had the modern aircraft coming into service, with even better planes planned. They had the experience of almost two decades of experimentation and design behind them, as well as a wealth of expertise. Just as vital as these points, the Navy and its pilots believed in dive bombing, and they practiced hard."*



You have to bear in mind, though, that Peter C. Smith never met a dive bomber he didn't LOVE!!!


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The range cruise for the IJN aircraft listed is too high. Most IJN aircraft were designed for low speed cruise to achieve very long endurance and range.
> 
> A6M5 range cruise was 146 mph at 1500ft to acheive 1800 miles (A6M2 was similar) and at Guadalcanal the A6Ms were cruising at these speeds during their ~1200 mile flights. Ki-43 was very similar. *Higher speed cruise could be used on shorter range missions.*
> 
> ...




Yeah I tried to amend that post to note that there were different cruise speeds used for different circumstances. I wonder if they switched to higher speed cruise when closer to enemy territory / aircraft.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 20, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> At the risk of restating the obvious, the faster you go, the more drag "outweighs" weight as the critical factor. If you're focussed on hard and fast numbers, weight is easier to quantify than drag, but that doesn't make it the dominant factor. In raw speed terms weight affects speed in the form of the induced drag generated by the wing carrying it. This is governed by the L/D of that wing at that weight and AOA. The SBD, being a dive bomber with a load carrying and dive recovery requirement could be expected to have a wing designed for optimum L/D at high loadings. This lessens the significance of weight vis a vis top speed, but can be valuable in terms of reduced energy bleed in high G ACM scenarios. We know historically the SBD was good at this. Where weight makes a big difference is in acceleration, climb performance and general agility, to include turning ability.
> The real speed enhancers in this case are serious drag reduction and anything that can be done to increase effective thrust.
> I think a sleek, streamlined, lightweight "SFD", while no speed demon, could have made an effective early war secondary fighter in the F8U/F4B model and could have been a useful counter to the agility of various IJN aircraft.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Perhaps the USN/USMC should have pressed for the Brewster Buccaneer to have been a 2 seat all weather and / or night fighter without the bomb bay, dive brakes and dive bombing capability. It had a Wright R-2600 so lots more power and a decent forward firing armament, but still only 279 mph, except its not going to improve much in speed as a single seat scout fighter. Would it have got to 300 mph?


----------



## pinsog (Jun 20, 2019)

Gentlemen, why are we trying to rebuild a Dauntless from a dive bomber into a 2 gun, maybe if we are lucky 300 mph single seat fixed wing fighter? We already have a 330 mph, 4 gun, good climbing, good maneuvering fixed wing fighter, the F4F-3. We also already have a 6 gun, 320 mph, horrible climbing, ok turning, folding wing fighter called the F4F-4. The US Navy needed a 350 mph plus fighter with 4 or more guns that could tackle a Zero 1 on 1 and could carry a drop tank or 2 to both escort bombers or loiter over the carrier in a CAP.

Much easier than redesigning the Dauntless for a task it would probably be terrible at would be to either add a turbocharger to the F4F-3, which on other threads I showed that it should give it a 10-20 mph speed increase from SL to over 20,000 and add drop tanks from day 1.

Or ditch the F4F and instead do the F5F Skyrocket from the beginning. Timeline should run about the same as its pretty obvious from reading the history that Grumman did not work on it very hard. All they needed to do is add armor, self sealing tanks and turbochargers and they would have had early P38 type performance in a carrier capable fighter from the beginning of the war. According to the cube rule it should match the early P38 in speed, and since it would weigh considerably less and actually have 100 more hp it should substantially out climb it. If they really wanted to build a war winner that could have been fighting from december 1941 they could have added 65 gallon tanks in the folding wings and had a fast climbing, twin engine, turbocharged, carrier capable fighter with extremely long range.

10,900 overload weight of XF5F, add 150 pounds of armor, 200 pounds for self sealing main fuel tank, 500 pounds for turbochargers and intercoolers, 250 pounds for outer wing tanks and 750 for fuel in outer tanks.

12,750 pounds with 2400 hp from Sl-25,000 feet and about 400 gallons of fuel not including what you might carry in a drop tank could have been there ready to fight in 1941

An F4U-1 Corsair with 363 gallons weighed 12,656 pounds and didn't arrive until mid 1943

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Perhaps the USN/USMC should have pressed for the Brewster Buccaneer to have been a 2 seat all weather and / or night fighter without the bomb bay, dive brakes and dive bombing capability. It had a Wright R-2600 so lots more power and a decent forward firing armament, but still only 279 mph, except its not going to improve much in speed as a single seat scout fighter. Would it have got to 300 mph?


I don't think a "Fuccaneer" could have made the scene in time for 300 mph to be a tenable performance level for a fighter. Could it have been deployed before the Hellcat, Corsair, Tony, and Tojo? I doubt it. In any case, it was another whole increment in airframe size, so top speed still likely inadequate.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2019)

> Gentlemen, why are we trying to rebuild a Dauntless from a dive bomber into a 2 gun, maybe if we are lucky 300 mph single seat fixed wing fighter?


Because we are a bunch of old guys who like to talk about planes and always looking for a subject that hasn't already been beaten to death...



XBe02Drvr said:


> I don't think a "Fuccaneer" could have made the scene in time for 300 mph to be a tenable performance level for a fighter. Could it have been deployed before the Hellcat, Corsair, Tony, and Tojo? I doubt it. In any case, it was another whole increment in airframe size, so top speed still likely inadequate.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Plus Brewster seemed to be having some serious problems, they got taken over by the government in 1942. Buccaneer was fast for it's large size but apparently had a lot of build and production problems, everyone seemed to reject it. The similar Vultee Vengeance did a little bit of good in Australian service. This line from the Wiki is pretty much what I'd been saying about fighter bombers vs. dive bombers:

_"Australian Vengeances flew their last operational sorties on 8 March 1944, as they were considered less efficient than fighter bombers, having a short range and requiring a long runway, and were withdrawn to allow more effective fighter bombers to move into the forward area.[18] The Vengeance squadrons were re-equipped with Consolidated B-24 Liberator heavy bombers.[19]_

_The view of the Vengeance's limitations is disputed by Peter Smith in Jungle Dive Bombers at War, "The precision and skill of the dive-bombing method...and its clear superiority over most other means of air attack when it came to destroying small and well-hidden targets in difficult country, was proven over and over again in the Asian jungle campaigns."_

So fighter bombers generally more suitable but dive bombers more accurate. However the Vengeance seemed to be pretty second rate over all. Certainly by 1944 it was quite obsolete, even for Burma. Neither the Vengeance or the Buccaneer was small enough to make a good fighter IMO.







The XF5F always looked really good to me on paper. Basically the US Navy equivalent to a Westland Whirlwind, but unlike the Whirlwind, it supposedly had a 1200 mile range on top of being a bit faster and having an even better rate of climb. On the other hand the Whirlwind had 4 x 20mm cannon. At 380 mph and a 4000' per minute initial climb rate though the XF5F seems like it may have been pretty good in the Pacific Theater even without a turbo, though I'm not sure how good altitude performance was. I too wish they would have developed though it it seems like a neat design which could have had some benefits for the Navy.

But XF5F was a new and fairly radical design. New designs can have more potential ultimately but they also have their drawbacks one of the main ones being lengthy development time. XF5F doesn't seem to have been ready (with all the asked for revisions) until 1942. Personally I would have ordered it into development even then, but maybe that was too later. The F7F also looks great to me though it definitely wasn't ready in time. Turbos in general also take a long time to get right and the US seemed to struggle with them. The P-43 wasn't really ready in time for the early war and it was a while before it evolved into the P-47. The Grumman XP-50, very similar to the XF5F, was doomed when the prototype was destroyed after a turbo explosion.

An "SBF" would have the merits, and drawbacks, of a proven design that was quickly adapted. Kind of like how the F4F was derived from the F3F, how the I-16 was a monoplane version of the I-15 / 153, how the Hurricane was more or less a monoplane version of the Hawker Fury, the Merlin P-51 was derived from the Allison P-51. Or how the P-40 was derived from the P-36. Or how (I think?) the F6F was at least partly derived from the F4F. Or was it? I'm not sure about that one.

Brand new ones are more of a roll of the dice. Some worked out great like the Fw 190, the P-47, the P-38, and the Corsair. But the latter three in particular had a long teething period before they were really sorted out. You also have a lot of P-46's, P-55s, P-75s, P-60's, and so on which just never worked out. And planes like the P-39 which did work but as such radical new designs never seemed to settle into a good niche (except for the Soviets).

Even if it worked though I do think the SBF would have had a limited niche. I could see putting a few on an escort carrier to give some longer range scouting ability and maybe give a little edge dogfighting with Zeroes and Hayabusas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Because we are a bunch of old guys who like to talk about planes and always looking for a subject that hasn't already been beaten to death...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've come to the conclusion that the guys who made the decisions in WW2 were right.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2019)

Well, a lot of the time. Other times not so much. Norden bombsight was a huge waste of money and effort for example. Preparation for the US in the Pacific was pretty bad, notably in the Philippines. Probably the same for the British in Malaysia, Singapore etc. Whoever was in charge of that American Mk 14 torpedo probably should have been put in prison or courts martialed. Dieppe seems like it wasn't such a great idea. Etc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Because we are a bunch of old guys who like to talk about planes and always looking for a subject that hasn't already been beaten to death...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I certainly don’t mind beating a dead horse either. Sometimes the best discussions on here start out as bad (opinions vary) ideas.

I’m not sure I believe the 380 mph for the F5F. We have 357 at 17,000, unknown hp. 346 at 14,000 on 1,800 total hp. Add turbochargers and that would jump to 2400 hp and 380 mph at 14,000. That’s quite fast. I believe it could have been ready in the same timeline as the F4F but it just wasn’t a priority. My guess, opinion, whatever is that the F4F was a safe bet and so that’s what they put most of their time into. The first mock-up of the F5F was litteraly an F4F with a slightly bigger wing and 2 engines so it wasn’t any leap in engines like the R2800 for the Corsair and Hellcat. They just hung 2 existing engines on a rather small airframe. The F5F was only 28’8.5 inches long and a 42 ft wingspan. Folded up to around 21.5 feet. 

By the time the Corsair arrived, they could have put 1350 hp Wright’s on it with no weight gain. That’s 2700 hp in an 11,250 pound fighter if you don’t use turbochargers. If you added water injection you could get 1480 hp per engine so you could have a 2960 hp fighter that weighed 11,250 pounds overload if you didn’t have wing tanks or turbochargers. Wonder how that would climb at low level? Add turbochargers and you could have had 2700 hp from SL to 25 or 30,000 feet depending on what turbo you wanted to use.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I've come to the conclusion that the guys who made the decisions in WW2 were right.



These are the same guys that let the US fight 2 years without a working aerial torpedo, or submarine torpedo, and left the prototype P51 Mustang sitting on a runway for like a year and said it was a crap plane and built 8,000 pound fighters with 1200 hp. They definitely could have used some help from us!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The XF5F always looked really good to me on paper.


Wasn't it the first USN multi engine contemplated for carrier use? Just looking at it, I think it would be a scary beast to land on a carrier with battle damage and an engine out. Probably couldn't take a waveoff unless it was issued pretty far out. Anybody know what Vmc speed was? I'm thinking it would result in a seriously "hot and heavy" arrestment. Probably far beyond anything carriers and their gear had experienced previously. How did the F7F fare onboard ship?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 20, 2019)

pinsog said:


> These are the same guys that let the US fight 2 years without a working aerial torpedo, or submarine torpedo


I believe it was mentioned on this very forum that the CO of the BuOrd torpedo factory, who stonewalled against fixing the torpedoes, was not in fact hanged or shot, but went on to become a 5 star Admiral. Why weren't we there to correct the situation?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 20, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Wasn't it the first USN multi engine contemplated for carrier use? Just looking at it, I think it would be a scary beast to land on a carrier with battle damage and an engine out. Probably couldn't take a waveoff unless it was issued pretty far out. Anybody know what Vmc speed was? I'm thinking it would result in a seriously "hot and heavy" arrestment. Probably far beyond anything carriers and their gear had experienced previously. How did the F7F fare onboard ship?
> Cheers,
> Wes


I’ve never seen a single engine stall speed for it. You may be right, might have to bail out or ditch when you got back.
On the other hand, 10,900 was overload fighter with 278 gallons of fuel, and ballasted for 900 pounds of weapons (supposed to be 4 50’s and 400 rpg). 10,900 plus 150 armor, 200 self sealing tank, 200 for wing tanks, 500 for turbochargers=11,950 but if you use up all your ammo, 1600 rounds, isn’t that 400 pounds? And burn up say 250 gallons of your main tank, wing tanks empty, leaves you 28 gallons, that’s another 1500 pounds. 11,950-1900=10,050 pounds to land. Engine is about as close to centerline as possible and the rudders are in line with each engine....

What is your opinion in a couple of scenarios, light on fuel and ammo vs loaded etc with an engine out?

An engine that quit but no other damage is a lot different than an airplane full of 20 mm cannon holes or flak damage, wings holed, controls not working.

I guess bailing out or ditching with your own fleet beats hanging out with the guys you just bombed.

Edit: I don’t think F7F was ever deployed on a carrier, just too big for the ships they had.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2019)

I've never been able to find out much about the F5F except what is on the Wiki. The latter includes the test pilot report:

_"Testing by Grumman test pilot "Connie" Converse indicated "the flying qualities for the XF5F-1 were good overall. The counter-rotating props were a nice feature, virtually eliminating the torque effect on takeoff ... single-engine performance was good, rudder forces tended to be high in single engine configuration. Spin recovery was positive but elevator forces required for recovery were unusually high. All acrobatics were easily performed, and of course forward visibility was excellent." 

LCDR Crommelin, in charge of the test, stated in a 1985 letter to George Skurla, Grumman president:
_
_"for instance, I remember testing the XF5F against the XF4U on climb to the 10,000 foot level. I pulled away from the Corsair so fast I thought he was having engine trouble. The F5F was a carrier pilot's dream, as opposite rotating propellers eliminated all torque and you had no large engine up front to look around to see the LSO (landing signal officer) ... The analysis of all the data definitely favored the F5F, and the Spitfire came in a distant second. ... ADM Towers told me that securing spare parts ... and other particulars which compounded the difficulty of building the twin-engine fighter, had ruled out the Skyrocket and that the Bureau had settled on the Wildcat for mass production"_​
This is also the same source which claims 382 mph. Sources for all this seem pretty marginal though. Do you have a good source on the F5F pinsog?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2019)

pinsog said:


> These are the same guys that let the US fight 2 years without a working aerial torpedo, or submarine torpedo, and left the prototype P51 Mustang sitting on a runway for like a year and said it was a crap plane and built 8,000 pound fighters with 1200 hp. They definitely could have used some help from us!!!



Well to be fair, we had to give you (if you are from the UK) your first proper monoplane carrier fighters and bombers... couldn't take on the Jerries with Gladiators, Fulmars and Swordish could we?


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well to be fair, we had to give you (if you are from the UK) your first proper monoplane carrier fighters and bombers... couldn't take on the Jerries with Gladiators, Fulmars and Swordish could we?


...but they did


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2019)

As for carrier landings, I think the F5F was both smaller and and lighter than the TBF Avenger which was supposedly a grreeat Carrier plane. And having two engine is one extra to at least get back to the vicinity of the home fleet. Just for fun:

*TBF Avenger*
Length 40'
Wingspan 54' 2"
Height 15' 5"
Empty weight 10,545
Loaded weight 17,893
Wing loading 36.5 lb / Sq ft (fully loaded)
Power / mass 0.11 hp / lb (fully loaded)

*XF5F "Skyrocket"*
Length 28' 9"
Wingspan 42'
Height 11' 4"
Empty weight 8,107 lb
Loaded weight 10,138
Wing Loading 35.9 (fully loaded)
Power / mass 0.22 (fully loaded)

*F4F-3*
Length 28' 9"
Wingspan 38'
Height 11' 10"
Empty Weight 4,907 lb
Loaded weight 7,423 lb
Wing loading 28.55
Power/mass 0.16

*F6F-5*
Length 33' 7"
Wingspan 42' (334 sq ft)
Height 13' 1"
Empty weight 9,238
Loaded weight 12,598
Wing loading 37.7 lb / sq ft
Power / mass 0.16

*SBD Dauntless*
Length 33'
Wingspan 41' 6" (wing area 325 sq ft)
Height 13' 7"
Empty weight 6,404
Loaded Weight 9,359
Wing loading 27.8 lb / sq ft (fully loaded)
Power/mass 0.12 (fully loaded)

*"SBF Fauntless" (imaginary)*
Length 311
Wingspan 37'
Height 13' 7"
Empty Weight 5,500
Loaded Weight 8,000
Wing loading 24
Power/mass 0.15


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 20, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Gentlemen, why are we trying to rebuild a Dauntless from a dive bomber into a 2 gun, maybe if we are lucky 300 mph single seat fixed wing fighter? We already have a 330 mph, 4 gun, good climbing, good maneuvering fixed wing fighter, the F4F-3. We also already have a 6 gun, 320 mph, horrible climbing, ok turning, folding wing fighter called the F4F-4. The US Navy needed a 350 mph plus fighter with 4 or more guns that could tackle a Zero 1 on 1 and could carry a drop tank or 2 to both escort bombers or loiter over the carrier in a CAP.


I unequivocally agree. And while the SBD won't put a 500# bomb in a pickle barrel, it'll get it close enough, count on it, when it's given the chance. Let's also not forget to credit the F6F, which I see being referenced by implication in your last sentence, on its diving capabilities. There's a reason those were in VBF squadrons. Given that, and by that time in the War, at least, and with the F4U, I don't think we needed any SBDs over land. Still, given its track record, I'm at a loss as to why it couldn't have been put to land targets. In particular, what was it lacking, compared to the ones that were deployed over land? How do they rate as against those? Forget about the comparisons to the fighters. How do they compare as against the land dive bombers? Again, I don't know enough about the latter to form an opinion either way. Having said that, without more, I still don't see them handicapped in any material way.


----------



## Barrett (Jun 20, 2019)

Ref. SBD v F4U bombing accuracy: LONG ago when writing The First Corsair Book I found a 4th MAW study of the subject. Long since lost the document but here's the summary from the Naval Institute volume: 

SBD CEP: 175 feet Hits on 50-ft radius circle: 5.4% 
F4U CEP: 195 feet Hits on 50-ft radius circle: 4.5%

Those seem reasonable indicators of each type's inherent accuracy due to the highly permissive environment in the Marshalls during 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 20, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I’ve never seen a single engine stall speed for it.


That's not the speed that matters. Vmc, or Velocity minimum controllable is the speed below which there isn't enough rudder authority to keep the plane from yawing and rolling into the dead engine with the working engine at full power.


Schweik said:


> rudder forces tended to be high in single engine configuration.


This is an indication of a rudder authority problem, which seems to be confirmed by the small size of the tailfeathers. This implies that Vmc might be rather high and likewise single engine landing speed. The TBF was still several years in the future, so this would likely be the heaviest and fastest and by far the highest energy the arresting gear had ever had to cope with.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2019)

Barrett said:


> Ref. SBD v F4U bombing accuracy: LONG ago when writing The First Corsair Book I found a 4th MAW study of the subject. Long since lost the document but here's the summary from the Naval Institute volume:
> 
> SBD CEP: 175 feet Hits on 50-ft radius circle: 5.4%
> F4U CEP: 195 feet Hits on 50-ft radius circle: 4.5%
> ...



Interesting.

CEP, circle of error probable? Was that dive bombing or "shallow dive" bombing?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That's not the speed that matters. Vmc, or Velocity minimum controllable is the speed below which there isn't enough rudder authority to keep the plane from yawing and rolling into the dead engine with the working engine at full power.
> 
> This is an indication of a rudder authority problem, which seems to be confirmed by the small size of the tailfeathers. This implies that Vmc might be rather high and likewise single engine landing speed. The TBF was still several years in the future, so this would likely be the heaviest and fastest and by far the highest energy the arresting gear had ever had to cope with.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Wait, what am I missing? There were TBF's at Midway. TBF first light was a year after the first XF5F and almost a year _before_ the long nosed one flew.

The loaded weight of the F5F is barely more than an SBD and _significantly _less than a TBF.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I've never been able to find out much about the F5F except what is on the Wiki. The latter includes the test pilot report:
> 
> _"Testing by Grumman test pilot "Connie" Converse indicated "the flying qualities for the XF5F-1 were good overall. The counter-rotating props were a nice feature, virtually eliminating the torque effect on takeoff ... single-engine performance was good, rudder forces tended to be high in single engine configuration. Spin recovery was positive but elevator forces required for recovery were unusually high. All acrobatics were easily performed, and of course forward visibility was excellent." _
> 
> ...



I bought the paperback book on the F5F. Pretty interesting. Long periods between stuff happening on the project, I imagine that Grumman was busy working on the F4F-3 prototype. I'm sure the F5F wasn't perfect but the Corsair was full of flaws even after it deployed. There is a test on the F5F that is official, giving altitudes, horsepower, speed etc. 10,132 was light weight loading on fuel and apparently ammo. Top speed is listed as 357 at 17,000, with last hp given as 900 per engine at 14000 so what ever they would be down to at 17000. 10,892 was 'overload fighter' with 278 gallons of fuel and apparently ballast for a full ammo load. I broke all that down on I think 2 different threads on here as far as the weight of fuel, pilot, oil etc and there was about 900 pounds left over which had to be ballast for weapons. Search F5F and you should be able to find them. I'll look when I can and put the link on here.

It did not have armor (easy fix) and the 278 gallon tank was not self sealing (harder fix, or at least expensive fix). The entire wing between the 2 engines was a fuel tank and it was a single large aluminum extrusion. Evidently it had internal bracing which precluded the addition of a self sealing rubber bladder. Probably nothing a redesign wouldn't take care of, but that costs money and time and I think Grumman was just too busy with the F4F-3 to fix it. In my fantasy F5F I add 150 pounds of armor and 200 for a self sealing tank (the corsair tank was 177 pounds of self sealing material for a 237 gallon tank). It might have done fine without turbochargers, because it was fast up to 20,000 feet, but turbochargers give it 2400 hp up to 25000 feet or maybe 27000 feet depending on exactly which ones you choose. Quite an increase for 500 pounds. I figure while you at it you might as well add some 65 gallon or so sized fuel tanks in the outer fold up wings. It also folded up to about the same size as a Corsair or Wildcat, about 21.5 feet.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 20, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That's not the speed that matters. Vmc, or Velocity minimum controllable is the speed below which there isn't enough rudder authority to keep the plane from yawing and rolling into the dead engine with the working engine at full power.
> 
> This is an indication of a rudder authority problem, which seems to be confirmed by the small size of the tailfeathers. This implies that Vmc might be rather high and likewise single engine landing speed. The TBF was still several years in the future, so this would likely be the heaviest and fastest and by far the highest energy the arresting gear had ever had to cope with.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I know they increased the size of the rudders early on and the pilot reported good single engine control, although I completely understand "good single engine control' vs "lets get it down to 75 mph on a single engine and land on a carrier' is 2 totally different things and I understand that the first could be very good and the 2nd impossible. Its a shame that we have so little data on it. On the other hand, single engine control is why Grumman put the engines so close together and I imagine it is why they gave it a twin rudder setup with a rudder directly behind each engine. We all know the P38 if you lost an engine on takeoff was a nightmare for untrained pilots, but the engines were also far apart. Maybe the F5F wasn't too bad on a single engine at low speed. (Of course we all know that landing on a carrier is a crap your pants event under the best of circumstances so it would not be fun no matter how well the F5F handled on 1 engine)


----------



## pinsog (Jun 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wait, what am I missing? There were TBF's at Midway. TBF first light was a year after the first XF5F and almost a year _before_ the long nosed one flew.
> 
> The loaded weight of the F5F is barely more than an SBD and _significantly _less than a TBF.



He is specifically talking about the F5F on a single engine. Also, even though the TBF was the heaviest plane to operate from a carrier during the war, it also had an almost 500 square foot wing so it could fly REALLY slow and REALLY controllable. I think it was the easiest plane to land on a carrier that we had, especially empty


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 20, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> I unequivocally agree. And while the SBD won't put a 500# bomb in a pickle barrel, it'll get it close enough, count on it, when it's given the chance. Let's also not forget to credit the F6F, which I see being referenced by implication in your last sentence, on its diving capabilities. There's a reason those were in VBF squadrons. Given that, and by that time in the War, at least, and with the F4U, I don't think we needed any SBDs over land. Still, given its track record, I'm at a loss as to why it couldn't have been put to land targets. In particular, what was it lacking, compared to the ones that were deployed over land? How do they rate as against those? Forget about the comparisons to the fighters. How do they compare as against the land dive bombers? Again, I don't know enough about the latter to form an opinion either way. Having said that, without more, I still don't see them handicapped in any material way.


Man, those pickle barrels sure took a beating durring the war. Seems everybody was always trying to drop a bomb in them.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> An "SBF" would have the merits, and drawbacks, of a proven design that was quickly adapted. Kind of like how the F4F was derived from the F3F, how the I-16 was a monoplane version of the I-15 / 153, how the Hurricane was more or less a monoplane version of the Hawker Fury, the Merlin P-51 was derived from the Allison P-51. Or how the P-40 was derived from the P-36. Or how (I think?) the F6F was at least partly derived from the F4F. Or was it? I'm not sure about that one.



Some of these examples are not correct.
The P-40 was a P-36 with a new engine (of course the P-36/Hawk 75 had already gone through 4 or 5 engines) and yes the P-51B was derived from the Allison P-51.
However some of the others like the Hurricane/Fury and and the F4F/F6F had nothing more in common than being made by the same company. Tales of the Fury monoplane notwithstanding. There was a fury monoplane on paper, it was tossed and the Hurricane was a fresh start. 

The I-153 first flew about 3 1/2 to 4 years after the I-16. The I-16 used a wooden fuselage and metal wings (at least the structure) while the I-153 use a metal fuselage and fabric covered wooden wings. 

F3F-3 (2nd engine)




XF4F-2




Which was being worked on before the last of the biplanes left the factory.
BTW it used a single speed, single stage supercharger, 

You need more than a general shape in order to really trace what plane is derived from another.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2019)

Dive bombing ships vs dive bombing land targets is a lot different.

Ships, if there wasn't a lot of cloud, stood out from the ocean pretty well, Large bridges might stand out but many targets on land didn't stand out very well. Especially in woods or jungle. 

The ships were much larger even though they moved. There were darn few bunkers that were 300-400ft long.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 20, 2019)

The XF4F-1 was actually a biplane and it's performance was dismal. In an attempt to salvage it, they redesigned it as a monoplane, which also had poor performance.
They stopped trying to "fix" what they had and after a complete overhaul, the XF4F-3 was the result.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2019)

The XF4F-1 never flew, it's performance was dismal even on paper. In fact the amount of actual construction may be a subject of debate, has anyone seen a photograph of even a mock up?


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yeah I tried to amend that post to note that there were different cruise speeds used for different circumstances. I wonder if they switched to higher speed cruise when closer to enemy territory / aircraft.



Yes, both at Guadalcanal and over Darwin, A6Ms and G4Ms would switch from a low altitude, range cruise to a high altitude, high speed cruise when approaching the target for a low-high-low mission profile. IIRC, this was not typically the case during carrier borne strikes, where a range cruise at medium altitude was more likely.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 21, 2019)

Somewhere along the way I accumulated about 20,000 hrs of multi time. We of course had the exciting simulator scenarios twice a year, but I also puked some real life engines. The F5F was an interesting aircraft though the climb specs aren't spectacular. In wartime a certain attrition rate was considered acceptable, just look at the number of operational accidents! On takeoff it's probably going to crash, just like a single engine would in case of an engine failure, in thins case due to not reaching VMCA. A more likely scenario is returning aboard on a single engine. This is not so much a problem on approach, but it better be a good one as being in close and taking a wave off would be very exciting, one needing a little altitude and judicious throttle application to accelerate out of it. 

At some time or another I did flight dynamics for almost all of the WWII USN Carrier Aircraft for FSX, including the F7F. I did a lot of single engine carrier approaches with it. From my many years of flying, I think this was a fairly reasonable simulation. The Corsair was the most difficult to bring aboard, the F7F was easy just because you could see well, which reduced the probability of getting wave off. The view was about like the early jets like the Panther or Banjo, which really needed to get it right on a straight deck.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wait, what am I missing? There were TBF's at Midway. TBF first light was a year after the first XF5F and almost a year _before_ the long nosed one flew.


Right you are. I was thinking (without checking) the XF5F was earlier than it was. Good catch!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> the TBF was the heaviest plane to operate from a carrier during the war, it also had an almost 500 square foot wing so it could fly REALLY slow and REALLY controllable. I think it was the easiest plane to land on a carrier that we had, especially empty


My uncle Ned carrier qualled in the TBF on a 500 foot long converted paddle wheel steamer on Lake Michigan, then flew off jeep carriers in the North Atlantic. He said the bird was a real sweetheart for deck landings. He joked that when he had to land on a fleet carrier he got agoraphobia looking at all those acres of flight deck.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> Somewhere along the way I accumulated about 20,000 hrs of multi time. We of course had the exciting simulator scenarios twice a year, but I also puked some real life engines. The F5F was an interesting aircraft though the climb specs aren't spectacular. In wartime a certain attrition rate was considered acceptable, just look at the number of operational accidents! On takeoff it's probably going to crash, just like a single engine would in case of an engine failure, in thins case due to not reaching VMCA. A more likely scenario is returning aboard on a single engine. This is not so much a problem on approach, but it better be a good one as being in close and taking a wave off would be very exciting, one needing a little altitude and judicious throttle application to accelerate out of it.
> 
> At some time or another I did flight dynamics for almost all of the WWII USN Carrier Aircraft for FSX, including the F7F. I did a lot of single engine carrier approaches with it. From my many years of flying, I think this was a fairly reasonable simulation. The Corsair was the most difficult to bring aboard, the F7F was easy just because you could see well, which reduced the probability of getting wave off. The view was about like the early jets like the Panther or Banjo, which really needed to get it right on a straight deck.



Climb on the F5F was supposed to be 4,000 feet per minute. Shortround and I discussed this in another thread wondering if the over heating engine was the problem. The right hand engine on the F5F constantly ran hot, one of the reasons Grumman complained to the government about faulty government supplied equipment. 

I figure if you add turbochargers, armor, self sealing tanks and even wing tanks bringing the weight of the F5F up to 12,750 pounds or so and 2400 hp and fuel up to 400 gallons, it’s still around 2000 pounds lighter than a P38E that only has 2300 hp and 300 gallons of fuel. Climb should be amazing as would range. Reliability should be very good as well as durability.


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 21, 2019)

On the F5F specs listed above it said 4 mins to 10,000' and 9+ to 20,000', which seems a little low for the weight and power. I am more inclined to agree with you. Are the above specs in error?

Perhaps a better supercharger, turbo's were a big hoopla to develop and manage. The Navy rejected the turbocharged F4U-3.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> These are the same guys that let the US fight 2 years without a working aerial torpedo, or submarine torpedo, and left the prototype P51 Mustang sitting on a runway for like a year and said it was a crap plane and built 8,000 pound fighters with 1200 hp. They definitely could have used some help from us!!!


We have the benefit of hindsight without bigotry.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Plus Brewster seemed to be having some serious problems, they got taken over by the government in 1942. Buccaneer was fast for it's large size but apparently had a lot of build and production problems, everyone seemed to reject it. The similar Vultee Vengeance did a little bit of good in Australian service. This line from the Wiki is pretty much what I'd been saying about fighter bombers vs. dive bombers:
> 
> _"Australian Vengeances flew their last operational sorties on 8 March 1944, as they were considered less efficient than fighter bombers, having a short range and requiring a long runway, and were withdrawn to allow more effective fighter bombers to move into the forward area.[18] The Vengeance squadrons were re-equipped with Consolidated B-24 Liberator heavy bombers.[19]_
> 
> ...


Actually the RAAF was quite happy with the vengeance and it's squadrons were doing good work up in New Guinea. The decision to withdraw the vengeance wing from combat came from USAAF orders, not RAAF. IIRC the RAAF leadership of these squadrons were not impressed...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jun 21, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> Here's a faint negative taken during a training exercise over the Gulf of Mexico in 1944. That's the old man in #19. They had night trainings in these, as well, over illuminated die markers. The old man carrier-qualified on the "Speedy D" in 1944, June, off the Sable, in Lake Michigan, where they had to do 8 landings for that. Just a little more historical on these...
> 
> View attachment 541687


Perdido Key, slightly west of Pensacola NAS had a target range on it during WW2. If you were lucky you could find inert practice bombs. I was never lucky.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jun 21, 2019)

No sure what happened here


----------



## davparlr (Jun 21, 2019)

Pinsong wrote


> 2 of the 4 B26’s were shot down


. This is true but it must be noted that 3 of the 4 penetrated to torpedo launch distance with no fighter cover. Had there been 20 B-26s with good torpedoes and well trained pilots, the Japanese fleet could have been severely attacked with 15 good and well targeted torpedoes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> On the F5F specs listed above it said 4 mins to 10,000' and 9+ to 20,000', which seems a little low for the weight and power. I am more inclined to agree with you. Are the above specs in error?
> 
> Perhaps a better supercharger, turbo's were a big hoopla to develop and manage. The Navy rejected the turbocharged F4U-3.



I dont think the specs on the test were in error. I figure if I reject specs from a test because I don’t like them and only believe what I want to, then none of the tests on any aircraft would be valid. 

The turbochargers has been developed in time, (P43 prototype the AP4 making 1200 hp was lost in March 1939) although the controls to work them weren’t perfected until early 1942. 

I agree that turbochargers were a bit of a pain compared to a regular engine, but if you compair it to a 2 speed 2 stage engine (depending on layout) it ditches the 2 speed supercharger for a simple 1 speed and still uses an intercooler. As far as extra maintenance goes, I would also like to point out that a turbocharged F5F is 20-60 mph faster than the original (depending on altitude). It’s also easier to do maintenance on a turbocharged F5F that got back to the ship than it is to work on an F5F that got shot down because it wasn’t turbocharged. 

Think about in 1943 when the 1350 hp Cyclones came out. An F5F would have 2700 hp, if you used water injection it would have 2960 hp.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

davparlr said:


> Pinsong wrote . This is true but it must be noted that 3 of the 4 penetrated to torpedo launch distance with no fighter cover. Had there been 20 B-26s with good torpedoes and well trained pilots, the Japanese fleet could have been severely attacked with 15 good and well targeted torpedoes.



I agree 100% with that. And what if those torpedoes could have been dropped at the B26’s max SL speed as well....


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Right you are. I was thinking (without checking) the XF5F was earlier than it was. Good catch!



So assuming it hadn't lost an engine, the F5F was probably fine for carriers, in fact with the enhanced visibility and lack of torque probably better than most. Assuming they improved the rudder a bit.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I agree 100% with that. And what if those torpedoes could have been dropped at the B26’s max SL speed as well....



Could British torpedoes be dropped at higher speeds and could B-26 carry British torpedoes?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

Wildcat said:


> Actually the RAAF was quite happy with the vengeance and it's squadrons were doing good work up in New Guinea. The decision to withdraw the vengeance wing from combat came from USAAF orders, not RAAF. IIRC the RAAF leadership of these squadrons were not impressed...



Definitely not an expert, I was just going by what the Wiki said which sounds like there was people on both sides but that at least some of the Aussies thought they kind of got ripped off by being given them. It doesn't seem like too bad of a plane to me but it's just another matter of it being more of a 1942 plane being used in 1943 and 44. Probably pretty vulnerable to Zeroes and Oscars?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Some of these examples are not correct.
> The P-40 was a P-36 with a new engine (of course the P-36/Hawk 75 had already gone through 4 or 5 engines)



The P-40 was _derived_ from the P-36, per Don Berlin, as I have quoted on this forum before.



> and yes the P-51B was derived from the Allison P-51.
> However some of the others like the Hurricane/Fury and and the F4F/F6F had nothing more in common than being made by the same company.


I qualified the mention of the F6F / F4F anticipating just such an attempted 'gotcha', though I gather some parts were shared, it's debatable. I wrote: "*was at least partly derive*d from the F4F. Or was it? *I'm not sure about that one*. " But you act like I made a definitive statement.



> Tales of the Fury monoplane notwithstanding. There was a fury monoplane on paper, it was tossed and the Hurricane was a fresh start.














From the wiki:

_Sidney Camm__ designed a monoplane version of the Fury in 1933. It was not developed until Rolls-Royce produced what became their famous Merlin engine. The design was then revised according to Air Ministry specification F5/34 to become the prototype Hawker Hurricane._

So clearly there was a lineage. Of course the Hurri was a new design however it did share certain features, look at the tail, the cloth covered rear fuselage (and other cloth covered parts on early Hurris). This is why the Hurricane was more of an incremental step from the earlier Fury series, and thus available in a reliable format quite early, compared to say the Spitfire.



> The I-153 first flew about 3 1/2 to 4 years after the I-16. The I-16 used a wooden fuselage and metal wings (at least the structure) while the I-153 use a metal fuselage and fabric covered wooden wings.



This is extremely disingenuous. My post: "_the I-16 was a monoplane version of the I-15 / 153_" - yes the I-153 was a further development of the I-15 as a biplane, and yes Chimpanzees are a further evolution of the primate as a great ape, but both came from a common lineage, in this case the I-5



> F3F-3 (2nd engine)
> View attachment 542509
> 
> XF4F-2
> View attachment 542510



Looks like an obvious family resemblance to me. Fuselage shape, tail, landing gear, cockpit. F4F was derived from an incremental update of the F3F called the G-16 in internal company nomenclature and XF4F-1 to the Navy, then redesigned a couple of times, first as a monoplane in the XF4F-2, to the XF4F-3 standard. A bit step forward, but still incremental changes, with a clear design lineage to the F3F. With many shared parts and tooling.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So assuming it hadn't lost an engine, the F5F was probably fine for carriers, in fact with the enhanced visibility and lack of torque probably better than most. Assuming they improved the rudder a bit.



I think with both engines working the F5F would have been fantastic to land on a carrier. As you said, you can see and there is no torque since the engines cancel each other out. I'm sure you've read about how a P38 could get down to 100 mph and turn inside a lot of single engine planes by just hanging on the props, that is what I picture the F5F being able to do. I picture it in my head coming in, flaps down, just hanging on the props right above stall, rudders still working fine since they are sitting directly behind each engine, you can see the Landing officer just fine, and if you do get a wave off you can slam the throttles forward and go just go straight and up with out having to worry about torque rolling into the water upside down. For what its worth it sure sounds good while I'm sitting at home behind a computer.....


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I think with both engines working the F5F would have been fantastic to land on a carrier. As you said, you can see and there is no torque since the engines cancel each other out. I'm sure you've read about how a P38 could get down to 100 mph and turn inside a lot of single engine planes by just hanging on the props, that is what I picture the F5F being able to do. I picture it in my head coming in, flaps down, just hanging on the props right above stall, rudders still working fine since they are sitting directly behind each engine, you can see the Landing officer just fine, and if you do get a wave off you can slam the throttles forward and go just go straight and up with out having to worry about torque rolling into the water upside down. For what its worth it sure sounds good while I'm sitting at home behind a computer.....



The F5F seems to have had a lower wing loading than a TBF or a F6F so normal landing should have been fine.

Landing on a carrier with one engine is no doubt, not fun. What did they do with say an E2 hawkeye or C-2 greyhound if one engine went out? Ditch or land?






If you still have the one engine and have made it through takeoff you can probably get the pilot back to the vicinity of the carrier and the pilot is really the most valuable thing, at least that is how it seems to have turned out in WW2 right? I would say engine reliability being so important for Navy / Carrier planes might be a reason for _not_ putting turbos in prior to say late 1942.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That's not the speed that matters. Vmc, or Velocity minimum controllable is the speed below which there isn't enough rudder authority to keep the plane from yawing and rolling into the dead engine with the working engine at full power.
> 
> This is an indication of a rudder authority problem, which seems to be confirmed by the small size of the tailfeathers. This implies that Vmc might be rather high and likewise single engine landing speed. The TBF was still several years in the future, so this would likely be the heaviest and fastest and by far the highest energy the arresting gear had ever had to cope with.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Quick question: Rudder force is the amount of pressure it takes for the pilot to apply a certain degree of rudder correct? In this case, the rudders are directly behind each engine. Would high rudder forces indicate that the rudder is being effective because the wind/prop wash is pushing back against the pilot? Would high rudder forces be more indicative of the gearing/ratio of the rudder pedals to the rudder? It seems to me if a rudder pedal was super easy to move then that would mean there is no resistance at the rudder i.e. no airflow pushing back. The P36 would easily out roll an early Spitfire because the P36 ailerons were geared lower so the P36 pilot had to move the stick farther for a given deflection of the ailerons but it was easier to move and could be done at high speed where the Spitfire ailerons or the Zero's were immovable. 

I know your a pilot and mechanic, am I looking at this wrong?


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The F5F seems to have had a lower wing loading than a TBF or a F6F so normal landing should have been fine.
> 
> Landing on a carrier with one engine is no doubt, not fun. What did they do with say an E2 hawkeye or C-2 greyhound if one engine went out? Ditch or land?
> 
> ...



I would agree with getting pilot back to fleet even if he had to bail out or ditch is the most important thing. I also agree that turbochargers weren't very reliable pre 1942 and that, plus weight, plus increased maintenance all make sense on why they didn't do it. Plus, turbochargers were relatively new and maybe they didn't understand how much they would increase performance. They also, I believe, seriously underestimated what the Japanese were capable of. No one really understood what carrier warfare was going to be like or what they were capable of doing. 

Hindsight is a big help to making decisions. In hindsight I would have bought $10,000 of bitcoin in 2008 or so for .001 a piece, sold it all for $19,000 a piece and had someone build me an F5F and an aircraft carrier so I could show you guys how good it was......but that is hindsight

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I would agree with getting pilot back to fleet even if he had to bail out or ditch is the most important thing. I also agree that turbochargers weren't very reliable pre 1942 and that, plus weight, plus increased maintenance all make sense on why they didn't do it. Plus, turbochargers were relatively new and maybe they didn't understand how much they would increase performance. They also, I believe, seriously underestimated what the Japanese were capable of. No one really understood what carrier warfare was going to be like or what they were capable of doing.
> 
> Hindsight is a big help to making decisions. In hindsight I would have bought $10,000 of bitcoin in 2008 or so for .001 a piece, sold it all for $19,000 a piece and had someone build me an F5F and an aircraft carrier so I could show you guys how good it was......but that is hindsight



Indeed. Captain Hindsight is the most powerful superhero. I think they did know the potential of the turbo that is why they pushed at it so hard, but it seemed to take a really long time to get it right anyway, and I think maybe some exotic materials? Did early turbo impellers require special alloys? The other thing is that the US WW2 turbochargers seemed to be not just heavy but also very big. Wasn't the one on the P-47 almost the size of a washing machine?

Turbo vs. supercharger seems to be one of those things that exemplifies proven vs. new technologies and their relative merits and flaws. Water injection + supercharger may be a bit more limited but probably far more reliable for carrier use. Turbo is what you really need if you intend to fly at very high atlitudes but the Japanese never really mastered high flying. Of course, we know that now. Even some of the superstar planes of WW2 didn't always look that way at the time. I remember reading a pilots description of all the frustrating maintenance hassles of the early F4U, which made it sound like a real nightmare. But put it all together and, when it was working, it was causing serious problems for the enemy.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I’ll be candid, it’s your presentation.
> 
> Need a tissue?



I'm good for now but I'll let you know if I suddenly burst into tears.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

That is a lot, man!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I qualified the mention of the F6F / F4F anticipating just such an attempted 'gotcha', though I gather some parts were shared, it's debatable. I wrote: "*was at least partly derive*d from the F4F. Or was it? *I'm not sure about that one*. " But you act like I made a definitive statement.


I got what you were saying. At any rate, funny they're both from the same manufacturer, they both look somewhat similar, and yet, for the most part, they're so different. Contrast that with the FM and F4, from different manufacturers, and yet, for the most part, they're virtually indistinguishable.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

Clearly F4 to F6 is a big step, regardless of any continuity. But it's not as radical a departure as say, the Corsair or the Tigercat.

aren't FM and F4 basically the same design? I gather FM2 was considered a lot better but I never grasped why. Was it more like the F4F-3? Better engine?

I saw one (an FM2) doing loops and stall turns at an airshow last year and it was really quite impressive. The pilot-owner seemed to be genuinely nuts, he did some high speed pull-outs at ~ 30 feet. I heard the airshow people muttering about it. Maybe he was trying to prove a point? If so he succeeded with me. The fighter was decidedly more acrobatic than I was expecting. It wasn't as fast as the Corsair or the Yak or the P-40, but it was definitely agile and quick, and seemed to have plenty of power for climbing










If the Zero and the Hayabusa were really much more agile than that then I would *really *like to see one of those put through it's paces one day.
.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> aren't FM and F4 basically the same design?


Yes. Grumman was getting busy with something else at the time (), that's why they let it go. The F4/FM still had a lot of utility. My Dad did a stint towing targets in the FM.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Quick question: Rudder force is the amount of pressure it takes for the pilot to apply a certain degree of rudder correct? In this case, the rudders are directly behind each engine. Would high rudder forces indicate that the rudder is being effective because the wind/prop wash is pushing back against the pilot? Would high rudder forces be more indicative of the gearing/ratio of the rudder pedals to the rudder? It seems to me if a rudder pedal was super easy to move then that would mean there is no resistance at the rudder i.e. no airflow pushing back. The P36 would easily out roll an early Spitfire because the P36 ailerons were geared lower so the P36 pilot had to move the stick farther for a given deflection of the ailerons but it was easier to move and could be done at high speed where the Spitfire ailerons or the Zero's were immovable.
> 
> I know your a pilot and mechanic, am I looking at this wrong?


Actually rudder force is the amount of force it takes to achieve the desired response, which is not the same as achieving a specified number of degrees of deflection. It's a dynamic rather than a static thing.
Having the stabilizer/rudder directly in the propwash is a two edged sword. It helps by making rudder effectiveness more proportional to engine power, and hence to thrust asymmetry, and it can hurt by making rudder forces very high at high power settings if not very carefully designed. Designers new to multi engine design, especially in the early days of twin engine monoplanes, sometimes took awhile to sort out the nuances. Look at the plethora of twin tail designs of the 30s and 40s. Even down to the miniscule Ercoupe! Two rules of thumb seemed to prevail: "2 tails are better than 1", and "size matters; bigger is better". Compare the XF5F with its vestigial tailfeathers and its heavy rudder forces and the B25 with its large double tail and its legendary single engine handling.
A larger rudder/stabilizer combo requires less deflection to achieve the same result because of surface area and Reynolds number. The less deflection allows better mechanical advantage between rudder pedal and control surface. Witness shot up B17s, with only one outboard engine running, drifting slowly downward, held straight by an UNBOOSTED rudder and two exhausted pilots as they put miles behind them from the target area and hoped for the Channel.
Hope that answers your questions.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Actually rudder force is the amount of force it takes to achieve the desired response, which is not the same as achieving a specified number of degrees of deflection. It's a dynamic rather than a static thing.
> Having the stabilizer/rudder directly in the propwash is a two edged sword. It helps by making rudder effectiveness more proportional to engine power, and hence to thrust asymmetry, and it can hurt by making rudder forces very high at high power settings if not very carefully designed. Designers new to multi engine design, especially in the early days of twin engine monoplanes, sometimes took awhile to sort out the nuances. Look at the plethora of twin tail designs of the 30s and 40s. Even down to the miniscule Ercoupe! Two rules of thumb seemed to prevail: "2 tails are better than 1", and "size matters; bigger is better". Compare the XF5F with its vestigial tailfeathers and its heavy rudder forces and the B25 with its large double tail and its legendary single engine handling.
> A larger rudder/stabilizer combo requires less deflection to achieve the same result because of surface area and Reynolds number. The less deflection allows better mechanical advantage between rudder pedal and control surface. Witness shot up B17s, with only one outboard engine running, drifting slowly downward, held straight by an UNBOOSTED rudder and two exhausted pilots as they put miles behind them from the target area and hoped for the Channel.
> Hope that answers your questions.
> ...



Thank you. All that makes sense. Answered my questions. As usual and like most other things there is never a straight simple answer, everything is a balance based on dozens and dozens of other factors. I’m out and about so if I think of any I’ll ask later.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> As usual and like most other things there is never a straight simple answer, everything is a balance based on dozens and dozens of other factors.


Yup, and if you don't believe it, try flying the dang thing at night in the soup, dodging thunderstorms, lit up by St Elmo, a cabin full of panicky passengers, and destination and alternate below minimums.
Y'all have fun now, hear?
Wes


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I bought the paperback book on the F5F. Pretty interesting. Long periods between stuff happening on the project, I imagine that Grumman was busy working on the F4F-3 prototype. I'm sure the F5F wasn't perfect but the Corsair was full of flaws even after it deployed. There is a test on the F5F that is official, giving altitudes, horsepower, speed etc. 10,132 was light weight loading on fuel and apparently ammo. Top speed is listed as 357 at 17,000, with last hp given as 900 per engine at 14000 so what ever they would be down to at 17000. 10,892 was 'overload fighter' with 278 gallons of fuel and apparently ballast for a full ammo load. I broke all that down on I think 2 different threads on here as far as the weight of fuel, pilot, oil etc and there was about 900 pounds left over which had to be ballast for weapons. Search F5F and you should be able to find them. I'll look when I can and put the link on here.
> 
> It did not have armor (easy fix) and the 278 gallon tank was not self sealing (harder fix, or at least expensive fix). The entire wing between the 2 engines was a fuel tank and it was a single large aluminum extrusion. Evidently it had internal bracing which precluded the addition of a self sealing rubber bladder. Probably nothing a redesign wouldn't take care of, but that costs money and time and I think Grumman was just too busy with the F4F-3 to fix it. In my fantasy F5F I add 150 pounds of armor and 200 for a self sealing tank (the corsair tank was 177 pounds of self sealing material for a 237 gallon tank). It might have done fine without turbochargers, because it was fast up to 20,000 feet, but turbochargers give it 2400 hp up to 25000 feet or maybe 27000 feet depending on exactly which ones you choose. Quite an increase for 500 pounds. I figure while you at it you might as well add some 65 gallon or so sized fuel tanks in the outer fold up wings. It also folded up to about the same size as a Corsair or Wildcat, about 21.5 feet.
> View attachment 542508


Nice plane, good performance, similar to Whirlwind. Perhaps like the Whirlwind was twice the price of a Spitfire, the Skyrocket was twice the price of a Wildcat? Like the Whirlwind, unless you change the engine, it has limited development potential. It requires extra training as its a twin. War is just around the corner in 1941 when perhaps production could have been authorised. The Corsair is a similar size,not a twin, an engine with development potential and faster in both level flight and the dive, Skyrocket only does 450 mph so not that good. The F4F-4 can dive 65 mph faster, so go with the F4F-4, start development on the F6F and modify the Corsair to production standard. The Skyrocket is a dead end just like the Whirlwind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

I thought the problem with the Whirlwind was mainly range? Altitude performance wasn't as crucial in the Pacific as in the BoB, and the F5F had a pretty impressive range of 1200 miles at least per the wiki. The extraordinary climb rate would probably be particularly useful for a carrier fighter, the typical problem of taking off and needing to climb to altitude, or chasing torpedo bombers when the alert for the dive bombers comes out could be far better alleviated with a fast climbing plane. Especially since the F4F was such a slow climber.

Twin engines requiring more training though is definitely a valid point, as is (to a lesser extent) the added expense of the second engine. For the US the bigger issue was probably training time since there was a bit of a bottleneck early on and carrier pilots already had a lot to learn.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 21, 2019)

The Navy is a pretty tradition bound outfit, so Adm Towers would be most likely not to go with a twin. The heavy fighters such as the Bf 110 didn't do so well, though the F5F is more like a proto Tigercat. He didn't want to be hung out to dry for a possible failure of a new idea.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Nice plane, good performance, similar to Whirlwind. Perhaps like the Whirlwind was twice the price of a Spitfire, the Skyrocket was twice the price of a Wildcat? Like the Whirlwind, unless you change the engine, it has limited development potential. It requires extra training as its a twin. War is just around the corner in 1941 when perhaps production could have been authorised. The Corsair is a similar size,not a twin, an engine with development potential and faster in both level flight and the dive, Skyrocket only does 450 mph so not that good. The F4F-4 can dive 65 mph faster, so go with the F4F-4, start development on the F6F and modify the Corsair to production standard. The Skyrocket is a dead end just like the Whirlwind.



Actually the F5F was dived vertically at 505 mph on February 1, 1941. The F4U-1 when it first appeared would do 312 mph, exactly the same as the F5F. The F5F engines were only rated at 1000 hp from SL-4500 feet and 900 hp from 7300-14000 feet. The G205, a non-turbo 2 speed engine used in the Wildcat, was rated 1200 hp from SL-4200 and 1000 hp at 14000. Using the cube rule that would boost the top speed of the F5F from 312 to 331mph. The F4F-4 Wildcat did 275 mph at SL. So the F5F would be 35 mph faster at SL with original engines and be 56 mph faster at SL with slightly upgraded engines that were available in 1940. If you want to add turbochargers to the F5F, top speed at 20000 feet goes from 352 on about 750 hp per engine to 411 mph on 1200 hp per engine, the corsair at 20,000 feet would do 378 mph. With current engines in 1940, the F5F was equal or faster than the Corsair that appeared in 1943. With turbochargers on the F5F the Corsair is slower, substantially slower and getting worse with altitude. By the time the Corsair came out in 1943, the F5F could start using 1350 hp Wright Cyclones from the FM2 giving it 2700 hp giving it a SL top speed of 344 mph. If you added water injection to that engine you get 1480 hp per engine with a total of 2960 hp giving the F5F a top speed of 355 mph at SL.

F5F Skyrocket wasn't a dead end, I think it could have been a game changer available in 1940 when the Wildcat became available if Grumman had focused on it instead of the Wildcat, but Grumman and the US navy went the safe route instead of rolling the dice.

Range: The F5F had 278 gallons in a large tank between the engines. adding outer wing tanks of 65 gallons each like the early Corsair had, or like the Whirlwind had would have put it at 400 gallons internal. As large as the folding wings were on the F5F, I would say they could have put much larger tanks in them if they wanted. 2400 hp from turbochargers would offset the weight and besides, you would burn all of that fuel off in the warmup, take off, climb and cruising to the enemy so they would be empty when the fight started. This doesn't count what it should be able to carry in drop tanks. It had the same square feet of wing as the Corsair, 303 square feet, and had 400 more hp at take off then the early Corsair so it should have been a weight lifter as well

Essentially a turbocharged F5F would have the same performance as an early P38 in speed, but it is 10 feet shorter and 10 feet less wingspan so it should be MUCH more maneuverable and it would have weighed 2000-3000 pounds less depending on how it was set up on fuel so it should substantially out climb a P38

USA didn't care about price. We built carriers a dime a dozen, the B29, the P47, the P38 and the atomic bomb. And how many F5F's with 2 engines and turbochargers could have been built for the price of replacing the Lexington, Yorktown and Hornet?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 21, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> The Navy is a pretty tradition bound outfit, so Adm Towers would be most likely not to go with a twin. The heavy fighters such as the Bf 110 didn't do so well, though the F5F is more like a proto Tigercat. He didn't want to be hung out to dry for a possible failure of a new idea.


For better or worse I think that's the dynamic that makes it so hard to get new ideas, aviation or otherwise, off the ground.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> For better or worse I think that's the dynamic that makes it so hard to get new ideas, aviation or otherwise, off the ground.



I can also understand a bit of apprehension when trying to jump from a Grumman F3F biplane to a, when I’m done with it, 12,750-13,000 pound twin engine, turbocharged, 400 gallon of fuel F5F.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The XF5F always looked really good to me on paper. Basically the US Navy equivalent to a Westland Whirlwind, but unlike the Whirlwind, it supposedly had a 1200 mile range on top of being a bit faster and having an even better rate of climb


The Whirlwind was operational 2 years before the XF5F MIGHT have been. Strip the armour, self sealing tanks, cannons+ammunition, wartime paint and other operational items out of the Whirlwind, and you would have a different animal. As far as I know, the XF5F never flew with a full operational load out, so its performance numbers in comparison to operational types needs to be taken in context.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I thought the problem with the Whirlwind was mainly range? Altitude performance wasn't as crucial in the Pacific as in the BoB, and the F5F had a pretty impressive range of 1200 miles at least per the wiki. The extraordinary climb rate would probably be particularly useful for a carrier fighter, the typical problem of taking off and needing to climb to altitude, or chasing torpedo bombers when the alert for the dive bombers comes out could be far better alleviated with a fast climbing plane. Especially since the F4F was such a slow climber.
> 
> Twin engines requiring more training though is definitely a valid point, as is (to a lesser extent) the added expense of the second engine. For the US the bigger issue was probably training time since there was a bit of a bottleneck early on and carrier pilots already had a lot to learn.



Rolls-Royce mod'ed a Whirlwind and put the radiators under the engines, it was 24 mph faster at sea level. That would free up space where the wing leading edge radiators were for extra fuel tanks. Whirlwind range was as per Kittyhawk so good, except for price of 2 x Spitfire, not so good. My guess would be 1200 mile range without drop tanks unlike F5F which was same as Wildcat with / without drop tanks.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

I'm not picking on the Whirlwind, trust me. I am a fan. Just went by what was on the Wiki.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The Whirlwind was operational 2 years before the XF5F MIGHT have been. Strip the armour, self sealing tanks, cannons+ammunition, wartime paint and other operational items out of the Whirlwind, and you would have a different animal. As far as I know, the XF5F never flew with a full operational load out, so its performance numbers in comparison to operational types needs to be taken in context.



The XF5F was unarmed but I believe it was ballasted for weapons. It did have a radio installed.

Empty weight 7990.
Normal Loaded weight 10,021 leaves 2,031 pounds for load.
178 gallons of fuel is 1,068 pounds. 150 pounds of oil (P36 oil times 2) 200 pound pilot. Leaves 613 pounds for weapons.
4 50’s is 300 pounds. 300 rounds per gun is 300 more pounds. 

Empty weight 7990. Overload weight 10,892 leaving 2902 for load.
277 gas is 1662.
150 pounds of oil.
200 pound pilot.
Leaves 890 pounds for weapons.
4 50’s is 300 pounds. 500 rounds per gun is 500 pounds.
Based on this, I think it was ballasted for weapons.

It was painted. In all of my previous posts I added 150 pounds of armor and 200 pounds for self sealing the fuel tank

10892 add 150 for armor and 200 for seal sealing tank

Go ahead and change the engines out from the 1820 G205 the Wildcat used and you have 2400 hp up to 4200 ft and 2000 hp at 14000
2400 hp at SL using cube rule brings SL speed up to 331.
Speed at 4500 feet jumps from 326 to 346
Speed at 14000 feet jumps from 346 to 367


11,250 pounds ready to fight including armor and self sealing tanks

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm not picking on the Whirlwind, trust me. I am a fan. Just went by what was on the Wiki.



Me too, I'm a fan. It just needs a decent engine, unfortunately the only one available is the Hispano-Suiza 12Y or Z and its not available to us.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Rolls-Royce mod'ed a Whirlwind and put the radiators under the engines, it was 24 mph faster at sea level. That would free up space where the wing leading edge radiators were for extra fuel tanks. Whirlwind range was as per Kittyhawk so good, except for price of 2 x Spitfire, not so good. My guess would be 1200 mile range without drop tanks unlike F5F which was same as Wildcat with / without drop tanks.











Those are 80 gallon tanks in the Whirlwind wings. Those wings are much smaller than the F5F wings. You could easily add 80 gallon tanks per side on the F5F, add that to the 278 it already carried and you have a lot of fuel. Turbocharge the engines to make up for weight gain and you have a 2400 hp plane that still weighs 1500 pounds less than a P38 with 300 gallons and it’s carrier capable.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

Drag is always brought up on the F5F because well, the windmills they used for engines.

Look at the F5F test in post 245.
The F5F does 352 mph at 20,000 feet.
The engines can only put out 900 hp at 14,000 so those engines are down to what, maybe 750 hp each? 


From wwiiperformance P38E

20,000 feet 393 mph 3000 rpm 1150 hp
20,000 feet 386.5 mph 2600 rpm 1000 hp
20,000 feet 352.5 mph 2280 rpm 750 hp

Notice a P38E is doing 352 mph at 20,000 feet on 750 hp the same speed the F5F does on, I think, about the same power.

The P38E does 340 mph at 5000 feet on 1150 hp per engine 2300 total

The F5F does 326 mph at 4500 feet on 1000 hp per engine 2000 total

Hmmm. Cube rule, lets take an F5F at 1150 hp 2300 total divide by 2000 = 1.15 cube root is 1.047689 times 326 mph equals 341.54 miles per hour. 

So apparently a P38E and an F5F have approximately the same drag. Could some of you guys look at this data and see if I am looking at this correctly?


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Definitely not an expert, I was just going by what the Wiki said which sounds like there was people on both sides but that at least some of the Aussies thought they kind of got ripped off by being given them. It doesn't seem like too bad of a plane to me but it's just another matter of it being more of a 1942 plane being used in 1943 and 44. Probably pretty vulnerable to Zeroes and Oscars?


I agree, all dive bombers were vulnerable to enemy fighters. The RAAF never lost a vengeance to enemy a/c. The vengeance was still useful in 43-44, if you look at the missions the RAAF was using them for in New Guinea they were perfectly suitable for the task. They were flying CAS and targeting enemy troop positions often located on ridge lines and in mountainous terrain. Often the target would be indicated with smoke either from army mortars or Boomerangs. Precision was crucial here and I'd argue dedicated dive bomber were more accurate then fighter-bombers in these situations. It must be noted though that RAAF vengeances were operating under total allied air superiority.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> View attachment 542607
> View attachment 542608
> 
> Those are 80 gallon tanks in the Whirlwind wings. Those wings are much smaller than the F5F wings. You could easily add 80 gallon tanks per side on the F5F, add that to the 278 it already carried and you have a lot of fuel. Turbocharge the engines to make up for weight gain and you have a 2400 hp plane that still weighs 1500 pounds less than a P38 with 300 gallons and it’s carrier capable.
> View attachment 542609


Whirlwind had 134 Imp gal plus either 45 or 90 gal drop tanks.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Could British torpedoes be dropped at higher speeds and could B-26 carry British torpedoes?




The TBF, in British service, couldn't carry British torpedoes, so it's not improbable that a B-26 couldn't either.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 21, 2019)

Duplicate.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 21, 2019)

In the case of the Ercoupe the twin fins/rudders were designed to move those control surfaces out of the propwash and therefore reduce the P-factor that can induce spins and cause a need for additional rudder in power-on lo speed circumstances.

Later the center section of the elevator was cut out to reduce the effects of propwash. Combined with a spring that came into effect in extreme up-elevator situations that enabled the airplane to be loaded to higher gross weights by making it much more difficult to pull too many G's. The C model was the first Ercoupe certified but when the heavier D model came out they reduced the elevator travel to reducemax G loads, making stalled landings difficult if not impossible; this was unpopular.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Could British torpedoes be dropped at higher speeds and could B-26 carry British torpedoes?


Yes and Yes. The RAF even managed to sink a ship or two in the Aegean in early '43.
But the experiment was short lived. Soon the Marauder Is were repurposed for maritime recon.


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 21, 2019)

The Ercoupe MAX?

One advantage of the F5F (Boy has this thread wandered...) for the Navy pilots who were well trained in deflection shooting was the great view over the nose.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

Why didn't they ever send some Whirlwinds to the Med?


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 21, 2019)

Might much of the reason the F5F never got off the bench be below rather than above the deck? It would have had to have come while the F4F was at bat. Might not one of the reasons the F6F rather than the F5F was put in that batter's circle have been because the engineering in the F6F wasn't as radically-unfamiliar to the F4F mechanics as was that in the F5F? Additionally, consider flying familiarity and practice. Both the F4F and F6F were very similar. The pilots that trained on one didn't need much training if at all on the other, outside of the specials associated with the F6F.

The F6Fs did quite a lot of bombing practice. Look at the training logs and see. They got as much bombing practice in three months as the SBDs got in two months. Certainly going down from the F6F to the F4F or FM2, the pilots needed no familiarity and practice training. All this I think has to play into the reason we kept these F5F sluggers in the dugout, and off the carriers. The unfamiliar engineering I'm thinking had to have been a factor.

We were fighting a war, boys, not playing a video game...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 21, 2019)

Personally I think it was 
1. it had 2 engines, so they would have had to carry more parts 
2. They thought it was too heavy at 10,892 overload so they instead bought an F4F-4 that I think hit 8,800 with drop tanks on 1200 hp, and then an F6F and F4U that were 12,500 or more
3. Grumman was too busy with F4F to work on it
4. They built the center section as a single large fuel tank but evidently it had internal bracing and couldn’t hold a self sealing bladder. Of course they could have built a different one but I assume neither the military nor Grumman wanted to pay for it
5. The extremely good performance numbers I give at 20,000 feet are for one with turbochargers which we know they won’t do. (2 turbocharged 9 cylinder radials are too complicated so they build 10 fast climbing Corsairs to combat kamakazis with 28 cylinder R4860’s because 28 cylinder engines are super simple) 
6. They simply didn’t understand what it might be capable of
7. They underestimated the japanese
8. Maybe training pilots for 2 engine planes was a problem

Remember, the US government let the prototype P51 sit on a runway for a year because they said it was a bad plane


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 22, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> Might much of the reason the F5F never got off the bench be below rather than above the deck?





VBF-13 said:


> Might not one of the reasons the F6F rather than the F5F was put in that batter's circle have been because the engineering in the F6F wasn't as radically-unfamiliar to the F4F mechanics as was that in the F5F?


The maintainers don't give a crap about "radically unfamiliar engineering" in the aerodynamic sense, unless it brings with it exotic materials with troublesome fabrication techniques, weird mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical systems, or particularly complicated and fussy accessories and appliances. Tin bending is tin bending, gasoline engines are a known quantity, wiring is wiring, and plumbing is plumbing. The Skyrocket may have seemed radical in concept and appearance, but dimes to dollars it was made of the same kinds of pieces as its contemporaries. Learning on the shop floor is an eternal process.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2019)

The concept of a twin engined fighter seemed to be popular in the late 30's, so the XF5F/XP-50 wasn't all that radical.
The Whirlwind, the Fw187 and P-38 were all real emulations of this and of course, once we take a step up to the "Heavy Fighter", the list becomes much, much longer.

But all that might be great for another thread, since none of this has anything to do with the SBD

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 22, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 22, 2019)

We should stop calling these "threads" and start calling them "tangles".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
8 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> We should stop calling these "threads" and start calling them "tangles".


Ya' think?


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 22, 2019)



Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2019)




----------



## Kevin J (Jun 22, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The concept of a twin engined fighter seemed to be popular in the late 30's, so the XF5F/XP-50 wasn't all that radical.
> The Whirlwind, the Fw187 and P-38 were all real emulations of this and of course, once we take a step up to the "Heavy Fighter", the list becomes much, much longer.
> 
> But all that might be great for another thread, since none of this has anything to do with the SBD



Overall dimensions of the SBD and the Skyrocket are about the same and since we were talking about a fighter SBD then just for comparison's sake, what you could do with two engines on an SBD size air frame?

According to wiki, Grumman XF5F Skyrocket - Wikipedia testing wasn't completed until Jan 15 1942 so any production models would have been too late for the first year of war in the Pacific. So I guess its either the Wildcat, the Buffalo or the CC&F Sea Hurricane, the choice is yours.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Overall dimensions of the SBD and the Skyrocket are about the same and since we were talking about a fighter SBD then just for comparison's sake, what you could do with two engines on an SBD size air frame?
> 
> According to wiki, Grumman XF5F Skyrocket - Wikipedia testing wasn't completed until Jan 15 1942 so any production models would have been too late for the first year of war in the Pacific. So I guess its either the Wildcat, the Buffalo or the CC&F Sea Hurricane, the choice is yours.



And if you really do want a fighter SBD then why not ask the Brits for a single seat Fulmar with a Merlin 32?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Overall dimensions of the SBD and the Skyrocket are about the same and since we were talking about a fighter SBD then just for comparison's sake, what you could do with two engines on an SBD size air frame?
> 
> According to wiki, Grumman XF5F Skyrocket - Wikipedia testing wasn't completed until Jan 15 1942 so any production models would have been too late for the first year of war in the Pacific. So I guess its either the Wildcat, the Buffalo or the CC&F Sea Hurricane, the choice is yours.


Or...perhaps we go with what happened historically by the people who were there at the time to make the informed decisions based on what they knew at the time.
The SBD was designed as a dive-bomber, not a fighter. As a dive-bomber, it delivered on it's promise above and beyond the expectations of the designers, builders and the US Navy.
As for fighters, there were a plethora of naval fighters either in the works or being considered by the USN by the late 30's.
As for the Sea Hurricane...wasn't going to happen. The USN had an aversion to liquid-cooled engines ...and foreign built aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 22, 2019)

F4F would be the baseline in terms of a USN fighter, so whatever hypothetical improvement was fielded would have to have better range and better capability against Japanese fighters, not worse on both fronts. In the event it was the Royal Navy that needed the F4F.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> 8. Maybe training pilots for 2 engine planes was a problem


“Maybe?” Really? Look at the aviators flight logs on the F6 in late 1944 and early 1945. Many of these pilots had no formal training on the F4 and yet they were able to switch to the F4 or FM without any formal familiarity or practice training whatsoever. These designs were what enabled that switch-hitting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> And if you really do want a fighter SBD then why not ask the Brits for a single seat Fulmar with a Merlin 32?


Kevin, we had a fighter SBD, it was the F6.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 22, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 542625​


When you’re right, you’re right, cadet.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 22, 2019)

Getting back to the question in this thread that has since been snapped, “Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?,” the second chair I think hasn’t got the attention here it should. It was there for defense. That was its primary function. We knew these “Speedy Ds” could be caught as they were making their escape. We put that heavy gunnery in there for that reason, alone. It was for the swifter fighters harassing them, to get those off of their backs.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 22, 2019)

...yet the last generation of piston-engined attack aircraft and all the jet-propelled ones eschewed the back-seat gunner as superfluous.

When you have enough fighters, which the USN didn't early in WW2, it's better to defend attack aircraft by putting the guns into the fighters. Of course, that back-seat gunner has one or two rifle-caliber machine guns, while the fighters tended to have HMG or cannon


----------



## davparlr (Jun 22, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> The TBF, in British service, couldn't carry British torpedoes, so it's not improbable that a B-26 couldn't either.


TBF carried torpedo internally which would limit torpedo dimensions, B-26 mounted torpedo externally so carrying British or other torpedoes should not be problematic. If the US had swiped the Japanese torpedo designs and copied them the war would have went differently. Of course they could have used anybodies design and improved performance!  Pix from World War Photos

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jun 22, 2019)

You've got to wonder how successful it would have been if it was operating in the Med. Would it have the same kind of success or would it have had problems with the different opponent?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 22, 2019)

You think this may have impressed the Japanese about the courage and tenacity of American aviators?
b-26 torpedo attack midway - Google Search:


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 22, 2019)

Ascent said:


> You've got to wonder how successful it would have been if it was operating in the Med. Would it have the same kind of success or would it have had problems with the different opponent?



Different opposition and a less-target rich maritime environment, but there's really no reason it wouldn't have been able to do as well as, say, the Ju-87

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 22, 2019)

davparlr said:


> If the US had swiped the Japanese torpedo designs and copied them the war would have went differently.


"The Japs are a third rate power with inferior technology. How could they have anything we don't have better? They can't even build a reliable 1200 horsepower engine fer chrissake!"


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2019)

Ascent said:


> You've got to wonder how successful it would have been if it was operating in the Med. Would it have the same kind of success or would it have had problems with the different opponent?


Different environment in the fact that the Enemy wasn't a Naval-based power, but the SBD did see action in the Med during Operation Torch (operating from the USS Ranger) and performed well against Axist targets. It also saw action soon after, in the North Sea, sinking German shipping.
As a side note: the USS Ranger was actually trying to entice the Tirpitz to come out and play, but the Germans wouldn't go fo it...


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 22, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Different environment in the fact that the Enemy wasn't a Naval-based power, but the SBD did see action in the Med during Operation Torch (operating from the USS Ranger) and performed well against Axist targets. It also saw action soon after, in the North Sea, sinking German shipping.
> As a side note: the USS Ranger was actually trying to entice the Tirpitz to come out and play, but the Germans wouldn't go fo it...



They had noted how well the _Bismarck_ did. The German naval high command probably also noted that "fair fight" wasn't something in the USN's vocabulary, except by accident. If the USN had the _Ranger_ out there as bait, the Germans probably figured that they'd also have a large number of ships with scarily big guns, too, and the USN was friends with the RN, and between them, they'd set up a few hindrances to the _Tirpitz _getting far out of harbor.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 22, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Different environment in the fact that the Enemy wasn't a Naval-based power, but the SBD did see action in the Med during Operation Torch (operating from the USS Ranger) and performed well against Axist targets. It also saw action soon after, in the North Sea, sinking German shipping.
> As a side note: the USS Ranger was actually trying to entice the Tirpitz to come out and play, but the Germans wouldn't go fo it...


I read they also saw action in Europe( in the form of the A24) with the Free French Airforce right up until the end of the war although I can't find many ...... no make that ANY details about it beyond a couple vague mentions on wiki and one other source the name of which escapes me at the moment.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 22, 2019)

The Groupement Aeronavale 2 in Algiers had 37 SBDs, starting March 1, 1944

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 22, 2019)

I wonder how effective that the SBD would have been against Tirpitz at sea? In her hideaway I believe Tirpitz was dive bombed yielding mainly superficial damage. However fo a raider not too hard to achieve a mission kill, such as the minor damage to Bismarcks bow which caused a number of other unfortunate events to tumble forth for her. 

Certainly ships were a high value target and about the right size for the CEP of a dive bomber. Ground targets generally not as high value and smaller, less susceptible to damage. 

As to the British aerial torpedos they must have been set to run pretty shallow to hit on the external armor belt, sending most of their force upwards. Perhaps the heavy seas factored in this somehow. These seemed to be effective enough at Taranto.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 22, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> The Groupement Aeronavale 2 in Algiers had 37 SBDs, starting March 1, 1944


Very cool. I just got back from a trip to wiki to see if any more had been added on the SBDs in free French service since I last checked( which has been quite awhile) and sure enough quite a bit had. Amoungst other things it said there SBD5s were averaging 3 sorties a day in April 45. Is that even possible, 3 sorties per day? Maybe it's a misprint and they meant 3 per week?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Amoungst other things it said there SBD5s were averaging 3 sorties a day in April 45. Is that even possible, 3 sorties per day? Maybe it's a misprint and they meant 3 per week?


In Europe, the distances were far shorter than typically found in the PTO/CBI, so three sorties per day were not out of reason for either Allied or Axis pilots.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 22, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> "The Japs are a third rate power with inferior technology. How could they have anything we don't have better? They can't even build a reliable 1200 horsepower engine fer chrissake!"



USA “The Brewster Buffalo is the most powerful fighter in the pacific theater” 

Britain “you don’t need Spitfires, your only fighting the Japanese”


----------



## pinsog (Jun 22, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> I wonder how effective that the SBD would have been against Tirpitz at sea? In her hideaway I believe Tirpitz was dive bombed yielding mainly superficial damage. However fo a raider not too hard to achieve a mission kill, such as the minor damage to Bismarcks bow which caused a number of other unfortunate events to tumble forth for her.
> 
> Certainly ships were a high value target and about the right size for the CEP of a dive bomber. Ground targets generally not as high value and smaller, less susceptible to damage.
> 
> As to the British aerial torpedos they must have been set to run pretty shallow to hit on the external armor belt, sending most of their force upwards. Perhaps the heavy seas factored in this somehow. These seemed to be effective enough at Taranto.



I would think that even only using 1000 pounders SBD’s, without having to worry about CAP fighters, might not sink her, but everything topside would be a wreck. Might lose a few planes to AA at first but after the first several hits that take out her radar and much, most, or all of her AA, it would become target practice on a maneuvering target that can’t fight back. If the SBD’s are carrying 1600 pound armour piercing bombs I would think it isn’t “if” but “how long” until you sink her.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 22, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> I wonder how effective that the SBD would have been against Tirpitz at sea? In her hideaway I believe Tirpitz was dive bombed yielding mainly superficial damage. However fo a raider not too hard to achieve a mission kill, such as the minor damage to Bismarcks bow which caused a number of other unfortunate events to tumble forth for her.
> 
> Certainly ships were a high value target and about the right size for the CEP of a dive bomber. Ground targets generally not as high value and smaller, less susceptible to damage.
> 
> As to the British aerial torpedos they must have been set to run pretty shallow to hit on the external armor belt, sending most of their force upwards. Perhaps the heavy seas factored in this somehow. These seemed to be effective enough at Taranto.



The SBDs would wreck the upperworks and strip off the escorts. There would have been other weapon systems around: TBMs, Barracudas, Swordfish, submarines, surface ships, ....

The entire point of enticing _Tirpitz _out would be into a trap. USS _Ranger_ would be bait; the trap would be enough to overwhelm anything the _Tirpitz_ and its consorts could bring to the fight.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 22, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> In Europe, the distances were far shorter than typically found in the PTO/CBI, so three sorties per day were not out of reason for either Allied or Axis pilots.


Ya, that makes sense. Just seems like an average of 3 per day for an extended period would make them very busy to say the least. That would mean a sortie every 4 hours or so. Truly remarkable. 
My hat's off to the pilots and ground crews that managed to pull that off. The Indi 500 pit crews got nothing on them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 22, 2019)

Yamato and Musashi were both sunk by the swarm of gnats. The Dive bombers were probably SB2C's, but the biggest damage might have been from the aerial torpedos, which apparently worked by then. The dive bombers and strafers probably made way for the Torpeckers by decimating the AA.


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 22, 2019)

To answer my own question... Apparently Ark Royal's torpedoes against Bismarck were only set to run at 10 feet because of the high seas running. They were afraid of them running under the bow or stern if set at the normal 20'. So if they had been set at 20' would the torpedo have missed the stern hit?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Ya, that makes sense. Just seems like an average of 3 per day for an extended period would make them very busy to say the least. That would mean a sortie every 4 hours or so. Truly remarkable.
> My hat's off to the pilots and ground crews that managed to pull that off. The Indi 500 pit crews got nothing on them.


During Operation Torch, the Ranger launched nearly 500 sorties in a three day period and if memory serves right, she laid about 10 miles off the African coast during most of the operations, so again, short distances provided for a much shorter mission cycle.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 22, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> I wonder how effective that the SBD would have been against Tirpitz at sea? In her hideaway I believe Tirpitz was dive bombed yielding mainly superficial damage. However fo a raider not too hard to achieve a mission kill, such as the minor damage to Bismarcks bow which caused a number of other unfortunate events to tumble forth for her.
> 
> Certainly ships were a high value target and about the right size for the CEP of a dive bomber. Ground targets generally not as high value and smaller, less susceptible to damage.
> 
> As to the British aerial torpedos they must have been set to run pretty shallow to hit on the external armor belt, sending most of their force upwards. Perhaps the heavy seas factored in this somehow. These seemed to be effective enough at Taranto.


It took tallboy bombs to destroy the Tirpitz flown by Lancasters based in Russia. The SBD would have failed just like the Barracudas did with their 3600 lb bombs.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It took tallboy bombs to destroy the Tirpitz flown by Lancasters based in Russia. The SBD would have failed just like the Barracudas did with their 3600 lb bombs.



Are you referring to Operation Tungsten? If so they used a few 1600 pound armor piercing bombs and 500 pound semi armor piercing bombs and then some 500 pound general purpose bombs. The first wave was only 21 Barracudas and they landed 3 1600 pound bombs, 3 500 pound semi armor piercing bombs and 1 gp 500 pound bomb. The second wave, no idea how many Barracudas on this wave, hit Tirpitz with 1 1600 pound bomb and 4 500 pound bombs. Total hits, 4 1600 pounders and 7 500 pound semi armor piercing along with some GP bombs.

I think if Tirpitz was caught on the open sea by a US fleet carrier would have been a different story. Assume 36 SBD’s, give the first wave all 1000 pounders and there wouldn’t be much left of the upper deck, AA guns, radar, radio masts etc. I would arm all returning SBD’s with 1600 pound bombs, let’s say 32 are left from first attack. If even 1/4 of these hit your talking about 8 hits. Near misses causing flooding, damaged screws or rudders. How many more strikes they might fly would of course depend on a lot of other factors. I don’t think Tirpitz would survive even just dive bombers. If the US carrier used torpedo bombers, assuming they used functional torpedoes and Tirpitz doesn’t have a chance.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It took tallboy bombs to destroy the Tirpitz flown by Lancasters based in Russia. The SBD would have failed just like the Barracudas did with their 3600 lb bombs.



There wouldn't be just SBDs; neither the USN nor RN were run by sentimental fools, so the _Tirpitz_ and consorts (did the German Navy have any destroyers left by this time?) would run into multiple dive _and torpedo_ bombers, possibly preceded by submarine-launched torpedoes and followed by optional destroyer-launched torpedoes and USN and RN heavy guns.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 22, 2019)

I think if you drop enough 1000lb bombs on any ship it's going to sink eventually. It's just with really hardened targets like the Tirpitz it's going to be far from the most efficient method.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2019)

Operation Leader, which was primarily conducted to disrupt iron ore shipments from Norway (with the hopes that the Tirpitz would come out), was executed in October '43 as a joint operation between the USN and the RN.
In the group with the USS Ranger were the Battleships HMS Duke of York and HMS Anson, Cruisers USS Tuscaloosa, HMS Belfast and HMS Teazer and Destroyers USS Corry, USS Forrest, USS Hobson, USS Capps, USS Fitch, HMS Janus, HMS Milne, HMS Scorpion, HMS Opportune, HMS Vigilant, HMS Savage and HMS Scourge.
The air compliment aboard Ranger was:
(VF-4) 27 F4F Wildcats
(VB-4) 27 SBD Dauntlesses
(VT-4) 18 TBF Avengers

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 22, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Operation Leader, which was primarily conducted to disrupt iron ore shipments from Norway (with the hopes that the Tirpitz would come out), was executed in October '43 as a joint operation between the USN and the RN.
> In the group with the USS Ranger were the Battleships HMS Duke of York and HMS Anson, Cruisers USS Tuscaloosa, HMS Belfast and HMS Teazer and Destroyers USS Corry, USS Forrest, USS Hobson, USS Capps, USS Fitch, HMS Janus, HMS Milne, HMS Scorpion, HMS Opportune, HMS Vigilant, HMS Savage and HMS Scourge.
> The air compliment aboard Ranger was:
> (VF-4) 27 F4F Wildcats
> ...



That airgroup, with functioning torpedoes would make short work of Tirpitz. Wildcats go in strafing, followed by SBD’s with 1000 pound GP to wreck the AA guns, then 18 Avengers, 9 off each bow do a hammer/anvil attack with virtually 0 AA fire. Done.....


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> the second chair I think hasn’t got the attention here it should.


It was also there as a 2nd set of eyes for the scout/search/recon role. He was also the radio operator and again, 1939-42 ( or pick a year) were not the radios of 1944-45. 

A radio with a range of several hundred miles, so necessary to the scout/search/recon function needed a dedicated operator.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It was also there as a 2nd set of eyes for the scout/search/recon role. He was also the radio operator and again, 1939-42 ( or pick a year) were not the radios of 1944-45.
> 
> A radio with a range of several hundred miles, so necessary to the scout/search/recon function needed a dedicated operator.


What were the reasons those radios required a dedicated operator?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> What were the reasons those radios required a dedicated operator?


Ever fine tune a long range radio transmitter, compose a message, encode it, and key it into a CW radio while dodging flak and fighters? I had a truly sadistic instrument instructor once who tried to expand my multi tasking skills by having me fly practice pattern B under the hood while giving me instructions over the intercom which I had to reply to in morse with a key clipped to my kneeboard and wired into the intercom. He almost had me talked into joining the ham radio club until he pulled that stunt.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It was also there as a 2nd set of eyes for the scout/search/recon role. He was also the radio operator and again, 1939-42 ( or pick a year) were not the radios of 1944-45.
> 
> A radio with a range of several hundred miles, so necessary to the scout/search/recon function needed a dedicated operator.


Part of that training was in photography and mapping, too. At least, that's how it was in the SBD-5s. That second chair wasn't just there for the gunnery, that's right.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 22, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Ever fine tune a long range radio transmitter, compose a message, encode it, and key it into a CW radio while dodging flak and fighters? I had a truly sadistic instrument instructor once who tried to expand my multi tasking skills by having me fly practice pattern B under the hood while giving me instructions over the intercom which I had to reply to in morse with a key clipped to my kneeboard and wired into the intercom. He almost had me talked into joining the ham radio club until he pulled that stunt.
> Cheers,
> Wes


No I haven’t. What does the fine tuning encompass? 

Was that instrument instructor situation civilian or military? What happened with that?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2019)

They often required "tuning" as in the operator turned a dial connected to a potentiometer or variable coil in order to get the right frequency. Depending on the weather or atmospheric conditions the radios tended to drift in Frequency. Also for the same "power" a radio using code transmission had around 3 times the range of a radio using voice transmission. 
Bf 110s used the same radio as the He 111 and other the german bombers while the 109 used a rather short ranged radio.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> Part of that training was in photography and mapping, too. At least, that's how it was in the SBD-5s. That second chair wasn't just there for the gunnery, that's right.



Later on when the vast majority of SBDs got radar the rear seater was also the radio operator but that had nothing to do with the original specification/design.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2019)

If the rear gunner didn't wear enough hats already, he could also fly the aircraft in an emergency from the auxiliary flight controls.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 22, 2019)

My dad said that a lot of guys that washed out of flight training became radio/gunners. So often they did have some flying experience! the sending of accurate messages was vital, think of how many messages sent in error or incomplete during major Pacific Battles!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 23, 2019)

pinsog said:


> No I haven’t. What does the fine tuning encompass?
> 
> Was that instrument instructor situation civilian or military? What happened with that?


The instructor was an Army E6 radar technician from a nearby HAWK battery who taught in the Navy Flying Club and was president of the base ham radio club. His home radio setup consisted of a Heathkit receiver he built himself and a honking big WWII vintage military surplus transmitter that had multiple RF frequency tuning dials, both coarse and vernier. As SR6 mentioned, it was prone to drifting off frequency, and had some sort of an arrangement through the receiver that caused a beat frequency to develop in the earphones if the transmitter drifted off the receiver's far more precise crystal controlled frequency. So you were sending code with your right hand and constantly tweaking the verniers with your left to suppress the beat frequencies in your ears. Those of you who've flown older multi engine planes with no propeller auto synch can relate to that. Joe told me that type of transmitter was used in Navy patrol bombers in WWII. In any case it's clear that a single seat long range scout plane was problematical with the radio technology of the day.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> If the rear gunner didn't wear enough hats already, he could also fly the aircraft in an emergency from the auxiliary flight controls.


That's one I never knew, GG. The closest I'd ever come to knowing it was knowing they could swivel in the chair and face forward. Given this insight, that in itself is good to know, as otherwise they'd be having to fly it backwards, lol...

But seriously, I don't believe this never came up in any discussions I'd had, or research I'd undertaken. Thanks for pointing it out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jun 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It took tallboy bombs to destroy the Tirpitz flown by Lancasters based in Russia. The SBD would have failed just like the Barracudas did with their 3600 lb bombs.


From what I've read, the tallboys didn't really do any more damage to the Tirpitz, it was already sunk, and sitting on the floor of the fjord with it's decks still above water. It was already "done" and the 617th just added to the misery of the sailors aboard. It literally couldn't go anywhere at all.
I'll have to dig up the book I got that from, but that's what the author claimed.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 23, 2019)

glennasher said:


> From what I've read, the tallboys didn't really do any more damage to the Tirpitz, it was already sunk, and sitting on the floor of the fjord with it's decks still above water. It was already "done" and the 617th just added to the misery of the sailors aboard. It literally couldn't go anywhere at all.
> I'll have to dig up the book I got that from, but that's what the author claimed.



I think the RN's miniature subs caused pretty severe damage to the _Tirpitz'_s propulsion system, to the point where it couldn't go to sea for about a year.(Tirpitz - Operational History)

By mid-1944, had _Tirpitz_ gone to sea -- remember, the Allies were reading German codes -- the term for the experience of the crew would be "running the guantlet." The term for a lot of RN and USN naval aviators would be "live target practice."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> That's one I never knew, GG. The closest I'd ever come to knowing it was knowing they could swivel in the chair and face forward. Given this insight, that in itself is good to know, as otherwise they'd be having to fly it backwards, lol...
> 
> But seriously, I don't believe this never came up in any discussions I'd had, or research I'd undertaken. Thanks for pointing it out.


You're welcome.

It was an uncommon feature for a combat aircraft and was rarely used. The theory was for the rear gunner to provide relief to the pilot on long-range flights as well as assisting in an emergency.

Here is an illustration of the control system from a Douglas manual:






And here is a view of the controls as seen from the gunner's seat (looking forward):




(_Photo: NASM)_

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 23, 2019)

glennasher said:


> From what I've read, the tallboys didn't really do any more damage to the Tirpitz, it was already sunk, and sitting on the floor of the fjord with it's decks still above water. It was already "done" and the 617th just added to the misery of the sailors aboard. It literally couldn't go anywhere at all.
> I'll have to dig up the book I got that from, but that's what the author claimed.


The Tirpitz had sailed from Altenfjord to Tromsø a month before so it most definitely had NOT been sunk. It had how ever been badly damaged by a tallboy through the bow on a previous raid such that it had been restricted to 10 knots. The Germans considered it wasn’t worth restoring to full combat capability and it would not have sortied again.
The US didn’t win the war all by itself, give credit where it’s due

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 23, 2019)

Loss of Battleship Tirpitz
Battleship Tirpitz

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The US didn’t win the war all by itself, give credit where it’s due


At what point in this thread, has it even been mentioned that the U.S. did??


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 23, 2019)

Let me take the thread in a different direction and address why was the SBD so effective.. An interesting question as it's performance stats don't show anything particularly impressive. 
I'm not a pilot so only an educated guess on my part(or at least I like to think so........about the educated part that is), but it seems to me that those always desirable docile handling characteristics and especially sturdy build must be major factors in the success both in dive bombing and it's realative success( for a dive bomber) in air to air.
Mix in some good luck at critical points in a couple critical battles and you've got yourself a winner.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> During Operation Torch, the Ranger launched nearly 500 sorties in a three day period and if memory serves right, she laid about 10 miles off the African coast during most of the operations, so again, short distances provided for a much shorter mission cycle.



One of the big and I think little known actions by the US (and this included the Ranger) was against the Vichy French airforce in Morocco. It was a short but quite brutal fight, the French were using D.520s and Hawk 75s, the USN had SBD's and F4Fs. Per MAW IV the US Navy took a lot of casualties.

The Vichy French also tangled with Royal Navy aircraft, also quite intense. For example on *8 Nov 1942 *the RN made the following claims:

Sea Hurricanes from 800 Sqn claimed 5 x D.520s
Seafire from 807 Sqn claimed 2 x D520 and 1 damaged
Albacores from 822 Sqn claimed 1 x D520 and 2 damaged
Wildcat IV claimed a Boston
Losses were
5 x Albacores, 2 x Hurricanes, 3 x Sea Hurricanes, 1 x Seafire lost to combat with D.520s and 2 to accidents​French losses were
1 x DB 7, 6 x D.520s shot down and 2 crash landed​
Also on *8 Nov 1942* in another area (near Cassablanca) the US Ranger, and the CVE's Sangamon, Suwanee and Santee got into combat with the Vichy:

F4F-4's claimed 12 x D.520s or Hawk 75s, and 1 Martin 167 and an Le045
SBD03's claimed two fighters damaged
losses were:

_Ranger_​1 x F4F shot down, 5 x crash landed and POW, 3 x ditched and rescued (9 total)​2 x SBD lost to enemy action and 1 to an accidentr​​_Sangamon_ and _Suwanee_​2 x F4F, 1 damaged and jetissoned, 1 x SBD, 1 x TBF crashed on takeoff​​_Santee_​1 X F4F shot down, 5 x F4F ditched or landed on French / Morroccan soil and POW, 2 x TBF crashed on takeoff​​French losses were
9 x Hawk 75, 4 x Martin 167, 1 x D.520 (5 more listed as 'damaged in combat'), 1 X Potez 63, and a bunch damaged on the ground​
As for the dual controls, IIRC in The Battle for Hell's Island there was an incident where an SBD gunner had to use the backseat control to fly when the pilot was killed or wounded. I can't remember if he actually landed it or ditched or what.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> They often required "tuning" as in the operator turned a dial connected to a potentiometer or variable coil in order to get the right frequency. Depending on the weather or atmospheric conditions the radios tended to drift in Frequency. Also for the same "power" a radio using code transmission had around 3 times the range of a radio using voice transmission.
> Bf 110s used the same radio as the He 111 and other the german bombers while the 109 used a rather short ranged radio.



In his autobiography James Edwards mentioned the difference between the VHF radios used by the RAF and the UHF radios used by the Americans. He said the latter had buttons preset to certain frequencies which sounds a bit like the old buttons on a car radio, whereas the VHF radios had dials that required frequent fiddling to stay on the squadron band as they flew around. He specifically said he thought one of his guys died because he was fiddling with his radio when bounced and didn't hear the warnings to break.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

It's interesting to note that the Ranger etc. seemed to lose relatively few SBD's to air combat.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 23, 2019)

Well, only the Ranger had SBDs. The CVE air groups consisted of F4Fs and TBFs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's interesting to note that the Ranger etc. seemed to lose relatively few SBD's to air combat.


The Ranger's SBDs were well protected by their F4Fs in addition to the RAF and USAAF fighters that participated in many of the missions during Operation Torch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

What happened to the Albacores?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

It's interesting that they didn't put SBD's on the CVE's too, I'd forgotten about that. I guess the TBF's were more versatile? Greater range? and by then the torpedoes were more likely to work properly.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2019)

You also have the problem that the wing won't fold. Limits the deck park or makes using the elevator a pain in the butt if it is even possible. I have not looked up the elevator dimensions and could well be wrong on that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> What happened to the Albacores?


Applecores.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You also have the problem that the wing won't fold. Limits the deck park or makes using the elevator a pain in the butt if it is even possible. I have not looked up the elevator dimensions and could well be wrong on that.


The CVEs didn't have enough room for the fixed wing SBD. I believe the only CVE that operated the SBD (and only for a short time) was the USS Long Island (AVG-1/CVE-1)...otherwise, the early CVEs starting with the USS Bogue (CVE-9) typically carried a compliment of 16 FM-2 fighters and 12 TBM bombers.
However, some of the modified CVEs which were converted from tankers and freighters, like the USS Santee (CVE-29), did operate some SBDs because they were larger - but I beleive that there were only four of these types.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2019)

"U.S. Aircraft Carriers" by Norman Friedman 
Independence class carriers. 
2 elevators, 42ft X 44 ft 

Long Island
1 elevator, 34 ft X 38 ft ( in 1943 as training carrier)

USS Card CV 11 (Bogue class) 
2 elevators, one 41ft 3in x 33ft 3in forward and one 33ft 3in X 41ft 3in aft

USS Sangamon(CVE 26) 
2 elevators, 34ft 1in X 42 ft 1 in

USS Liscombe Bay (CVE 56)
2 elevators, forward 41ft 10 3/4in x 33 ft 9 1/2 in, Aft 37ft 10 3/4in x 41ft 9 1/2 in 

USS Commencement Bay (CVE 105)
2 elevators, 44 ft X 42 ft.

For comparison the USS Essex (CV 9)
2 elevators, 48 ft 3 in X 44 ft 3in 
plus one deck edge, 60ft x 34 ft, 18,000lb capacity. 

I have no idea what could or could not be done by putting an aircraft on an elevator kitty corner/cater corner.

dimensions of the SBD again

*Length:* 33 ft 1.25 in (10.0902 m)
*Wingspan:* 41 ft 6.375 in (12.65873 m)
and 32ft 6 in long with the the tail wheel on the ground/deck. 

It certainly looks like it _could_ be done but on some of those ships it requires pretty exact parking of the plane on the elevator.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's interesting that they didn't put SBD's on the CVE's too, I'd forgotten about that. I guess the TBF's were more versatile? Greater range? and by then the torpedoes were more likely to work properly.


TBFs/TBMs could carry depth charges.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> In his autobiography James Edwards mentioned the difference between the VHF radios used by the RAF and the UHF radios used by the Americans. He said the latter had buttons preset to certain frequencies which sounds a bit like the old buttons on a car radio, whereas the VHF radios had dials that required frequent fiddling


Those were the short range radios used for air to air communications. The long range radios carried by scout and patrol aircraft operated at much lower frequencies such as the HF band and were mostly CW (Carrier Wave) units that were not voice capable.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2019)

*TBFs/TBMs could carry depth charges. *

The SBDs could too, just not as many, especially the early SBDs.

Lets remember that we are talking about at least 3 SBDs and perhaps 4 or more?

And in my _opinion _they don't quite follow the official model breakdown.
The SBD-1,2 and 3 had a 1000hp engine (for take-off) the early ones didn't have armor or self sealing tanks but that was soon changed and the older ones refitted.

We all (or most of us) know that the SBD-5 had a 1200hp engine (T-O) and a much increased bomb load and the SBD-6 had a 1350hp engine (T-O).

however there are a number odd Performance Data sheets here Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive

that show the SBD-1,2,3 with higher gross weights than the pilot's manual gives and a max load of a 1600lb on the center line, this bomb did not exist when the SBD-1,2,3 was first built and only came into existence (production wise?) during the SBD3/4 production run.

It may be that the capabilities of the early SBDs as far as bombs and fuel goes was upgraded at times during 1942 by allowing higher than original gross weights. I could be wrong on this.
However the big change would be that the planes could operate at greater ranges, the 1600lb AP being a rather rare and specialized weapon, The Enterprise in Oct 1943 carrying twice as many torpedoes as 1600lb AP bombs, 18 bombs vs 36 torpedoes. There were over 1100 thousand pound bombs of different types and 576 500lb bombs in the Magazines so the chances of arming an SBD with the 1600lb bomb to hit those high weight numbers was pretty slim.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The CVEs didn't have enough room *for the fixed wing SBD*. I believe the only CVE that operated the SBD (and only for a short time) was the USS Long Island (AVG-1/CVE-1)...otherwise, the early CVEs starting with the USS Bogue (CVE-9) typically carried a compliment of 16 FM-2 fighters and 12 TBM bombers.
> However, some of the modified CVEs which were converted from tankers and freighters, like the USS Santee (CVE-29), did operate some SBDs because they were larger - but I beleive that there were only for of these types.



Oh crap I should have thought of that. Wings didn't fold. I think that's it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

Greg Boeser said:


> TBFs/TBMs could carry depth charges.



One of the main jobs done by SBD's in the early war was ASW patrol and strike missions, for whatever reason.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Applecores.



The applecores got waxed by the French

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Jun 23, 2019)

Greg Boeser said:


> Well, only the Ranger had SBDs. The CVE air groups consisted of F4Fs and TBFs.



While it's true US escort carriers didn't usually carry SBDs. Torch was an exception. Santee also had SBDs. Check out this US Navy photo of SBDs and F4Fs on the Santee.







Greg Boeser said:


> Well, only the Ranger had SBDs. The CVE air groups consisted of F4Fs and TBFs.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 24, 2019)

That's a great photo.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2019)

Keep in mind that the USS Santee (and four others) weren't Long Island or Bogue class CVEs, but were converted tankers and freighters, so they had a different layout to each ship and were a bit larger (up to 30+ aircraft, if memory serves right)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Jun 24, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Keep in mind that the USS Santee (and four others) weren't Long Island or Bogue class CVEs, but were converted tankers and freighters, so they had a different layout to each ship and were a bit larger (up to 30+ aircraft, if memory serves right)



This class of aircraft carriers is very interesting. The Sangamon-Class carriers, including the named ship, the Santee, the Suwannee, and the Chenango, were built on the hulls of fleet oilers. They were rushed to conversion, barely being complete at the time they had to sale for Operation Torch. Displacing over 11,000 tons, they were as heavy as the Independence-class light carriers, and had a more-capacious hanger-deck. (On a ferry mission in 1944, the USS Santee carried 66 F4U Corsairs and 15 F6F Hellcats.) They even retained a lot of their fleet-oiler fuel capacity and could refuel their escorts. 

The conversion of the four fleet oilers to carriers was a two-edged sword for the US Navy. The ability to have these carriers in the Atlantic for Operation Torch allowed the Navy to concentrate all of its fleet carriers except for the Ranger in the Pacific. On the other hand, the Navy in the Pacific suffered throughout the Guadalcanal campaign due to lack of fleet oilers. 

After Torch, three of the Sangamon-class carriers made their way into the Pacific after the major naval battles of Guadalcanal had concluded and provided some level of backup for the USS Enterprise (which was the only fleet carrier in the South Pacific from the time of the Battle of Santa Cruz, where the Hornet was sunk and the Enterprise significantly damaged in November 1942). Saratoga arrived roughly the same time.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 24, 2019)

Yes, the CVE's of the Sangamon Class were quite prized, a couple of knots faster than the others, larger and especially still having oiler capability. I would expect them to still be Combustable, Vulnerable, but not particularly expendable. The deck crews were pretty good so I imagine they were able to strike the SBD's below just fine. Perhaps after some practice.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2019)

Picture of a model.




The SBD had just inches to spare on the elevators.

Actual dimensions of elevators and SBD are in previous posts, picture of model just gives perspective.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 24, 2019)

Beautiful model! I would guess the dimensions were desired to fit the plane. I don't know the dimensions of various AAC aircraft, but the escort carriers were occasionally used to ferry fighters which the AAC pilots flew OFF the ships. 

Easy enough for the practiced deck crews to pivot the plane a bit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 24, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> This class of aircraft carriers is very interesting. The Sangamon-Class carriers, including the named ship, the Santee, the Suwannee, and the Chenango, were built on the hulls of fleet oilers. They were rushed to conversion, barely being complete at the time they had to sale for Operation Torch. Displacing over 11,000 tons, they were as heavy as the Independence-class light carriers, and had a more-capacious hanger-deck. (On a ferry mission in 1944, the USS Santee carried 66 F4U Corsairs and 15 F6F Hellcats.) They even retained a lot of their fleet-oiler fuel capacity and could refuel their escorts.
> 
> The conversion of the four fleet oilers to carriers was a two-edged sword for the US Navy. The ability to have these carriers in the Atlantic for Operation Torch allowed the Navy to concentrate all of its fleet carriers except for the Ranger in the Pacific. On the other hand, the Navy in the Pacific suffered throughout the Guadalcanal campaign due to lack of fleet oilers.
> 
> After Torch, three of the Sangamon-class carriers made their way into the Pacific after the major naval battles of Guadalcanal had concluded and provided some level of backup for the USS Enterprise (which was the only fleet carrier in the South Pacific from the time of the Battle of Santa Cruz, where the Hornet was sunk and the Enterprise significantly damaged in November 1942). Saratoga arrived roughly the same time.




ADM JJ Clark was the commissioning CO of Suwannee. In his autobio he has a description of the Class'es origin as a Tanker. The book is a good read for anyone interested in Carrier Aviation in the Pacific.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Jun 24, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> ADM JJ Clark was the commissioning CO of Suwannee. In his autobio he has a description of the Class'es origin as a Tanker. The book is a good read for anyone interested in Carrier Aviation in the Pacific.



Pinehilljoe, this looks like a good book, but it it is out of print and no kindle version (sad face). There are a few used copies available, so I might pick it up. Have you ever read On the Warpath in the Pacific: Admiral Jocko Clark and the Fast Carriers, by Clar Reynolds? That one is available on Kindle.


----------



## Conslaw (Jun 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Picture of a model.
> View attachment 542757
> 
> The SBD had just inches to spare on the elevators.
> ...



This is an incredible model. It really shows how important adding folding wings was for the F4F-4 Wildcat.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2019)

And the TBF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 25, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> Pinehilljoe, this looks like a good book, but it it is out of print and no kindle version (sad face). There are a few used copies available, so I might pick it up. Have you ever read On the Warpath in the Pacific: Admiral Jocko Clark and the Fast Carriers, by Clar Reynolds? That one is available on Kindle.


Yes I have both, On the Warpath is basically the same book re-edited. IMHO Carrier Admiral reads better, its worth ordering a used copy or check your library.

This is another good book from Clark Reynolds: Amazon product

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Does anyone know why the SBD wasn't more widely used in the Med, or why more generally the US carriers like the Ranger and the various CVE's weren't used more for example for convoy escort? Seems like they could have helped in some key moments for example at Malta or during the Sicily and Salerno landings. Seems lke most of the CVE's were sent back to the Pacific after Torch.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Does anyone know why the SBD wasn't more widely used in the Med, or why more generally the US carriers like the Ranger and the various CVE's weren't used more for example for convoy escort? Seems like they could have helped in some key moments for example at Malta or during the Sicily and Salerno landings. Seems lke most of the CVE's were sent back to the Pacific after Torch.


I suspect it was felt that SBDs might be less survivable against the LW and RA than they were against the IJN, and, let's face it, the ground pounder military weren't much into dive bombing, for reasons given upthread, and jeep carriers were of limited utility for a stiff wing dive bomber, as well as for delivering significant numbers of land based aircraft. CVEs did get some usage for Uboat killer groups and convoy escort (my uncle flew off one), but the use of long range patrol bombers for convoy coverage turned out to be a cheaper approach, and the crying need for flightdecks was in the PTO.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Does anyone know why the SBD wasn't more widely used in the Med, or why more generally the US carriers like the Ranger and the various CVE's weren't used more for example for convoy escort? Seems like they could have helped in some key moments for example at Malta or during the Sicily and Salerno landings. Seems lke most of the CVE's were sent back to the Pacific after Torch.



Wasp helped out a couple of times ferrying fighters to Malta. Ranger was used off both Norway and Morocco. The Bogue class escort carriers escorted convoys thru the Azores to Europe and the Med. The Sangamon class converted oilers in the invasion of French NW Africa, operation Torch. Also a couple of Casablanca class escort carriers in Operation Dragoon, the invasion of Southern France.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Regarding the utility of Dive bombing, the Germans were still getting a lot of mileage from their Ju 87s and to a lesser extent (as in not quite true dive bombing) their Ju 88s in 1942 and most of 1943. The Allies shifted over more quickly to Fighter Bombers, with some specialist ground attack planes, but they were clearly tempted by the clear advantages of dive bombers. The Allison P-51 / A-36 dive bombers in particular tends to be almost unknown in the historical shorthand but it did play a pretty important role as the closest the Allies ever got to the significant use of the elusive _fast_ dive bombers. Due to the aileron issues (I gather) it was not really considered effective as a fighter, but it was considered one of their best tactical bombing assets. For the Germans the Stuka was still to a large extent linked to breakthroughs in their offensive operations.

The big issue was target accuracy. Early level bombers were considered pretty much useless. Later level bombers had their specific uses, for example attacking airbases which they seem to have been quite good at, but weren't very good at bombing tanks, artillery and infantry. Fighter bombers had much better accuracy, but still, limited. We saw an example of an analysis comparing SBD's and F4U, with a few percentage points difference in scoring hits and a notable contrast in CEP size. This translates to more tanks and AT guns etc. being knocked out per sortie. The difference seems small but when you are talking about 20 sorties at a time 3 times a day, day after day, the difference ads up. This is also even more true when attacking shipping which as we know was still important in the Med in 1942 and into 43.

Later the addition of rockets to the fighter bombers seems to have tipped the balance later back toward the fighter bomber for the Allies, but for a while they were I think very interested in dive bombers.

That said, you may be right that SBD's were considered too vulnerable, though they did see some use in Free French hands (they had about 50 A-24B's in North Africa in 1943) and from what I gather did pretty well until 1944 when they lost a lot of them to AAA. That may have been the main difference between Pacific and Med, German flak seems to have been much more intense and formidable and speed did make a difference in surviving it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 25, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Wasp helped out a couple of times ferrying fighters to Malta. Ranger was used off both Norway and Morocco. The Bogue class escort carriers escorted convoys thru the Azores to Europe and the Med. The Sangamon class converted oilers in the invasion of French NW Africa, operation Torch. Also a couple of Casablanca class escort carriers in Operation Dragoon, the invasion of Southern France.


For a while there, the limited number of US PTO carriers were being sunk at an ominous rate, so that's where the need was in US eyes. Each incremental flightdeck could make a greater difference there than in the ETO/MTO/NA war.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

This was the original post by Barret here

SBD CEP: 175 feet Hits on 50-ft radius circle: 5.4% 
F4U CEP: 195 feet Hits on 50-ft radius circle: 4.5% 

So this seems like a marginal difference, 20' of CEP and 0.9% difference on hits in a 50' radius. 

I'm not that good at statistics, but how much difference does that mean if you are talking about say a fighter / bomber group sized unit, 36 aircraft, 3 missions per day (108 sorties per day), over say, 90 days? 9720 sorties, per the above hit rates for 50' (a reasonable distance to do damage with say, 2 x or 3 x 500 lb bombs) means 524 hits vs 437. That means a difference of almost 90 tanks or AT guns or artillery pieces. It probably matters more as the number of planes scales up but I think that could already be significant. The Germans had quite a few Ju 87s in the Med though I don't have the precise numbers handy, I could go look them up.

Of course you have to factor the hit rate against the loss rate, and the SBD may be more vulnerable than fighters, but keep in mind we are talking about Hurricanes or Kittyhawks as the alternatives mainly, which are not as lethal in air to air as an F4U


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 25, 2019)

I suspect that another part of the reason for the relatively little use of dive bombers in the ETO & Med vs PTO is that the people running the war in Europe and the Mediterranean were not particularly interested in dive bombing and the people running the air war were even less interested in it. 

Of course, especially after the Italian surrender, there was far less marine traffic


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 25, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I suspect that another part of the reason for the relatively little use of dive bombers in the ETO & Med vs PTO is that the people running the war in Europe and the Mediterranean were not particularly interested in dive bombing and the people running the air war were even less interested in it.
> 
> Of course, especially after the Italian surrender, there was far less marine traffic



Well, it rather depends if you're talking about the Allies or the Axis. Clearly, German leadership was obsessed with dive bombers, as evidenced by the faintly ridiculous requirement for the Ju88 to be capable of dive bombing.

The British levied the requirement that led to the Hawker Henley combined light bomber and dive bomber which first flew in 1937. However, interest in dive bombing was limited, a view that was reinforced by the tactical limitations of the Stuka that were thoroughly exposed in the Battle of Britain. 

Bottom line is that, although there was much interest in dive bombers, the tactical environment in Europe from mid 1940 onwards was not suitable for dive bomber operations.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 25, 2019)

The reason why the SBD and CVEs weren't as prevelant in the ETO/MTO as they were in the PTO also stems from numbers on hand.
By 7 December 1941, the USN only had one CVE: USS Long Island.
Mid-1942 saw several Bogue class CVEs become available and by 1943, the number of CVEs coming into service were in considerable numbers.
Following this timeline, aside from the priority of convoy protection, many critical battles in the MTO had passed.
Add to that, that the SBD (as mentioned above) was ill-suited for operations aboard the majority of CVEs because of space issues. 
Additionally, by late 1942/early 1943, the TBF/TBM was proving to be effective as a bomber in it's own right, meaning that a CVE could take advantage of the TBF/TBM's ability to carry up to 2,000 of bombs or it's FFAR/HVAR for ASW or striking enemy positions while carrying more TBF/TBMs than it could the SBD.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Well, it rather depends if you're talking about the Allies or the Axis. Clearly, German leadership was obsessed with dive bombers, as evidenced by the faintly ridiculous requirement for the Ju88 to be capable of dive bombing.



That may not have been a mistake. The Ju 88 could actually do 'partial' dive bombing, as at in a moderate dive angle, which seemed to enhance it's bombing accuracy particularly against ships. Ju 88 was a prominent ship-killer in the Med, limited mostly just by range. It's performance was such that Hurricanes did not seem to be able to intercept it and only Spits or P-40s ever shot them down (not sure of a Martlet or Wildcat could catch one or not) and it's accuracy was such that sinking ships were often left in the wake of their attacks.

The real example of what you are getting at is when the German authorities demanded that they make the He 177 into a dive bomber which seems to have really helped to mess up that particular aircraft development programme. But there was a reason they were so obsessed with dive bombers - they made a big difference.



> The British levied the requirement that led to the Hawker Henley combined light bomber and dive bomber which first flew in 1937. However, interest in dive bombing was limited, a view that was reinforced by the tactical limitations of the Stuka that were thoroughly exposed in the Battle of Britain.



The Stuka didn't do so great in the BoB, (though better in the '_kanalkampf_' I think) but that may have in part been how it was utilized - in large formations to attack Strategic targets, it proved vulnerable. This narrative about how the Stuka met it's match in the BoB however is often overplayed. People seem to forget that the Stuka was doing a great deal of damage in Russia and in North Africa. Lets remember that early German tanks were not like Tigers and Panthers. Though initially they were up against a lot of obsolete it, it wasn't long before their relatively short guns fairly thin armor meant they were only moderately superior to most of their opposition, largely due to less quantifiable qualities like gun / sight accuracy, leadership and training, and sometimes tank to tank, not at all. The Ju 87 was the key to armored breakthroughs in many battles in Russia in 1941-1943 and in many of Rommel's victories too, just like they had been in France in 1940. And they did not seem to suffer the kind of casualties over Libya or Egypt, or over the Volga as they did in the Battle of Britain.

I think the integrated British defense in the BoB also played a substantial role, but so did sending big fleets of Ju 87s and expecting them to fend off Hurricanes and Spitfires with their defensive guns.

In the Kanalkampf, per the wiki, the Germans lost 22 stukas but sunk 35 merchant ships and 4 destroyers which is a pretty good trade. That they also lost 100 "medium bombers" to me shows that the Ju 87, like the SBD, was actually pretty good at surviving under certain circumstances compared to other types



> Bottom line is that, although there was much interest in dive bombers, the tactical environment in Europe from mid 1940 onwards was not suitable for dive bomber operations.



Well if you include Ukraine, Russia etc. as part of Europe, and Italy, that would seem to be incorrect. I would say the real dividing line was some time in late 1943 which is when the Germans started switching from Ju-87s to Fw 190 fighter-bombers.

I think the two real reasons the Allies didn't make more use of Dive Bombers is that they didn't manage to produce any good ones after the SBD. The SBD was good but, probably too slow for the MTO by some time in 1943 at the latest, mainly due to enemy AAA, and also to planes like the Fw 190.

The SB2C as we know came later than expected and with a lot of problems that took quite a while to sort out. If that had been a wild success earlier on (just as an airplane I mean) it probably would have seen much more use including in the Med. The A-36 / Allison Mustang dive bomber was actually pretty good - the high speed and special tactics they developed enabled it to survive the very dangerous environment of high value German targets and it was accurate. But they had some mysterious crashes and the bosses decided it didn't have the structural strength for the dive bombing job.

A host of other dive bomber designs basically failed or came too late to see action. The Albacore was an anachronism which wasn't really safe to use except in low-threat environments, the Skua was certainly obsolete for any but fringe areas by 1941. The Vengeance and the Vought Vindicator were disappointments...







... and the Douglas BTD Destroyer (which looks pretty damn good on paper) and Martin Mauler came too late to play any role.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Just to be clear, I'm just theorizing there for the most part I'm not saying I know "for sure" anything about Allied dive bomber policy


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Stuka didn't do so great in the BoB, (though better in the '_kanalkampf_' I think) but that may have in part been how it was utilized - in large formations to attack Strategic targets, it proved vulnerable. This narrative about how the Stuka met it's match in the BoB however is often overplayed. People seem to forget that the Stuka was doing a great deal of damage in Russia and in North Africa. Lets remember that early German tanks were not like Tigers and Panthers. Though initially they were up against a lot of obsolete it, it wasn't long before their relatively short guns fairly thin armor meant they were only moderately superior to most of their opposition, largely due to less quantifiable qualities like gun / sight accuracy, leadership and training, and sometimes tank to tank, not at all. The Ju 87 was the key to armored breakthroughs in many battles in Russia in 1941-1943 and in many of Rommel's victories too, just like they had been in France in 1940. And they did not seem to suffer the kind of casualties over Libya or Egypt, or over the Volga as they did in the Battle of Britain.
> 
> I think the integrated British defense in the BoB also played a substantial role, but so did sending big fleets of Ju 87s and expecting them to fend off Hurricanes and Spitfires with their defensive guns.



But that's exactly my point. In the European theatre, with highly-developed IADS, the dive bomber was nothing but a target. Yes, it could be used against shipping or in theatres like Africa which lacked IADS but--and it's a big BUT--the Allies were not going to throw dive bombers into the fray in Europe. That would simply be a waste of men and machines. 




Schweik said:


> Well if you include Ukraine, Russia etc. as part of Europe, and Italy, that would seem to be incorrect. I would say the real dividing line was some time in late 1943 which is when the Germans started switching from Ju-87s to Fw 190 fighter-bombers.



I don't consider the Russian Front to be part of the European theatre. Ju-87s were not used operationally in IADS-capable environments after 1940, which about says it all for the utility of dive bombers in such tactical situations.





Schweik said:


> I think the two real reasons the Allies didn't make more use of Dive Bombers is that they didn't manage to produce any good ones after the SBD. The SBD was good but, probably too slow for the MTO by some time in 1943 at the latest, mainly due to enemy AAA, and also to planes like the Fw 190.



No. The Allies didn't make more use of dive bombers because the roles they fulfilled could be done as well or better by existing fighter aircraft, and in a much more survivable manner. The dive bomber had its heyday in the period 1939-1941. By 1942, they could only be used where there wasn't a significant air threat...and shortly after that, they started being replaced by fighters pretty much everywhere. The only reason any were retained was because local tactical conditions (eg in Burma) permitted their use but even then, they would eventually be replaced. 

The concept of the dive bomber was valid early in WW2 but was obsolete by the middle of the war, except in low threat environments. That's why not a single dive bomber entered military service after 1945.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Well that is one way of looking at it, here's another:

If by IADS you mean "Integrated Air Defense System" or something like that, then I would say this - I don't think there was ever a dive bomber which was going to be good at attacking a target defended by "IADS". These are the wrong kinds of targets and the wrong type of defense for a dive bomber to try to cope with.

The typical targets for a dive bomber (in my opinion) would be 1) on the sea or 2) on the battlefield. In neither case would you normally face a true "IADS" in the pre-digital era - on the open ocean there is a limited amount of air defense, and one which can be attrited by the bombers themselves. On the battlefield by definition as you approach the front lines the organized defenses break down, and this is where dive bombers proved to be most useful, again well into the mid-war, in fact I would say through the end of 1943 and into 1944.











(images from Wikipedia)

Of course gradually through the war both battlefield and naval defenses improved, which was generally matched by a corresponding increase in speed by the Tactical bombers, which increasingly were mostly fighter-bombers. There was a point beyond which the successful early and pre-war designs (basically SBD, D3A and Ju 87) could no longer keep up, and they never did come up with suitable replacements though several countries put a lot of money and effort into trying. Most of their efforts, as we just discussed, were "design fails" or else they came too late.





(image Wikipedia)

By the end of the war, all the propeller driven aircraft types were facing replacement, starting with the fighters, by jets. The basic nature of dive bombing - which required the aircraft to slow the dive (so as to keep below trans-sonic speed basically) with dive brakes, was a bad match for jets. Jets, especially early jets, didn't do so great at slower speeds so I don't think jets fit with the dive bomber design. I would say the same with torpedo bombers as well. But they did have the capacity to carry rockets which was the first post-war weapon type most favored for ground attack - along with napalm and for a brief era of madness, Tactical Nuclear Weapons.

Of course prop fighters were still being used for precision / long loiter CAS through the Vietnam era, but that is similar to the role played by biplanes and other specialized attack types in WW2.

Eventually by the 1960's we had a return to another technology pioneered during WW2, guided munitions, which is mostly what we use today when precision bombing is needed. No need for a dive bomber when you have a paveway or a maverick, or a hellfire...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2019)

It was, in large part, due to the large increase in organic AA (Integrated Air Defense System ???) during the war in *some* armies.

British expeditionary force in France in 1940 had four of these per battalion according to the "book". 




Later in they put two Bren guns on each mount.
The next size up AA gun in the British Army at the time was the 3in 20cwt AA gun. 120 with the BEF in France but along with 48 of the 3.7in AA guns they had to cover 9-10 field divisions, the airfields, and the port facilities. 




a somewhat updated relic of WW I





By some point in 1944 most British infantry divisions in France had 72 of the 40mm Bofors guns plus assorted 20mm guns and a varied assortment of the good old Bren guns on AA mountings. The 3.7in went with the Army but wasn't mobile enough to really keep up with the front line troops. 

The Americans and Germans also had vast increases in Light AA guns during the war. 
for the Americans the armoured divisions started with these in NA




A 37mm and two .50 cal

from wiki so take as you will.
"The M15 was first used during Operation Torch, the November 1942 Anglo-American invasion of North Africa. Tracer ammunition from the machine guns was used to bring the main gun onto the target when engaging enemy aircraft. T28E1 crews shot down more than a hundred aircraft during Operation Torch, the Battle of Kasserine Pass, and the Allied Invasion of Sicily, shooting down thirty-nine at Kasserine alone. ......During the Allied Invasion of Sicily, 78 T28E1s helped provide anti-aircraft fire for the invasion force. They were especially effective against low-flying aircraft, like Stuka dive bombers. T28E1s were used in Italy until the end of the war. "

The T28E1 was the early version without armor on the gun mount and with two water cooled .50s with the 37MM. 

Wiki again "Each US Army armored division was allocated an anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) battalion of four companies, each equipped with eight M15 CGMCs and eight M45 Quadmount-equipped M16 MGMCs. At corps and army level, each AAA battalion was equipped with thirty-two of each vehicle. After first seeing action in the Allied invasion of Italy, the M15 and M15A1 served through the rest of the Italian Campaign, the Allied invasion of Normandy, Operation Dragoon in southern France, and throughout the fighting on the Western Front. "
Infantry divisions would be equipped with similar numbers of guns, many on trailers or trucks. 


The French were knocked out early, the Italian industry could never keep up with demand, the Japanese likewise had poor designs, and nowhere near enough of what they did have. It took the Russians a while to get the numbers needed into the field. 

Success or failure of one countries dive bombers/close support aircraft has to take into account the AA defences of their opponents and not just the opponents fighter assets. 
AA guns have done their job if they cause the attacking aircraft to drop early and miss, drop wide or attack another target altogether.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It was, in large part, due to the large increase in organic AA (Integrated Air Defense System ???) during the war in *some* armies.
> 
> Wiki again "Each US Army armored division was allocated an anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) battalion of four companies, each equipped with eight M15 CGMCs *and eight M45 Quadmount-equipped M16 MGMCs. *



Yes, this was basically the point I was making - which is why I posted that image of the M16 MGMC in the post you are replying to. The increasing proliferation of the multi-barrelled HMG and light cannon armed AAA did eventually start making the battlefield too hairy for the 1st generation of dive bombers, though I don't think the American kit was quite ubiquitous enough to make that much of a difference yet at Kasserine pass. It was only about 6 months after that that the Stuka was being phased out in favor of the Fw 190.

However that was still a pretty long run - 1936 - 1944 basically. For a 1st generation dive bomber with only incremental improvements (albeit quite a few of them).

The BEF in 1940 did not have enough truly dangerous mobile AAA to forestall the Stukas. Neither did the Desert Rats or the Russians until quite late.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 26, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Success or failure of one countries dive bombers/close support aircraft has to take into account the AA defences of their opponents and not just the opponents fighter assets.
> AA guns have done their job if they cause the attacking aircraft to drop early and miss, drop wide or attack another target altogether.


But at sea the ships are firing at them too. What’s the difference whether the fire is coming from the ground or the ships?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> But at sea the ships are firing at them too. What’s the difference whether the fire is coming from the ground or the ships?


I think the context of that post was a discussion of why dive bombers in general and SBDs in particular were less prevalent in land warfare in Europe and Africa.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 26, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> But at sea the ships are firing at them too. What’s the difference whether the fire is coming from the ground or the ships?



Because, for the most part, the ship (ie target) is only shooting at the dive bomber during the attack phase. Unless you're conducting real tactical edge CAS, hitting land targets means traversing large areas of enemy territory that will also have localized defences, not to mention battling past defensive fighter CAPs. 

That's a LOT more time where a dive bomber is exposed to attack while carrying a bomb. Hence my question earlier in the thread about how often the SBD had to fight through to a target.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 26, 2019)

I would say it got more dangerous for all dive bombers and any kind of low-level attack planes in general as the war progressed, and speed therefore became more important. Both ships and armored columns got more effective AAA ordinance and delivery systems. Flak suppression was another option for maritime / naval strikes ala General Kennney in the South Pacific with the strafers and skip-bombers.

Also when I say "first generation dive bombers" I should stipulate I mean "first generation mass produced WW2 dive bombers". I know they had them before the war too.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 26, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Because, for the most part, the ship (ie target) is only shooting at the dive bomber during the attack phase. Unless you're conducting real tactical edge CAS, hitting land targets means traversing large areas of enemy territory that will also have localized defences, not to mention battling past defensive fighter CAPs.
> 
> That's a LOT more time where a dive bomber is exposed to attack while carrying a bomb. Hence my question earlier in the thread about how often the SBD had to fight through to a target.


But it's not only the target ship firing at them, as though to believe, it's only once a ship figures out it's the target, it starts firing. It's the whole fleet of ships throwing that flack into the skies. I wonder how the land dive bombers would have made out against that? I wonder if they'd even get anywhere near their targets for it. The SBDs got in there, from all accounts. A few didn't, but that wasn't for the ship-fire, it was for the fighter-harassment. And when the ones that got in, got in, unless their angles were impeded, they either hit their targets, or didn't miss by much when they did miss. There were other reasons they didn't see the action in Europe and Africa they did in the Pacific, I think. Still, by late 1944, CASU-24 was fleeting some of them in the Atlantic. For what reason, I don't know exactly.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 26, 2019)

And while we're at it, let's endeavor to keep our heads out of the sand. For combat purposes, the SBDs were one-purpose aircraft, dive bombing. That was it. There wasn't anything else. That's why the F6Fs and F4Us, VBF aircraft, were able, for the most part, to supplant them, again, in their combat roles...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 26, 2019)

Pretty little thing...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> Pretty little thing...
> 
> View attachment 542928


Beauty is as beauty does. The only person I've ever met who flew Helldivers in combat said it would bite you in the ass if you looked away for a second. He said on most missions there were more losses to accidents and mechanical failure than to enemy action. Said there was no such thing as a survivable landing accident on the carrier with them, and they ditched "like a crash-diving submarine".
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 26, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> And while we're at it, let's endeavor to keep our heads out of the sand. For combat purposes, the SBDs were one-purpose aircraft, dive bombing. That was it. There wasn't anything else. That's why the F6Fs and F4Us, VBF aircraft, were able, for the most part, to supplant them, again, in their combat roles...



Actually it was dive bomber, scout, emergency fighter, and ASW. Used in all four roles historically, if you want to keep your head out of the sand.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 26, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Beauty is as beauty does. The only person I've ever met who flew Helldivers in combat said it would bite you in the ass if you looked away for a second. He said most missions there were more losses to accidents and mechanical failure than to enemy action. Said there was no such thing as a survivable landing accident on the carrier with them, and they ditched "like a crash-diving submarine".
> Cheers,
> Wes



Yikes ... scary. Yeah there were some major design flaws with those things which, reminiscent of some comments Shortround6 made upthread, apparently came down to the size of the elevator on the carrier. The aircraft they designed was really too big for that elevator (and that itself was probably a mistake because bigger usually means slower). They tried to cram it all into that small square and had to shorten the airframe which was a source of a lot of the stability and handling problems. The rest was probably due to the engine. You can tell just looking at it, the backseater doesn't have enough room to train his guns... and his position takes a very awkward chunk out of the whole back fuselage which can't be good for aerodynamics. And the tail looks way oversized in a futile attempt to compensate. Giant tail fins are a sign of design trouble on an airplane IMO.






Almost a 50' wingspan seems a bit too much for a single-engined carrier aircraft to me. And while it was faster, the Helldiver really didn't offer much of an improvement over the much smaller and nicer flying SBD in terms of combat effectiveness. It had inferior range and a much higher accident rate, lower reliability / availability rate and I doubt any improvement in bombing accuracy. I think the thing was just too big from the get-go and it went downhill from there.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 26, 2019)

It did have folding wings though. I think if they could have put maybe an R-2800 in the SBD and give it folding wings, they could have had a much better solution.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> But it's not only the target ship firing at them, as though to believe, it's only once a ship figures out it's the target, it starts firing. It's the whole fleet of ships throwing that flack into the skies.


Yes, but at their approach altitudes, dive bombers are looking at impressive looking, but not very effective flak, especially where the Japanese are concerned. Unless, of course, you're talking about radar guided 88s, which were a non-event in the PTO. IJN wasn't that sophisticated. It's only when they pick their targets and begin their dives that they get into the zone of truly accurate fire. And if they're crippled in the dive, they're likely to splash either on or right next to their target.
ETO, they're much more likely to encounter higher level accurate flak.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2019)

Schweik said:


> and I doubt any improvement in bombing accuracy.


The Captain (who had flown SBDs in training) said they were rock steady in a dive, while the Helldiver was "like a squirrel with epilepsy" in a dive.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 26, 2019)

> Yes, but at their approach altitudes, dive bombers are looking at impressive looking, but not very effective flak, especially where the Japanese are concerned. Unless, of course, you're talking about radar guided 88s, which were a non-event in the PTO. IJN wasn't that sophisticated. It's only when they pick their targets and begin their dives that they get into the zone of truly accurate fire. And if they're crippled in the dive, they're likely to splash either on or right next to their target.
> ETO, they're much more likely to encounter higher level accurate flak.
> Cheers,
> Wes



But you don't have so many radar guided guns on the battlefield, very near the front lines, which is where the pin-point accuracy of the dive bomber was most useful (and most widely used, by the Germans and also by the Anglo-Americans with their A-36 and all the fighter bombers). This is is where the dive bomber had it's main role in the land war - 200 meters in front of the friendly tanks. When the Anglo-Americans tried to do strikes like that with medium and heavy bombers it often backfired with horrendous friendly fire incidents and rarely did much to the enemy (with a few lucky exceptions). The dive bomber shared this space with fighters and dedicated ground attack aircraft (both light, ala HS 123 or I-153, and heavy ala HS 129 and Il2 Sturmovik). But as we discussed upthread the increasing proliferation of multi-barreled flak vehicles with the HMGs and light cannon started making this a dangerous proposition by late 1943.

In a naval context there were also ways of confusing even good flak, and I don't think there were any German ships, fleets or convoys that could have survived attack by USN carrier wing while out to sea, without air cover.

I think there is a separate mission we are sometimes alluding to here, which is the deep intruder or interdiction strike. Going after rail yards, ammunition dumps and bridges and troop concentrations and so on, substantially behind the lines. For that you want something very fast, the Mosquito in particular was well suited to this type of mission. Others used this way include the A-20, Ju 88, Pe-2, Beaufighter (for a while), the Bf 110 and P-38 as fighter bombers, and various single engined fighter bombers that had a bit longer legs: Fw 190, P-40, P-51, P-47, Typhoon, Tempest, Corsair, and so on. Later in the war the A-26 Invader. Dangerous missions and only a few types could pull it off within an acceptable loss rate. Even the Hudson and I think possibly the Ventura were pressed into this kind of service. Later intruder missions of this type were done at night, this was how the Soviets used the B-25 and to some extent eventually, the A-20 - to fly intruder missions at night though obviously the target destruction rate declined.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 26, 2019)

Just an FYI, the Douglas A-24 (9,200 lb.) was just slightly lighter than the
SBD-3 (9,400 lb.).
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
Page 3, Hurricane vs. A-24.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 26, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Actually it was dive bomber, scout, emergency fighter, and ASW. Used in all four roles historically, if you want to keep your head out of the sand.


That's why I conditioned the point I was making on, "For combat purposes..." We already went over these non-combat purposes that evidently just occurred to you, several pages back, so you're not exactly being full of news, here.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 26, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Yes, but at their approach altitudes, dive bombers are looking at impressive looking, but not very effective flak, especially where the Japanese are concerned. Unless, of course, you're talking about radar guided 88s, which were a non-event in the PTO. IJN wasn't that sophisticated. It's only when they pick their targets and begin their dives that they get into the zone of truly accurate fire. And if they're crippled in the dive, they're likely to splash either on or right next to their target.
> ETO, they're much more likely to encounter higher level accurate flak.
> Cheers,
> Wes


The other ships were just basically picking a spot in the sky and shooting at it, hoping something diving at the fleet runs into it, but that was about the sophistication of their "flak." It was hardly as organized, and, as such, hardly as accurate, I guess that's right.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 26, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Beauty is as beauty does. The only person I've ever met who flew Helldivers in combat said it would bite you in the ass if you looked away for a second. He said on most missions there were more losses to accidents and mechanical failure than to enemy action. Said there was no such thing as a survivable landing accident on the carrier with them, and they ditched "like a crash-diving submarine".
> Cheers,
> Wes


Wow, ive read they were tricky to fly and land but that REALLY sounds bad.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Wow, ive read they were tricky to fly and land but that REALLY sounds bad.


You lose enough friends in them, it tends to sour your attitude. And the skipper was spring-loaded to the "sourpuss" position.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> I conditioned the point I was making on, "For combat purposes..." We already went over these non-combat purposes


Since when are ASW and emergency fighter "non-combat"?? Tackling a surfaced sub with its AA guns or an enemy fighter or bomber with its armament sounds a lot like combat to me. Admittedly these are not its primary mission (scouting IS) but to call them non-combat is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 26, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Since when are ASW and emergency fighter "non-combat"?? Tackling a surfaced sub with its AA guns or an enemy fighter or bomber with its armament sounds a lot like combat to me. Admittedly these are not its primary mission (scouting IS) but to call them non-combat is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?


They were relegated to attacking subs in the Atlantic, I know, but that wasn't their, OK, "primary" combat purpose. That purpose came largely just after the F6F and F4U all but took over their primary combat purpose in the Pacific, which, again, was dive bombing. And that was my point. CASU-24 put them to chasing subs, but that was only late in the War, when they were basically washed-up in the Pacific, for the F6F and F4U. When did this Captain you know get his training on the SBD? If it was 1944, they were figuring him for the Atlantic, not the Pacific.

I agree with your post, BTW. I should have said something to the effect, "incidental to their primary combat purpose," as their guns obviously had a combat purpose. So, FWIW. Now get off my back, lol...


----------



## Schweik (Jun 26, 2019)

Actually they were intensively used in the Pacific for ASW, 'sub patrol' was probably the single most common mission they did. Dive bombing was the most important offensive mission but the ASW stuff was critical too, for survival of the carrier. As you know a few were lost to IJN Sumarines.

Also I believe that photo is an SB2C but it's cool anyway....


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 26, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Actually they were intensively used in the Pacific for ASW, 'sub patrol' was probably the single most common mission they did. Dive bombing was the most important offensive mission but the ASW stuff was critical too, for survival of the carrier. As you know a few were lost to IJN Sumarines.
> 
> Also I believe that photo is an SB2C but it's cool anyway....


Yes. That picture is a frame from an 8-second video I was trying to load. Here she is, just kicking back...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 26, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Since when are ASW and emergency fighter "non-combat"?? Tackling a surfaced sub with its AA guns or an enemy fighter or bomber with its armament sounds a lot like combat to me. Admittedly these are not its primary mission (scouting IS) but to call them non-combat is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?



When Radar and the Leigh Light took away the advantage of transiting at night, Doenitz ordered the U-Boats to transit the Bay of Biscaye by day and fight it out on the surface with ASW aircraft, in the end that didn't work either.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> When did this Captain you know get his training on the SBD? If it was 1944, they were figuring him for the Atlantic, not the Pacific.


He was never a fleet Dauntless pilot, as they were out of frontline service at the time. On his way to the Helldiver, he flew the SBD in the training pipeline, as an advanced trainer. He was around for Iwo and Okinawa, and the rampages of TF38 and 58. I was never "friends" with him, as he was base CO, and I was a lowly 3rd Class Petty Officer, and only got to meet him because my barracks roommate worked in Admin, and I got invited to a dinner where the fighter pilots from the RAG squadron quizzed the skipper about his experiences. I just sat there and listened and counted my blessings.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 26, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> He was never a fleet Dauntless pilot, as they were out of frontline service at the time. On his way to the Helldiver, he flew the SBD in the training pipeline, as an advanced trainer. He was around for Iwo and Okinawa, and the rampages of TF38 and 58. I was never "friends" with him, as he was base CO, and I was a lowly 3rd Class Petty Officer, and only got to meet him because my barracks roommate worked in Admin, and I got invited to a dinner where the fighter pilots from the RAG squadron quizzed the skipper about his experiences. I just sat there and listened and counted my blessings.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Oh. So anyway, Wes, what was _your_ job, running the dice games? Lol. But actually, I have a basis in saying that. These games on the carriers, from what I've been told, were bankrolled by what we here in Chicago affectionately refer to as "The Outfit," while the CPOs ran the games. Call it a little slice of the PTO coming to Wikipedia not anytime soon, I'm sure, lol...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 27, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> Oh. So anyway, Wes, what was _your_ job, running the dice games?


Funny, the dice games, reputedly so prevalent on shipboard, never seemed to happen at our base, but if you were so inclined, you could lose your paycheck pretty quick at poker or acey ducey.
My actual job was to maintain and operate a radar interception and electronics countermeasures trainer for the F4, in support of the RAG squadron detachment which specialized in the ACM portion of the syllabus. Interesting work for an airplane nut, working with aviators and their students and enacting various interception and ACM scenarios as seen from the back seat of a Phantom.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 27, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Funny, the dice games, reputedly so prevalent on shipboard, never seemed to happen at our base, but if you were so inclined, you could lose your paycheck pretty quick at poker or acey ducey.
> My actual job was to maintain and operate a radar interception and electronics countermeasures trainer for the F4, in support of the RAG squadron detachment which specialized in the ACM portion of the syllabus. Interesting work for an airplane nut, working with aviators and their students and enacting various interception and ACM scenarios as seen from the back seat of a Phantom.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Funny, I just saw an F4 Phantom a couple of days ago, on my lunch break. It’s in a small museum, and it was described to me as a “replica.” I just saw it from outside the fence. What monsters these were!

Unfortunately, I didn’t take a picture of it, as I was pressed for time. I got this one of the 109 replica they got there, though, below.

But ah, the peculiarities of that big War. For all the historians know, I’m convinced there’s probably as much they’ll never know. Just the way it is.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 27, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> Funny, I just saw an F4 Phantom a couple of days ago, on my lunch break. It’s in a small museum, and it was described to me as a “replica.” I just saw it from outside the fence. What monsters these were!


My barracks was barely 100 yards from the approach end of runway 13, and when a flight of four lit their burners for takeoff, it felt like 7.3 Richter. Getting into the back seat was an acrobatic exercise, involving climbing an 8 foot boarding ladder to the front cockpit, then crawling along the top of the intake duct to the back seat, and slithering down into the stately armchair provided by Messieurs Martin and Baker (thank you, Great Britain) without stepping on anything important (like the ejection seat safety locks), or snagging the umbilicals dangling from your flight gear.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 27, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Funny, the dice games, reputedly so prevalent on shipboard, never seemed to happen at our base, but if you were so inclined, you could lose your paycheck pretty quick at poker or acey ducey.
> My actual job was to maintain and operate a radar interception and electronics countermeasures trainer for the F4, in support of the RAG squadron detachment which specialized in the ACM portion of the syllabus. Interesting work for an airplane nut, working with aviators and their students and enacting various interception and ACM scenarios as seen from the back seat of a Phantom.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Very cool. I mentioned this in a previous post along time ago so my apologies to those who have already read this but my grandfather worked at Douglas, soon to become McDonnell Douglas most of his adult life and worked on just about everything from the Dc3 to the F15 including the Phantom. 
It's very possible he could have made parts for the plane you flew in. Just thought that is kinda neat.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 27, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> It's very possible he could have made parts for the plane you flew in. Just thought that is kinda neat.


These birds were hatched circa 1968/69/70, before the McD-D wedding. They had all done a tour in SEA before they came to us. In fact shore duty units like the RAG squadron were considered a good "light duty" assignment for airframes that had been overstressed/abused and deemed not safe for shipboard operation.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 28, 2019)

I just saw the trailer for the new movie Midway, looks like tons of CGI footage of SBDs and a story line with a lot of Hollywood artistic license. 

Midway – Official Movie Site

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 28, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> I just saw the trailer for the new movie Midway, looks like tons of CGI footage of SBDs and a story line with a lot of Hollywood artistic license.
> 
> Midway – Official Movie Site


“Official _Movie _Site?” Lol. Talk about “artistic license,” this looks more like a cartoon than a movie.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 28, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> “Official _Movie _Site?” Lol. Talk about “artistic license,” this looks more like a cartoon than a movie.


Virtual "electronic warfare". Calculated to continue the mythologies that have inhibited reality around every war ever since the "big one".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 28, 2019)

It does look a bit cartoonish judging from the trailer. However, it has SBDs in it and is about Midway so it can't be all bad.......i hope.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 28, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> It does look a bit cartoonish judging from the trailer. However, it has SBDs in it and is about Midway so it can't be all bad.......i hope.



Hollywood has to add love and drama to even the most exciting topics like Midway, look at the 1976 movie. A movie like the Longest Day would never make it today.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> It does look a bit cartoonish judging from the trailer. However, it has SBDs in it and is about Midway so it can't be all bad.......i hope.


"Pearl Harbor" had P-40s in it and that movie was a complete dumpster fire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 28, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yikes ... scary. Yeah there were some major design flaws with those things which, reminiscent of some comments Shortround6 made upthread, apparently came down to the size of the elevator on the carrier. The aircraft they designed was really too big for that elevator (and that itself was probably a mistake because bigger usually means slower). They tried to cram it all into that small square and had to shorten the airframe which was a source of a lot of the stability and handling problems. The rest was probably due to the engine. You can tell just looking at it, the backseater doesn't have enough room to train his guns... and his position takes a very awkward chunk out of the whole back fuselage which can't be good for aerodynamics. And the tail looks way oversized in a futile attempt to compensate. Giant tail fins are a sign of design trouble on an airplane IMO.
> 
> View attachment 542930
> 
> ...



The SB2C-1 was a bit of a nightmare, but to be fair, the -3 and later variants were much improved. When the perforated flap was introduced in the -4 (IIRC) it was definitely superior to the SBD in most every way and it had folding wings. When a quick torpedo bomber conversion kit was introduced, there were even calls to use the SB2C-4/5 as combined torpedo/divebombers and remove the TBF from fleet carriers.

The SB2C-3/4/5 could carry double the bomb load of an SBD to a greater range.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 28, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> "Pearl Harbor" had P-40s in it and that movie was a complete dumpster fire.


Unfortunately I have to agree. Watching Pearl Harbor" was probably the biggest cinematic disappointment I can think of.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The SB2C-3/4/5 could carry double the bomb load of an SBD to a greater range.



That may require some careful consideration. There is no doubt that the SB2C could carry a heavier payload further (and much faster) but double the payload requires a bit of finagling. 

The Helldiver could carry one large bomb in the bomb bay. Like 1000lbs or above. The Dauntless could carry a 1000lb bomb under fuselage, Both (in the later versions of the SBD) were rated to carry a 1600lb AP bomb and the Helldiver was rated to carry a 2000lb while the Dauntless was not. The Helldiver could carry two 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and the Dauntless had to go to wing racks to carry more than one bomb. 
The Dauntless was rated at up to 325lbs under each wing while the SB2C kept changing, During the war it was pretty much up to 500lbs under each wing, post war the SB2C-5 was rated at 1000lbs under each wing. However there is some evidence that only 2 squadrons of SB2C-5s saw combat during the war (in late July or Aug of 1945) so only the SB2C-3/4 should be counted. 

The SBD was also constantly evolving and an SBD-6 with the 1300/1350hp engine was operated somewhat heavier than an SBD-3 and had a different bomb load/radius capability. 

Once again, there is no doubt that the SB2C could carry a bigger load further and faster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 29, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> That may require some careful consideration. There is no doubt that the SB2C could carry a heavier payload further (and much faster) but double the payload requires a bit of finagling.
> 
> The Helldiver could carry one large bomb in the bomb bay. Like 1000lbs or above. The Dauntless could carry a 1000lb bomb under fuselage, Both (in the later versions of the SBD) were rated to carry a 1600lb AP bomb and the Helldiver was rated to carry a 2000lb while the Dauntless was not. The Helldiver could carry two 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and the Dauntless had to go to wing racks to carry more than one bomb.
> The Dauntless was rated at up to 325lbs under each wing while the SB2C kept changing, During the war it was pretty much up to 500lbs under each wing, post war the SB2C-5 was rated at 1000lbs under each wing. However there is some evidence that only 2 squadrons of SB2C-5s saw combat during the war (in late July or Aug of 1945) so only the SB2C-3/4 should be counted.
> ...



From a CV-6 action report:


> On both the 24th and 25th, the SB2Cs carried two 1000# bombs, either two SAP or an AP and SAP. The double load was found feasible on this ship while experimenting with a substitute for 1000# SAP trunion bands. While at MANUS, during our last re-arming, the ship was only able to obtain about 30 such bands. A 500# GP trunion band was tried on a 1000# SAP bomb by using ordinary 3/8" bolts, 5" long. The bolt length was necessary to permit pulling the band together. This rig resulted in a slight displacement of the trunions that was not sufficient, however, to affect accuracy. With these bands it was recognized that the normal bomb bay arrangement for two 500# GP bombs could be used and, therefore, two 1000# SAP bombs could easily be carried. Shortly after this discovery, word was received of a similar effect accomplished by cutting off the long trunions on the 1000# SAP band.
> 
> The mixed load of AP and SAP bombs apparently was effective against combatant ship targets.
> Action Report: 22-31 October 1944 (Serial 0056)



AFAIK, no carrier based SBD ever carried more than 1000lbs of bombs because of the need to delete fuel to carry a heavier load.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2019)

Thank you for the information. 

Some of the later SPDs were allowed higher gross weights than the early ones but they still were not going to carry full fuel with a 1600lb or a 1000lb bomd plus wing bombs.
Interestingly an SPD-5 and an SB2C-2 needed about the same take-off run carrying a 1000lb and full fuel for either plane (260 gallons for the SPD-5 and 330 gallons for the SB2C-2)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 29, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> From a CV-6 action report:
> 
> AFAIK, no carrier based SBD ever carried more than 1000lbs of bombs because of the need to delete fuel to carry a heavier load.


That was because all they needed was one. Let’s remember the primary purpose for which these machines were built. One shot, that’s it. Get it on the button, then get out. That was why they trained so hard to make that one shot count. These pilots were hitting 4 for 5 and 5 for 5 by the time they were qualified in the SBD-3s and 5s. Concededly these were ideal situations, and the tactical compliment didn’t always prepare them for the real thing. No amount of tactical training can. But the point is, they weren’t looking to come back and drop more bombs. All they needed was one, and get it on the mark. That was their curriculum, or primary one. Everything else was secondary to that.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 29, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> That was because all they needed was one. Let’s remember the primary purpose for which these machines were built. One shot, that’s it. Get it on the button, then get out. That was why they trained so hard to make that one shot count. These pilots were hitting 4 for 5 and 5 for 5 by the time they were qualified in the SBD-3s and 5s. Concededly these were idea situations, and the tactical compliment didn’t always prepare them for the real thing. No amount of tactical training can. But the point is, they weren’t looking to come back and drop more bombs. All they needed was one, and get it on the mark. That was their curriculum, or primary one. Everything else was secondary to that.



The SB2C-3/4/5 would drop both it's thousand lb bombs at the same time or alternately a single 2000lb bomb or a single 1600lb bomb. Carrier based SBDs were limited by aircraft TO characteristics and fuel load to 1000lb and then only when ranged aft. Forward ranged SBDs were often limited to 500lb bomb loads. Additionally SB2C-3/4/5 (these variants had upgraded engines with 1900hp at TO) could carry DTs for even more range. It seems pretty certain that the SB2C-3/4/5 was considerably superior to the SBD, which is why the SBD was removed from carrier service with the arrival of the SB2C-3.

However even with the perforated flaps, the SBC2 was considerably heavier than the design weight and with a full bomb load gained speed during the dive unlike the SBD, and this meant that the SB2C used a stepped dive, with the final dive run beginning at 12K ft, IIRC.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 29, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> One shot, that’s it. Get it on the button, then get out.





VBF-13 said:


> the point is, they weren’t looking to come back and drop more bombs. All they needed was one, and get it on the mark.


The lesson written in blood from WWII to Iraq/Afghanistan: Strike and skedaddle. Repeat attack runs are suicidal.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 29, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The SB2C-3/4/5 would drop both it's thousand lb bombs at the same time or alternately a single 2000lb bomb or a single 1600lb bomb. Carrier based SBDs were limited by aircraft TO characteristics and fuel load to 1000lb and then only when ranged aft. Forward ranged SBDs were often limited to 500lb bomb loads. Additionally SB2C-3/4/5 (these variants had upgraded engines with 1900hp at TO) could carry DTs for even more range. It seems pretty certain that the SB2C-3/4/5 was considerably superior to the SBD, which is why the SBD was removed from carrier service with the arrival of the SB2C-3.
> 
> However even with the perforated flaps, the SBC2 was considerably heavier than the design weight and with a full bomb load gained speed during the dive unlike the SBD, and this meant that the SB2C used a stepped dive, with the final dive run beginning at 12K ft, IIRC.


This is a fair synopsis of how these two machines rate, I agree completely with it. And the SBDs needed more deck to get off with the higher weights. But, I'll say, and take this FWIW, I never heard any SBD pilot who wasn't enamored with these. Conjecturally, the right balance was struck, for the job it was built to do. That is to say, the right trade-offs, the right everything. At 1000#, that was pushing things a little. Those aircraft were coming off the bow, many times, even, dipping. But, overall, throughout the variants, their characteristics were kept in balance. Not being a technical expert, of course, I don't have your diction, but that would be my way of describing it. These were never pretended to be anything other than what they were. And throughout all their variants, and the various technical innovations adopted, I'd argue that aspect held right up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 30, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Carrier based SBDs were limited by aircraft TO characteristics and fuel load to 1000lb and then only when ranged aft. Forward ranged SBDs were often limited to 500lb bomb loads.


Interesting...do you have a citation for that?

The SBD-3 was limited to 1,200 max. bombload (1,000 centerline and 100 lb. under each wing) but the SBD-5 had a max. of 2,250 bombload (1,600 centerline and 325 lb. under each wing).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 30, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting...do you have a citation for that?
> 
> The SBD-3 was limited to 1,200 max. bombload (1,000 centerline and 100 lb. under each wing) but the SBD-5 had a max. of 2,250 bombload (1,600 centerline and 325 lb. under each wing).



This is from Lexington's Action Report for Coral Sea:



> At this time (pilots were manning planes) Lieutenant Commander HAMILT0N called my attention to the fact that his planes had only 220 gallons of gasoline and said that he would like to have 250 gallons (full). I told him that we were trying to get both groups off as nearly together as possible and there was no time to give him any additional gasoline. Since the planes carried 1000 pound bombs, a full fuel tank required extra wind for the overload condition. There was sufficient surface wind that morning and we could have launched in this heavy condition. I forgot that the planes were gassed to 220 gallons until it was too late to fill them. However, 220 gallons was more than enough fuel to permit them to travel the distances involved.
> Battle of the Coral Sea: U.S.S. Lexington--Action Report



and it indicates the limitations of the SBD-3 in carrying even a 1000lb load, and this off the Lexington with the longest flight deck in the USN. As it turned out they could have carried full fuel because there was sufficient wind, but when planning a strike they always had to anticipate minimum likely wind conditions and plan accordingly. At Midway there was insufficient wind and both Hornet and Enterprise has to launch SBD strikes where the forward aircraft carried 500lb bombs:



> 0906 Commenced launching attack group of 33 VSB, 14 VT, 10 VF.
> 15 VSB armed with one 1000 lb. bomb each.
> 12 VSB armed with one 500 lb. bomb and two 100 lb. bombs each.
> 6 VSB armed with one 500 lb. bomb each.
> ...



Hornet:


> At 0900 (all times given hereafter are zone plus 10) commenced launching the Air Group for attack; VSB loaded with 500-lb. bombs, VTB with torpedoes and VF with M.G. ammunition only.
> Battle of Midway: USS Hornet Action Report


However Lundstrom states:


> The _Hornet_’s dive bombing force comprised thirty-four SBD-3 Dauntlesses, apparently half of them armed with 500-lb. bombs and the rest with thousand-pounders. First to take off were fifteen SBDs from Scouting Eight led by Lt. Cdr. Walter F. Rodee. Next came the “Sea Hag,” Cdr. Ring, and two wingmen from Bombing Eight, and finally the sixteen SBDs of Bombing Eight proper under Lt. Cdr. Robert R. Johnson.
> Lundstrom, First Team.



but regardless, the light wind prevailing at Midway forced a reduction in SBD-3 bomb loads.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2019)

There seems to be something strange in the Performance Data sheets for the SBD as the SBD-3 at 10,400lbs (full fuel 1000lb bomb) is listed at a take-off distance (25kt wind) of 580ft.
The SPD-5 is listed at 10,403lbs (full fuel 1000lb bomb) is listed at a take-off distance (25kt wind) of 570ft. despite having a 1200hp engine instead of a 1000hp engine.
The SPD-6 is listed at 10,608 lbs (with 24 more gallons of fuel 1000lb bomb) is listed at a take-off distance (25kt wind) of 534ft. with it's 1350hp engine. It is also listed as taking off in 481ft with two drop tanks and no bombs at a weight of 10,382lbs. 

This is part of the problem with blanket statements about the SBD there were about 1360 SBD-3s& 4s built which fought the early part of the war. There were 2965 SBD-5s with the 1200hp engine which fought the bulk of the Pacific war from 1943 on with about 450 SPD-6 showing up in 1944. production stopped in the summer of 1944. 

According the Performance Data sheets even the SPD-1 was up-rated to include the 1600lb bomb (which was first delivered to the fleet about a year and half after the SPD-1 was) and the SBD-1 if any were left in anything but a training unit in 1942 would have had to have been upgraded with new fuel tanks and armor. The planes with the 1000hp engines should be looked at with a high degree of suspicion when it comes to the higher bomb loads. The SPD-3 sheet shows the plane being reduced to 158 gallons of fuel to carry the 1600lb alone at 10,400lbs and the manual shows a high weight of 9019lbs with a 1000lb and 100 gallons of fuel. 
At some point they increased the max gross weight but without increasing the power of the engine how useful that increase really was is subject to question. 

With a 500lb bomb and 240 gallons of fuel the weight would have been around 9370lbs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 30, 2019)

Imho, the SBD vs Helldiver comparison is a classic case of a plane with better performance stats vs one with better and I would argue even more important caracteristics that don't show up in performance stats like good handling characteristics and steadiness in a dive( kind of important for a dive bomber). 
Yes I know some of these issues were somewhat improved on later models of the
SB2c but as best as I can tell from what I've read the Dauntless still held a sizable edge in the handling characteristics and steadiness in a dive department as I've always read praise of the Dauntless by it's pilots regarding these things but never by a Helldiver pilot regardless of whether it was an early or late model.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> There seems to be something strange in the Performance Data sheets for the SBD as the SBD-3 at 10,400lbs (full fuel 1000lb bomb) is listed at a take-off distance (25kt wind) of 580ft.
> The SPD-5 is listed at 10,403lbs (full fuel 1000lb bomb) is listed at a take-off distance (25kt wind) of 570ft. despite having a 1200hp engine instead of a 1000hp engine.
> The SPD-6 is listed at 10,608 lbs (with 24 more gallons of fuel 1000lb bomb) is listed at a take-off distance (25kt wind) of 534ft. with it's 1350hp engine. It is also listed as taking off in 481ft with two drop tanks and no bombs at a weight of 10,382lbs.
> 
> ...



As I've argued in the past some of the pre and early war published data on USN aircraft is suspect, being overstated, and doesn't match the observed performance of the aircraft. At some point (1943?) the data was being assessed more realistically before being published.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 30, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> This is from Lexington's Action Report for Coral Sea: [...]
> 
> and it indicates the limitations of the SBD-3 in carrying even a 1000lb load, and this off the Lexington with the longest flight deck in the USN. As it turned out they could have carried full fuel because there was sufficient wind, but when planning a strike they always had to anticipate minimum likely wind conditions and plan accordingly. At Midway there was insufficient wind and both Hornet and Enterprise has to launch SBD strikes where the forward aircraft carried 500lb bombs: [...]
> 
> ...


Nice. Thanks for providing. FWIW, the SBD-3s and 5s had no problem carrying a 1000# bomb, and that's just a fact, and I've the bombing practice logs on both those as source for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 30, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> Nice. Thanks for providing. FWIW, the SBD-3s and 5s had no problem carrying a 1000# bomb, and that's just a fact, and I've the bombing practice logs on both those as source for that.


Ya, that's what I've always read, that 1000 pounders were pretty commonplace for SDBs in all but the earliest versions but hey I'm no expert so I'm just reading the posts of everyone with an open mind.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The SBD-3 was limited to 1,200 max. bombload (1,000 centerline and 100 lb. under each wing) but the SBD-5 had a max. of 2,250 bombload (1,600 centerline and 325 lb. under each wing).



I believe it has been mentioned before but the 1600lb bomb was only slightly rarer than hen's teeth. An Essex class carrier might only have 20 in the magazines. An unless you were attacking a battleship it was pretty useless (it's HE filling was less than a 500GP bomb) Of course the 2000lb GP bomb was just about as rare. 
The navy also had no 325lb bomb, they had a 325lb depth charge so the famous 2250lb total makes no sense (at least to me) as I have no idea what kind of mission calls for a bomb capable of going through 5-7in of armor deck and yet requires depth charges which won't penetrate much of anything? They won't even land in the same place if dropped together. 

This is the load out for the Essex at some point in 1942, the loads changed over the years, so I will include the Enterprise in Oct 1943
ship........................Essex....................Enterprise
100lb GP..............504..........................504
500lb GP..............296..........................288
500lb AP..............---...........................288
1000lb GP...........146..........................378
1000lb SAP.........129..........................378
1000lb AP............110.........................378
1600lb AP.............19............................18
2000lb GP.............19............................18
325lb DB..............296.........................288
100 INC................296.........................288
Torpedoes............36...........................36.

I don't know if there aren't a few typos in that table. Carrying 378 of each different type of 1000lb seems a bit suspicious. Carrying 378 total 1000lb bombs seems a lot more likely. 

Just as the much ballyhooed 2250lb load for the SBD seems rather suspect so does the Helldiver claim of carrying twice the bomb load. There are darn few 2000lb bombs compared to the 1000lb bombs for the SBD, the trick reported above for dropping a pair of 1000lb bombs only covers AP and Semi AP bombs and not the GP bombs. 

Yes the Hell diver could carry twice the load of GP bombs using the 2000lb bomb but without it the bomb loads become rather similar, although he Helldiver could carry a pair 500lb GP bombs inside.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The navy also had no 325lb bomb


Actually, they did.

The Mk 17 was 325 lb. overall with 234 lb. of TNT with either a contact or hydrostatic fuse. Used primarily for ASW, they were also effective against troop transports.
The Mk 41 was a flat-nosed version (same weight, same application).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2019)

It was a depth charge. It may have been effective against troop transports or unarmored in ships (destroyers and escorts) but then the 1600lb bomb would have gone through them without exploding. This weapon was 74% explosive by weight and the GP bombs were about 50% by weight, they had thicker casings but they often broke up on thick armor before exploding. The thin case depth charge needs either an instantaneous fuse (and luck) or a rather weak structure. 

They each have their place, just not being carried by the same plane at the same time.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2019)

As we know, the max. loadout designed into an aircraft is rarely used, but it's there.

Case in point: the B-17 had the ability to carry a maximum of 20,000 pounds of bombs by utilizing it's external racks to augment it's internal stores. This would greatly reduce it's range of course and I don't recall a mission where the B-17 took advantage of this overload.

But the fact remains that it could by design.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe it has been mentioned before but the 1600lb bomb was only slightly rarer than hen's teeth. An Essex class carrier might only have 20 in the magazines. An unless you were attacking a battleship it was pretty useless (it's HE filling was less than a 500GP bomb) Of course the 2000lb GP bomb was just about as rare.
> The navy also had no 325lb bomb, they had a 325lb depth charge so the famous 2250lb total makes no sense (at least to me) as I have no idea what kind of mission calls for a bomb capable of going through 5-7in of armor deck and yet requires depth charges which won't penetrate much of anything? They won't even land in the same place if dropped together.
> 
> This is the load out for the Essex at some point in 1942, the loads changed over the years, so I will include the Enterprise in Oct 1943
> ...



In the above examples, neither carrier was equipped with SB2Cs.

Enterprise and Essex could only use the 2000lb bomb via their TBFs, ditto for the 1600lb bomb. SB2C Bomb loads varied more than SBD loadouts because of the greater variety of stores that the SB2C could carry. So, for example, on some missions they would carry 1x 1000lb internally, 1 x 500lb bomb externally and one DT.

During the Yamato sortie at Okinawa here's a partial list of SB2C sorties and bomb loads, according to Smith:

Essex - 12 x 2x1000lb
Yorktown - 13 x 2x1000lb


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> In the above examples, neither carrier was equipped with SB2Cs.



ship.......................Bennington 1944 (ship did not see combat until 1945) 
100lb GP..............508
500lb GP..............292
500lb AP..............292
1000lb GP...........147
1000lb SAP.........128
1000lb AP............110
1600lb AP.............18
2000lb GP.............18
325lb DB..............292
100 INC................292
Torpedoes............50
3.5 AR...................366
5.0 HVAR.........4,006 

!600lb and 2000lbs bombs still constitute a rare payload, The small carriers are even worse.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Jul 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> ship.......................Bennington 1944 (ship did not see combat until 1945)
> 100lb GP..............508
> 500lb GP..............292
> 500lb AP..............292
> ...



Shortround, thanks for the useful information. Do you have any statistics on the ordinance carried by escort carriers? especially in the Pacific?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 2, 2019)

I don't have my books for reference at the moment (they're all packed up - did I mention that moving sucks?) but the scouting SBDs would carry at least two bombs on the wings (typically the Mk 17) during their advanced sweep ahead of the fleet, during wartime, they would also carry a 500 lb. GP bomb and would attack any enemy vessel (after reporting) they encountered.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 2, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> I don't have my books for reference at the moment (they're all packed up - did I mention that moving sucks?) but the scouting SBDs would carry at least two bombs on the wings (typically the Mk 17) during their advanced sweep ahead of the fleet, during wartime, they would also carry a 500 lb. GP bomb and would attack any enemy vessel (after reporting) they encountered.


This is the point in this thread in which someone brings up these VSB units did glide bomb, as well. Just a different angle at letting these 500s go, but they did train at that, too.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> ship.......................Bennington 1944 (ship did not see combat until 1945)
> 100lb GP..............508
> 500lb GP..............292
> 500lb AP..............292
> ...



Could this load be representative of the mission in 1945? After Yamato was sunk off Okinawa, Nagato was the only heavy ship in the entire IJN. The mission for the carrier wings was support for the landings, and the several raids on the Home Islands. Also by '45 the Carrier Air Wing make up was more fighters than bombers. Bennington's air wing had 74 fighters, 15 SB2Cs, and 15 TBFs. So it makes sense to have larger numbers of ordnance the fighters would normally use.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Jul 3, 2019)

Vrs Japanese carriers would the AP bombs be better or GP bombs? Enterprise took an AP bomb or two which penetrated or even exited right back out of the hull, but didn't really disrupt flight operations to any serious degree. Some of the CVE's off Samar had 18" AP shells go right through without exploding.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2019)

The 1600lb bomb was designed to go through 5-7 in of deck armor depending on drop conditions (speed and altitude) which is two to three times the thickness of most carrier deck armor. (often the hanger floor was the armored deck?) 

the 1000lb AP bomb was supposed to go through a 5in deck if released at 6500ft in a 300kt/60 degree dive. The busting charge was about 150lbs. it was about 12in diameter. the SAP bomb of 1000lbs was 15in in diameter and carried a bursting charge of about 300lbs. The 1000lb MK 44 GP bomb was 18.6 in diameter and used a 595lb filling of TNT. 

Are you trying to blow up the hanger and flight deck or get into the engine rooms/magazines?


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 5, 2019)

I just have a quick question. I don't want to hijack this thread but we have a lot here who know a thing or two about dive bombing. I've seen a lot of footage of the Stukas over Poland, and I'll be darned if many of those don't seem like 80-90 degree dives. The USN I believe had a way of measuring the angles in the training exercises, and I'm pretty sure they wanted them right at around 60. I'm wondering how one comes out of an 80-90 degree dive. Were these Stukas as good as they say? I guess they must have been, unless I'm mistaken about that angle.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2019)

Be careful you are actually comparing the same thing.

there are two angles in dive bombing. 
1, the Angle of the plane in relation to the ground. Several dive bombers could adopt a 90 degree attitude.
2. the angle of the flight path in relation to the ground. The wing never stopped producing lift so the dive bomber displaces "upwards" in relation to the planes axis as it dives. 

there are a couple of charts in the SBD-3 pilots manual that show this. In a steep dive with the airbrakes out the plane has to have an attitude of around -5 degrees to the line of flight. 
At a 90 degree dive the plane actually has to be at 95.5 degrees to the ground. At 60 degrees the plane needed to be at 64.5 degrees. 

The steeper the dive the more room/altitude is needed to pull out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2019)

The Stukas were designed to dive at a true 90° - the pilot acquired the target and entered his dive and deployed the dive brakes.
At this point,the brake on the Jericho Trumpet(s) was released and then, when the pilot released the bomb and pressed a button on the column, which activated the automatic dive pull-out system.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 5, 2019)

L


Shortround6 said:


> Be careful you are actually comparing the same thing.
> 
> there are two angles in dive bombing.
> 1, the Angle of the plane in relation to the ground. Several dive bombers could adopt a 90 degree attitude.
> ...


So I think I see what you’re saying. Check me on this if you think I got it wrong, as I’d like to know. The plane’s nose in relation to the ground could be 90 degrees. But that’s at the start of its dive, high and away from its target. The wings of the plane in that attitude are actually pulling the plane laterally, which is how it ends up in that 90 degree attitude, at its drop point. Is that about the size of it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2019)

yes.

The plane, in order to fly a 90 degree flight path, actually has to have over a 90 degree attitude. 

A 90 degree attitude will result in a mid 80 degree flight path.

This doesn't quite explain what you are seeing in the film footage. 

I can speculate and say that a 60 degree dive allows for a lower release point than a 90 degree dive and perhaps the German pilots at times were using the shallower dive for that reason. 
Lower altitude allowed for better target identification? or perhaps better aiming of specific target in the target area?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 6, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> yes.
> 
> The plane, in order to fly a 90 degree flight path, actually has to have over a 90 degree attitude.
> 
> ...



The steeper the dive angle the the more you reduce it as a variable in the equation. I did bombs (BDU-33s) in the AT-38 and OV-10. We were taught something called tiger errors when we went through AT-38s by the Vietnam era ground instructors (retired fighter pilots). At pickle if you are 1 degree steep (steeper than planned) your error is less than 1 degree shallow. If you are 1 knot fast your error is less than 1 knot slow. Steep, fast and press was the slang catch phrase.

If you were to drop a marble into a pickle barrel from 20 feet directly above it, would it be easier than tossing it in from 20’ laterally? How about 100 feet up versus 100’ out? When you come straight down you take dive angle out, and to some degree speed as well leaving only wind correction as a variable. The higher the speed the the smaller the impact of the wind due to a reduced time of flight.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 6, 2019)

Those pickle barrels just can't catch a break. First everyone was trying to drop a bomb into one, now marbles as well.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2019)

Another point to consider, is what aircraft of that time period were capable of.

In otherwords, ALL aircraft could dive on target at angles beyond 70°, but only a few were able to do it more than once.

The Ju87 and SBD were designed and fully able to dive at angles between 70° and 90°, the Stuka having an auto-pilot that assisted the pilot with pullout and recovery to level flight.

Going from memory, some of the other types that were designed (and capable) of fairly steep dive angles, were the SB2C with angles up to 80° and the A-36 with of angles up 70°.

One dive-bomber that held promise by the way, but never got a chance, was the Hawker Henley.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 6, 2019)

There were other dive bombers of varying degrees of effectiveness, including the Skua (something the crew of the _Königsberg_ found out), the Vultee Vengeance (mostly used in the CBI theatre), the Aichi D3A, and (surprising, at least to me) the Fairey Swordfish.


----------



## Macandy (Jul 6, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> Surprisingly the loss rate amongst SBD crews was the lowest of any USN Aircraft. They were in desperation in several early actions sent out as ersatz fighters to go after the torpedo planes. WWII was the rather short heyday of the dive bomber.




A number of SBD pilots became aces, and they were well able to hold their own even against the formidable Zero. Losses were about 1:1 iirc.

SBD - Scout Bomber Dive - it was expected to be able to get into a fight when scouting. Very tough, agile, well armed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2019)

Macandy said:


> SBD - Scout Bomber Dive - it was expected to be able to get into a fight when scouting.



The last letter in the Scouting (Scouting Bomber, Scouting Observation) designations was for the manufacturer. The number 2 meant that it was the second model in that class by the same manufacturer.

SBD = Scouting Bomber, Douglas

SBC = Scouting Bomber, Curtiss
SB2C = Scouting Bomber, second type, Curtiss

SBU = Scouting Bomber, Vought
SB2U = Scouting Bomber, second type, Vought

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 6, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The last letter in the Scouting (Scouting Bomber, Scouting Observation) designations was for the manufacturer. The number 2 meant that it was the second model in that class by the same manufacturer.
> 
> SBD = Scouting Bomber, Douglas
> 
> ...



Thank you, I wondered at the nomenclature!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2019)

Biff US Navy/US Marine Corps Attack Aircraft Designations

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Thank you, I wondered at the nomenclature!
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


You're welcome!


Milosh said:


> Biff US Navy/US Marine Corps Attack Aircraft Designations


Joe Baugher's site is always the right decision! 

And his breakdown may help folks understand why not all the suffixes are the manufacturer's first letter (i.e.: Curtiss - "C", North American - "J")

So odd designations like: 
OS2U = Observation, Scouting, second type, Vought
PBJ = Patrol Bomber, North American
PB4Y = Patrol Bomber, fourth type, Consolidated (Consolidated had several PBYs: Catalina, PB2Y Coronado, XPB3Y - not built)
PBO = Patrol Bomber, Lockheed
TBF = Torpedo Bomber, Grumman
TBM = Torpedo Bomber, General Motors
J2F = Utility, second type, Grumman

Ya'll having fun yet?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 7, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The last letter in the Scouting (Scouting Bomber, Scouting Observation) designations was for the manufacturer. The number 2 meant that it was the second model in that class by the same manufacturer.
> 
> SBD = Scouting Bomber, Douglas
> 
> ...


Just an add, these squadrons were VSB squadrons (Scouting-Bombing). Again, that should tell us these weren't missioned to mix it up with fighters. Our fighting squadrons were VF. Early on, those consisted of F4s. Our F6s were in the VBF squadrons (Bombing-Fighting) for their bombing as well as fighting capacities.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 10, 2019)

From what I remember reading, the qualities that made the SBD so effective were the following

Probably redundant to say, but it could tolerate a high g-load, which is useful for dive-bombing, particularly when pulling out low.
It seemed to have good maneuverability by the standards of a dive-bomber, and was sometimes able to be brought to bear on fighter-types.
It's handling seemed to be fairly docile (I never heard anything to say it was an ensign-eliminator, but I haven't read this thread through).
It seemed to be fairly sturdy by the standards of the time.
The swiss-cheese flaps seemed to provide effective at speed-control, yet were also decent flaps.
It seemed to have effective payload.



BiffF15 said:


> Thank you, I wondered at the nomenclature!


Yeah, the USN had it's own system (as did the USAAC/USAAF, which later carried over to the USAF with a variety of changes), and it wasn't as intuitive. When double letters were used, it effectively meant a new category, so if you modified a fighter into a fighter-bomber (there was a case with this), it wouldn't go from F11C-2 to BF11C-2, it would be BFC-1 (the USN called fighter bombers "bomber-fighters" in the early 1930's). That said, it'd eventually go back to F11C.

The manufacturers letters did change periodically
U.S. Naval Aircraft Designations: 1922-62


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 11, 2019)

They were very controllable. That's what the pilots I knew loved about them the most. That's it, in a nut.

Here. What's to not love about this?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 11, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> They were very controllable. That's what the pilots I knew loved about them the most. That's it, in a nut.


I guess I can understand that.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 11, 2019)

Macandy said:


> A number of SBD pilots became aces, and they were well able to hold their own even against the formidable Zero. Losses were about 1:1 iirc.
> 
> SBD - Scout Bomber Dive - it was expected to be able to get into a fight when scouting. Very tough, agile, well armed.



As we've discussed earlier, the SBD could not compete with the Zero and SBD claims against them were wildly exaggerated.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 11, 2019)

Macandy said:


> it was expected to be able to get into a fight when scouting. Very tough, agile, well armed.


I never thought that affected the combat performance. That said, I'm surprised you wouldn't want to build maneuverability into any plane that you could as, it naturally provides a survivability benefit.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 11, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> As we've discussed earlier, the SBD could not compete with the Zero and SBD claims against them were wildly exaggerated.


"wildly exagerated" simply being one's opinion, of course

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 11, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> I never thought that affected the combat performance. That said, I'm surprised you wouldn't want to build maneuverability into any plane that you could as, it naturally provides a survivability benefit.


 Any dive bomber, once it gets rid of it's bomb load, is going to be very maneuverable, you hardly have to make any special effort to design it in.. 
Fairly powerful engine, lots of wing area, needed to lift those big loads is also the same thing needed to make a aircraft agile.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 11, 2019)

Also, at the time that pilots like Vejtasa and Leppla were taking on A6Ms, it was a VERY target rich environment.

Additionally, many of Vejtasa's A6M kills were done during head-on attacks.
Leppla scored a Zero by diving on it as it was attacking a squadron mate.

Rarely did the SBD enter a turning fight with an A6M. But the fact remains, that the SBD was used far more aggressively than other dive-bombers and this was done out of necessity. The SBD's kill record also includes flying boats, torpedo bombers and dive-bombers (the most victories being the latter two types).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 12, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Also, at the time that pilots like Vejtasa and Leppla were taking on A6Ms, it was a VERY target rich environment.
> 
> Additionally, many of Vejtasa's A6M kills were done during head-on attacks.
> Leppla scored a Zero by diving on it as it was attacking a squadron mate.
> ...



There's no indication from IJN records that Vejtasa or Leppla scored any A6M kills while flying the SBD.

The Skua was used more aggressively as a fighter than the SBD.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> There's no indication from IJN records that Vejtasa or Leppla scored any A6M kills while flying the SBD.
> 
> The Skua was used more aggressively as a fighter than the SBD.


lmao @ Skua...ok, sure. 

Now, it appears you have a detailed list of the cause of downing of all 96 Japanese aircraft during that battle.
So, by all means, please share.

Many thanks in advance.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 12, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> lmao @ Skua...ok, sure.
> 
> Now, it appears you have a detailed list of the cause of downing of all 96 Japanese aircraft during that battle.
> So, by all means, please share.
> ...



Vejtasa and Leppla were transferred to fighter squadrons by June 1942. Their time in SBDs was relatively short and his and Leppla's SBD combat missions have been documented and cross referenced with IJN records and there are no recorded A6M losses during those missions. See First Team Vol1 and 2 for more info. If you haven't read First Team, than quite frankly, you are not in a position to make informed comment about this.

The Skua was used as a fighter-interceptor (in addition, of course to it's duties as a divebomber) by the FAA from Sept 1939 to early 1941. It shot down the first Luftwaffe aircraft lost to the UK whilst flying from Ark Royal. It routinely flew CAP missions during that period whereas the SBD was only rarely used in a similar role, mainly because the USN had a relative abundance of dedicated fighter aircraft. After the Fulmar was introduced the Skua was progressively withdrawn from frontline duties.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 12, 2019)

Ahh...yes, good attempt to discount the SBD while building the Skua.

But let's look at the real picture: The Skua shot down a Dornier (yay) for all the accolades of the *first kill* AND then how is it an He111 was able to down one? Seriously...
Then let's talk about what happened when the Skua got caught by Bf109s...they were massacred and because of this, eventually were relegated to second-line duties.

Meanwhile, the SBD fought it's way through front-line fighters of Imperial Japan to sink more tonnage than any other aircraft of the entire war (including tonnage in the MTO and ETO). Read all you want and spin on that all you want, but the SBD stood head and shoulders above any other dive-bomber of the war.

I apologize if this cramps your narrative, but reading a single book versus reading volumes of action reports puts me well beyond the ability to make informed comments.

So perhaps you should take your own advice?


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 12, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Ahh...yes, good attempt to discount the SBD while building the Skua.
> 
> But let's look at the real picture: The Skua shot down a Dornier (yay) for all the accolades of the *first kill* AND then how is it an He111 was able to down one? Seriously...
> Then let's talk about what happened when the Skua got caught by Bf109s...they were massacred and because of this, eventually were relegated to second-line duties.
> ...



I have read most of the USN action reports as well, but these must be correlated against IJN records and this is where Lundstrom's 3 volumes (two volume First Team and Black Shoe Carrier Admiral) works are invaluable. Kill claims are always suspect unless they can be verified. Lundstrom worked closely with IJN records and collaborated with Japanese authors and translators to give us a very accurate look at the Pacific Airwar in 1942.

The fact is that the SBD was only rarely used as a fighter and it fared poorly against fighters as well. There were only 190 Skuas produced and their actual kill ratio was far higher than the SBD's because they were used continuously in a fighter role. During the Norwegian campaign Skuas shot down many Luftwaffe aircraft. mainly bombers and recon seaplanes via their front guns, all these kills being correlated to Luftwaffe records. The peak of the fighting being 27 and 28 April 1940 when Skuas shot down 7 x He111 bombers with their front guns, all kills being verified by Luftwaffe records and/or subsequently captured Luftwaffe aircrew. See Fledgling Eagles for more details.

During the Norway campaign, from 17 April to 10 June 1940, mainly carrier based, Skuas shot down 23 Luftwaffe aircraft via their front guns: 17 x He111, 2 x Ju88, 2 x Do18, 1 x Do26 and 1 x He115 according to Fledgling Eagles, which correlated Skua kill claims with Luftwaffe losses.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 12, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Also, at the time that pilots like Vejtasa and Leppla were taking on A6Ms, it was a VERY target rich environment.
> 
> Additionally, many of Vejtasa's A6M kills were done during head-on attacks.
> Leppla scored a Zero by diving on it as it was attacking a squadron mate.
> ...


Credit our fighters with the fighting. Credit these, when necessary, with an assist.


----------



## Conslaw (Jul 17, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> Credit our fighters with the fighting. Credit these, when necessary, with an assist.



Prewar naval aviators were cross-trained in the different aircraft types when possible, dive bombers, fighters, and torpedo plnes. Consequently a guy flying a dive-bomber may have fighter training and experience to go along with the impulse to mix it up in the air. Still, the SBD-3's top speed in the 220-240 range was not helpful in a fight with enemy fighters.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 17, 2019)

Again, as has been mentioned a few times, the majority of A6Ms downed by the SBD (where the pilot was credited with the "kill") were done so in head-on attacks.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I have read most of the USN action reports as well, but these must be correlated against IJN records and this is where Lundstrom's 3 volumes (two volume First Team and Black Shoe Carrier Admiral) works are invaluable. Kill claims are always suspect unless they can be verified. Lundstrom worked closely with IJN records and collaborated with Japanese authors and translators to give us a very accurate look at the Pacific Airwar in 1942.
> 
> The fact is that the SBD was only rarely used as a fighter and it fared poorly against fighters as well. There were only 190 Skuas produced and their actual kill ratio was far higher than the SBD's because they were used continuously in a fighter role. During the Norwegian campaign Skuas shot down many Luftwaffe aircraft. mainly bombers and recon seaplanes via their front guns, all these kills being correlated to Luftwaffe records. The peak of the fighting being 27 and 28 April 1940 when Skuas shot down 7 x He111 bombers with their front guns, all kills being verified by Luftwaffe records and/or subsequently captured Luftwaffe aircrew. See Fledgling Eagles for more details.
> 
> During the Norway campaign, from 17 April to 10 June 1940, mainly carrier based, Skuas shot down 23 Luftwaffe aircraft via their front guns: 17 x He111, 2 x Ju88, 2 x Do18, 1 x Do26 and 1 x He115 according to Fledgling Eagles, which correlated Skua kill claims with Luftwaffe losses.



So a Skua is better than an SBD because it shot down some unescorted German bombers? And how exactly would it have done against a Zero? All due respect, but the Ark Royal going 1 on 1 with any of the 6 Japanese carriers at Midway would have lasted about 3 minutes with Zero’s clearing the sky of Skua’s and then 18 Val’s and 18 Kate’s obliterating the Ark Royal with the only losses coming from AA fire. 

SBD’s shot down Japanese 4 engine float planes, torpedo planes and dive bombers. Essentially, a Zero was the only thing that represented a real threat to an SBD.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 17, 2019)

pinsog said:


> So a Skua is better than an SBD because it shot down some unescorted German bombers? And how exactly would it have done against a Zero? All due respect, but the Ark Royal going 1 on 1 with any of the 6 Japanese carriers at Midway would have lasted about 3 minutes with Zero’s clearing the sky of Skua’s and then 18 Val’s and 18 Kate’s obliterating the Ark Royal with the only losses coming from AA fire.
> 
> SBD’s shot down Japanese 4 engine float planes, torpedo planes and dive bombers. Essentially, a Zero was the only thing that represented a real threat to an SBD.



What a strange post above...and the only thing that represented a threat to the Skua was an Me109...

Did I say the Skua was better than the SBD? I did say it was used more aggressively (as a fighter) because the FAA was woefully short of carrier borne fighters early in the war. The SBD had more range and can carry a heavier bomb load but doesn't have folding wings for a theoretically smaller complement per carrier. If the USN had Skuas at Midway instead of SBDs I suspect the outcome would have been the same, as the Skua's 500lb bomb was just as capable of setting IJN carriers ablaze.

The Skua had a lower wing loading and a better power to weight ratio than the SBD but was slower, and was about equally well armed with 4 x .303mgs with 600 RPG, and so it's very likely that it would have done as least well as the SBD against the Zero; which is to say that it would have been heavily defeated, just as the SBD would have been badly defeated by the Me109, but probably would have done less well against Luftwaffe strike aircraft.

Ark Royal, had she survived to June 1942 and was carrying Skuas in combination with other aircraft, would have been just as likely to defeat any one IJN carrier as they would her. It would all depend on who spotted the other first.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 17, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Again, as has been mentioned a few times, the majority of A6Ms downed by the SBD (where the pilot was credited with the "kill") were done so in head-on attacks.



The only likely confirmed head on SBD kill vs a Zero that I can find occurred on 8 August 1942 over Tulagi:



> Meanwhile, Lt. (jg) Robert L. Howard, 2nd Section leader of VS-71’s 2nd Division, glimpsed the Misawa land attack planes skirt south around Group YOKE.9 Oblivious to AA fire, he worked out an attack on one bomber, but his two .50s would not shoot. After pulling off to clear them, he sheepishly realized that in his excitement he had never charged them. After beating up Maxwell’s section, Ōki and Kimura latched onto Howard’s lone SBD. Lawrence P. Lupo, Sea2c, the radioman, responded enthusiastically to a series of four stern attacks. At last Kimura reefed in a tight climbing turn for a head-on approach, but Howard raked his Zero with a strong burst. Catching fire as it went past, the Mitsubishi fell off to the left and plowed into the water among some small boats near Florida. Ōki saw his wingman go down, then raced up Howard’s tail to duel with Lupo at close range. Not only did Lupo drive off the Zero, but he perforated his own vertical stabilizer as well. 71-S-15 returned to base sporting ten bullet holes, including two in the right main fuel tank, but neither Howard nor Lupo was hurt...


 ( First Team V2. )


----------



## pinsog (Jul 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> What a strange post above...and the only thing that represented a threat to the Skua was an Me109...
> 
> Did I say the Skua was better than the SBD? I did say it was used more aggressively (as a fighter) because the FAA was woefully short of carrier borne fighters early in the war. The SBD had more range and can carry a heavier bomb load but doesn't have folding wings for a theoretically smaller complement per carrier. If the USN had Skuas at Midway instead of SBDs I suspect the outcome would have been the same, as the Skua's 500lb bomb was just as capable of setting IJN carriers ablaze.
> 
> ...



After reading this post then rereading your previous posts, it fleshed out your thinking a bit more and I understand what you were saying. 

From this post, I would (personally) prefer 2 50’s to 4 303’s especially if taking on a larger less maneuverable plane like an HE111 (big, easy to hit, slower rate of fire doesn’t matter as much as hitting power per bullet). Also had 2 belt fed 30’s in the back that could help out if you were beside the target.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The only likely confirmed head on SBD kill vs a Zero that I can find occurred on 8 August 1942 over Tulagi:
> 
> ( First Team V2. )


I see your sticking to the" if we dont have the papper work on it it didn't happen" point of view, which is fine...........for you.... but as we went over in a previous series of posts there is a myriad of reasons why kills might not always show up in axis records.
Certainly axis records give a more realistic view than raw claims but for all those aforementioned reasons are not the be all/ end all of kill validation.
Several of the other posters listed cases where accusations of wild overclaiming were maid by some historians only to have the records turn up later validating many of those victories. Also the heavily damaged planes that end up being written off eventually but dont show up on records as being lost in action...... units that we wouldn't know to check the records of because we don't have a record they were there in the first place...... etc.etc.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jul 17, 2019)

Actually, the "we don't know how many planes the Japanese lost because all their records were destroyed" myth has been seriously debunked.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2019)

Ok, here's a math problem for everyone:
The Japanese lost 96 aircraft st the battle of Coral Sea.
So then we look at how many F4F fighters were available, we look at how many AA units were credited with a downing, we look at how many were lost to operational error and in the end, there just might be room to actually give credit to the SBD.
I know, I know...there are a few people who refuse to believe the SBD did anything more than sink the most tonnage in the PTO, but numbers say different.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 18, 2019)

Well the truth is we don't know every axis plane that was lost. Previously unknown records pop up from time to time as several examples were given upthread and of course there are several other reasons( no need to list them again) victories might not show up in known axis loss records.
Just because some may use this to validate what is alot of overclaiming( happened on all sides and not nescesarily with naferious intent) does not mean there is not SOME validity to these things. How much is hard to say of course but previously unknown records do pop up now and then and the other things did happen at least occasionally. One could point to each of these mitigating circumstances and say" well how often did that happen" and taken individualy that may be a good point but cumulatively it seems intuative that there is probably a fair number of allied victories that are lagit but don't nescesarily show up on known axis records. What percentage? Is it 5%, 10, maybe 15? I dunno......but I do know the number is not zero.
I don't think it's an all or nothing/pick a side issue. I don't think it's correct to say that allied pilots didn't overclaim( not intentionally in most cases I don't think) but I also don't think it's correct to say if we dont have a written record of the air to air victory then we know it didn't happen. There are just too many reasons why at least sometimes this isn't going to be the case.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

