# Best 1943 Carrier Bomber (non-TB)



## Freebird (Nov 8, 2009)

A variation of Les's earlier poll, but for the Carrier Dive Bombers (FB) available in 1943.

The criteria: A dive-capable carrier bomber, 2-seater, available for carrier operations in mid-1943

So sorry, the Corsair is not an option.  
(it would blow away everything else on the poll if it was)
Also I believe the "Grace" was not available until 1944? 

"Best" means *ONLY* most capable, versatile, survivability, handling, firepower, speed etc.

It *does not* take into account reputation, career longevity, prestige, success in combat etc.

So none of the reasons that many people gave for the first poll would apply. 


> I voted SBD because it had the longest, most successful career out of the WWII carrier dive-bombers. It's performance at Midway was stunning.



In other words, if you were to look at these 3 planes WITHOUT knowing who built them or their war record, and judged *only* by performance. 

Also, if you vote in the poll, please tell us WHY you chose to vote for the one you did.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 8, 2009)

1.) Firefly (Fairey Firefly mk.1) 

Speed: 319 mph @ 17,000 ft
Ceiling: 29,000 ft.
Range: 1,364
Bomb load: 2,000 lb.
Armament: 4 x 20 mm cannon

2.) Helldiver (Curtiss-Wright SB2C-1) 

Speed: 280 mph @ 17,000 ft
Ceiling: 25,000 ft.
Range: 1,100
Bomb load: 2,000 lb.
Armament: 2 x 20 mm cannon, 2 x Machine Guns


3.) Judy (Yokosuka D4Y1)

Speed: 342 mph @ 15,500 ft
Ceiling: 32,500 ft.
Range: 978
Bomb load: 700 lb.
Armament: 3 x Machine Guns


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2009)

Since Firefly was not flown operatively in 1943 (but in June 44, two months after Corsair), do we still consider the poll valid?


----------



## Freebird (Nov 8, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Since Firefly was not flown operatively in 1943 (but in June 44, two months after Corsair), do we still consider the poll valid?



Yes. "Available for operations" not the date when its first combat operations occur.
The poll is also purposely limited to 2-seater aircraft 



> 1770 squadron The squadron formed at Yeovilton as a 2-seater fighter squadron with 12 Firefly Is in September 1943. The first operational Firefly squadron.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2009)

The SBD isnt on the poll. How come?


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 8, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The SBD isnt on the poll. How come?



That would be my question. The SBD was in front line carrier operations thru June 1944 and in land-based operations through July 1945.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 8, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The SBD isnt on the poll. How come?



Because the more modern, faster, heavier payload Helldiver is there.

But mainly because I suspected some folks would vote for the Dauntless because of it's success at Midway elsewhere. 


Is there a reason why you would choose a Dauntless over a Helldiver?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2009)

Its 1943.

The Helldiver didnt get its "bugs" worked out untill 1945.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 8, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Its 1943.
> 
> The Helldiver didnt get its "bugs" worked out untill 1945.




What were the bugs?
It made it's first operation in late 1943 (Rabual IIRC) Were the bugs still a major problem in mid '44? Was the second varient any better?

Do you consider the Dauntless to be superior to a Judy or a Firefly, even with the much slower speed?


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 8, 2009)

Who needs the Midway results influence? SBD was more survivable in combat than the SB2C and no bad habits.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 8, 2009)

R Leonard said:


> Who needs the Midway results influence? SBD was more survivable in combat than the SB2C and no bad habits.




Are there any engagements where they both served in '44 or '45?
Woudn't the lower speed of the Dauntless be a handicap EXCEPT for the fact that by late '43- or '44 the Allies had almost complete operational air superiority?


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 8, 2009)

East Philippine Sea, June 20 1944, maybe you've heard of it. Total losses of SB2Cs were 43 out of 51, or 84%; SBD losses were 4 out of 26, or 15%.

Asking for actions in which they were both present is kind of a funny question. If the purpose is to negate the operational results for SBDs *before* the introduction of the SB2C, then, by the same token, that approach would negate all the SB2C operational results *after* the SBD was no longer used in fleet operations, right?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2009)

R Leonard said:


> East Philippine Sea, June 20 1944, maybe you've heard of it. Total losses of SB2Cs were 43 out of 51, or 84%; SBD losses were 4 out of 26, or 15%.



Werent a lot of those losses due to nightime return times which meant they had to ditch?


----------



## Freebird (Nov 9, 2009)

R Leonard said:


> Asking for actions in which they were both present is kind of a funny question. If the purpose is to negate the operational results for SBDs *before* the introduction of the SB2C, then, by the same token, that approach would negate all the SB2C operational results *after* the SBD was no longer used in fleet operations, right?



No, it is possible to analyze data for an operation to guage the capabilities of an aircraft, even if you don't take into account the *results* of the operation. 

For example, at Midway there were both Devastators and Avengers, so it's possible to compare the performance of both in a similar situation. Strangely the Avenger didn't fair any better than it's predecessor. Probably the lesson was that *any* TB is vulnerable to defending fighters, unless it has sufficient escort. 

Also the Dauntless would have also probably been slaughtered by the Zeros at Midway, except for the fact that they were busy with the TB's.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 9, 2009)

Remember the Captain of USS Yorktown CV-10 that had his Helldivers swapped for SBD-3 Dauntless', because, as he put it, wouldn't use them as anchors!

SBD for me all the way!


----------



## Freebird (Nov 9, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Remember the Captain of USS Yorktown CV-10 that had his Helldivers swapped for SBD-3 Dauntless', because, as he put it, wouldn't use them as anchors!
> 
> SBD for me all the way!




What advantages would an SBD have over a Firefly? Or the Judy?

A Zero or a Wildcat would bounce them at close to the same speed, while it would have a 80 mph advantage over the SBD. 


I have heard that the Helldiver suffered from difficult handling at low speeds (high wing loading?) 
Were there other problems as well? 

Why were so many made if it was a problem aircraft?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 9, 2009)

If you were to include the Dauntless, you would also need to include the Val. Val was nowhere near as survivable as the Dauntless but it has the reputation as being one of the most accurate DBs in the business. Against moving targets it was recorded as achieving accuracy rates in excess of 80%, that is 80% of bombs dropped hit their targets


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2009)

Some particulars could help a decision, but since Judy seems to be nobody's favourite, I'll do the allied planes from the poll.

Speed:
Firefly is faster without bombs. Now since SB2D carries bombs in the bomb bay (Firefly has them attached under wings), the speed is just about equal. So Firefly has the advantage only in way home - a minor advantage in my eyes.

Range:
Underwing bombs negate any combat range advantage Firefly could have in clean configuration - this is a draw.

Gun armament:
Firefly has advantage for a 'direct' attack, or strafing. The lack of effective rear guns is obvious for it. Since we talk about bombers, SB2C has the advantage, because of rear guns. Small advantage SB2C.

Bomb rocket armament:
Firefly can carry bombs rockets in the same time, while Firefly can't. Advantage SB2C.

Suitability for the bomber's task:
Firefly is not a dive bomber, so pin-point attacks are a tough issue for it. Advantage SB2C. 

Survivability vs. AAA:
The main difference is engine type: air-cooled is better then liquid-cooled here. Advantage SB2C.

Survivability vs. fighters:
Firefly would drop stores and then try to force a turning fight, in what it excelled.
SB2C would have to rely on twin 0.30 LMGs to hit the attacker; perhaps enough for Zero Oscar, but not against anything more capable.
Firefly has one 'sweet spot', the cooling system of the engine.
Both planes are much slower then fighter opposition.
Both planes need air superiority to operate, so this is a draw.

Electronic equipment:
Draw.

My conclusion: SB2C is better for the task.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 10, 2009)

Firefly was designed, built and used as a true multi role aircraft, which has both advantages and disadvantagers as a concept. As a generalization it can be said the Firefly could do a lot of things, but i doubt it could be singled out as doing one thing better than a purpose designed aircraft.....

That said, there are a few things in TPs submission that require clarification. I dont know a lot about the helldiver, so i will leave that part up top the US guys here to clarify on that. But I do have some knowledge on the Firefly, and a few things raised in TPs submission are not the same as my understanding of the aircraft.

Firefly was designed to specification N5/40, which in summary was a spec for a multi-role strike fighter also capable of effective recon and surface strike. It was required to have low landing and stall speeds, so as to be able to escort the 100 knot aircraft then in service with the FAA. It had to possess significant all weather capability and be able to attack targets when attacking blind, that is, at night and in poor or overcast conditions. This led to a number of innovations worth noting about the aircraft

It was fitted with patented Youngman Flaps, which were fully recessed and retractable, When exteneded they could greatly increase manouverability of the aircraft, and reduce stall speeds. This in turn greatly increased the accuracy of bombing for the Firefly, which was exploited after the war by the adoption of the type as an ASW platform. Attacking subs requires the a/c to possess extreme bombing accuracy in order to be effective, and the Firefly possessed this in spades, due to its near ability to "hover" and loiter around the target.

Nearly all the day equipped fireflies were equipped with an advanced ASV radar, to allow blind bombing.

Some hundreds of the type were equipped with AI MKX airborne radar for night fighting, and the type remained the RNs principal night fighter for some years after the war.

The type possed a combat endurance of 746 miles whilst fully armed and loaded, with later marks increased to over 1300 miles whilst in this configuration. its maximum speed whilst bombed up was 286 knots. The biggest weakness of the type was in fact its speed with the FR Mk1 only capable of 316 knots. However the types introduced in 1944 with the Griffin engines increased this almost immediately to 380 knot, which was helpful. To get the 1300 mile range the type had to stick to its optimum cruising speed of 220 knots.

Operationally the type had some success as the following excerpts show. As can be seen from the accounts I have provided, the type showed no great weakness to AA. I dont know that such a claim can be made for the Helldiver.....

"Interestingly, on all points save speed, a Firefly I sent to the US Navy test center at Patuxent River in 1944 more than held its own in air combat against the standard U.S. Navy carrier fighter, the F6F Hellcat - those Youngman flaps worked.

1770 Squadron formed on Fireflies on October 1, 1943, followed by 1771 Squadron in February 1944. 1770 participated in Operation Mascot, the failed attack against the German battleship "Tirpitz" on July 17, 1944, operating from HMS "Indefatigable." 1771 Squadron, aboard HMS "Implacable," flew strikes in Norwegian waters that October, by which time "Indefatigable" and her Fireflies had moved on to join the British Far Eastern Fleet.

From January 1-7, 1945, 1770 Squadron's Fireflies flew rocket strikes against the Pangkalan Brandon refinery on Sumatra, during which Lieutenant D. Levitt shot down a Ki.43 Hayabusa while Sub Lieutenants Redding and Stot shared another in air combat on January 4. 1770 scored two more Ki.43s on January 24, during strikes on the Palembang refineries at Pladjoe and Songei Gerong that required the aircraft to attack through balloon barrages and heavy AAA fire. On January 29, the Fireflies added three more Ki-43s to their score before departing Southeast Asia for service with Task Force 57, the British Pacific Fleet, during the coming invasion of Okinawa.

Five days before D-Day, TF 57 launched strikes on Miyako-jima, southwest of Okinawa, following up during the next 25 days with 13 days of strikes against Japanese forces on Okinawa and Taiwan, with the Fireflies participating in all these actions.

When the BPF retired to Sydney for replenishment in late May, they were joined by HMS "Implacable" and the Fireflies of 1771 Squadron. After strikes against Truk, 1771's Fireflies gained the distinction of being the first British aircraft to fly over Japan on July 10, 1945; on July 24, Fireflies from 1771 and 1772 Squadrons - the latter having relieved 1770 aboard "Indefatigable" - became the first British aircraft over Tokyo. By VJ-Day, another Firefly squadron - 1790 - was operating with the BPF in the night fighter role. A year of successful combat had only begun to show what the airplane was capable of...."


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2009)

> However the types introduced in 1944 with the Griffin engines increased this almost immediately to 380 knot, which was helpful.


When were the uprated Griffons mounted to Firefly, in order to make 380kt (=680 km/h) possible?


> Nearly all the day equipped fireflies were equipped with an advanced ASV radar, to allow blind bombing.
> Some hundreds of the type were equipped with AI MKX airborne radar for night fighting, and the type remained the RNs principal night fighter for some years after the war.


Have Fireflies managed to score some hits/kill through usage of radars during night/bad weather, be it against ships or planes?


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 10, 2009)

From my Yorktown book.....

Page 15,
"The SB2C "beasts" performed so miserably - tailhooks falling off, wheel strutts collapsing, hydraulics failing - that the Curtiss engineers could not repair them fast enough. One of the bombers even plummeted into the water, pilot and rearseat gunner rescued."

Page 19,
"Of the manifold headaches which fed the skipper's ulcers at Trinidad throughout late May and early June, however, none equaled the disastrous performance of the SB2C Helldivers. Their tailhooks pulled out of their wells so much that air maintenance officer Joe Tucker grounded half of the 36 "Beasts". So when several Congressmen came aboard to observe flight operations, Tucker refused Commander Dozier's call for a maximum launch. Enraged, Dozier ordered Tucker to have the malfunctioning Helldivers take part in the demonstration.
Sure enough, everyone of the 17 bombers lost its tailhook on grabbing the arresting cables and piled into the wire crash barrier."

Page 20,
"Jocko,seeing his old shipmate distressed, heard him out but could only reply 'Well, Joe, the SB2C is the divebomber built for the new carrier program. If it doesn't work, we're in a helluva mess.'
'We're in a helluva mess then', said Tucker, 'because it's not gonna work until there are 200 or so modifications made that are all essential. It is not ready to go out there on carriers. The best thing in the world that could be done would be to return it to Curtiss-Wright and make them prove it before we put them on the new carriers.'
Jocko eyed him, 'If you were me, what would you do?'
Tucker thought a moment and figured he'd crossed all his bridges; he was doomed. 'Well, if I was you, Captain, I would sit right down and write a letter to BuAer and tell them - I wouldn't ask them, I'd _tell_ them - to tell Curtiss-Wright to come and get their damned airplanes. And, I'd turn this ship right around and head back into Trinidad, and I'd put those SB2C's ashore and _leave_ them there!'
'What would you use in their place?'
'We're alot better off with SBD's that'll fly than we are with SB2C's that won't'
Clark sat there, thought a few minutes, and said firmly, 'You know, I agree with you.'
Then he yelled out the door,
'Tell commander Dozier to come up here! Andy, come in here!'
Navigator Anderson stuck his head in first, and Jocko told him, 'Set course for Trinidad '
'What?'
'Set a course for Trinidad. Cease operations!'
'Aye, aye, Sir!'
When Dozier arrived on the bridge, he was visibly shaken at the sight of Tucker with the captain. But Jocko had both men write a message informing the Bureau of Aeronautics that the _Yorktown_ was returning to Norfolk prematurely and to request 36 brand new SBD-5 Dauntless divebombers to replace the hapless "Beasts". Then jocko rejected the entreaties of the Curtiss-Wright to keep the planes, and set course for Norfolk on June 13, escorted by three 'tin-cans', destroyers"


--------------------


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2009)

Sure enough , it required SB2C-3 version to solve the production quality issues, plus to add some horse power.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 10, 2009)

One crew or pilot was even killed....during the carrier qualifications(?)!


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> One crew or pilot was even killed....during the *carrier qualifications(?)*!


Carrier qualifications = the 'exam' the plane had to pass in order to be accepted for carrier use. (Sorry if this is redundant  )


----------



## Freebird (Nov 10, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Some particulars could help a decision, but since Judy seems to be nobody's favourite, I'll do the allied planes from the poll.



Interesting points Tomo. However there are a few errors in your data.



tomo pauk said:


> Range:
> Underwing bombs negate any combat range advantage Firefly could have in clean configuration - this is a draw.


I believe that it still had a greater range, but I'll need to check that.



tomo pauk said:


> Gun armament: *Strafing*
> Firefly has advantage for a 'direct' attack, or strafing.


Agreed
Advantage Firefly 



tomo pauk said:


> Bomb rocket armament:
> Firefly can carry bombs rockets in the same time, while Firefly can't. Advantage SB2C.


Not correct, the SB2C-1 did not have rockets. It began deliveries to squadrons Dec '42, becoming operational summer '43. (Firefly delivered Mar '43, operational Sept '43)
The SB2C-3 began deliveries only in 1944, and it was the *later version* SB2C-4 that had the added under wing racks that allowed it to carry rockets as well as bombs
So the 1943 Firefly could carry Rockets OR bombs, the SB2C-1 was limited to bombs.

*Advantage Firefly*



tomo pauk said:


> Suitability for the bomber's task:
> Firefly is not a dive bomber, so pin-point attacks are a tough issue for it. Advantage SB2C.



Wrong - the Fairey-Youngman flaps were installed on the Firefly, allowing it to make dive boming attacks, just as the Barracuda did. (The only difference was that the flaps were retractable on the Firefly to allow for faster speeds when in straight line flight

*No advantage*



tomo pauk said:


> Survivability vs. AAA:
> The main difference is engine type: air-cooled is better then liquid-cooled here. Advantage SB2C.


A drawback of the higher perfomance V or inline engines. 

*Advantage Helldiver*



tomo pauk said:


> Speed:
> Firefly is faster without bombs. Now since SB2D carries bombs in the bomb bay (Firefly has them attached under wings), the speed is just about equal. So Firefly has the advantage only in way home - a minor advantage in my eyes.


Firefly 286 mph bomb- loaded, 316 unladen while the SB2D is 280 mph


tomo pauk said:


> Survivability vs. fighters:
> Firefly would drop stores and then try to force a turning fight, in what it excelled.
> The lack of effective rear guns is obvious for it. Since we talk about bombers, SB2C has the advantage, because of rear guns. Small advantage SB2C.
> SB2C would have to rely on twin 0.30 LMGs to hit the attacker; perhaps enough for Zero Oscar, but not against anything more capable.
> ...


I believe that the first SB2C-1 version of the Helldiver only had a single (rear) MG for defence, can anyone confirm that? 
I don't think that the rear guns gave that much help, they didn't do much for the Devastator or Avengers at Midway, when faced with fast agile fighters they were badly hit.

I think that the Firefly's better speed manouverability (after jettison) gives it an advantage.

*Adavantage Firefly *



tomo pauk said:


> Electronic equipment:
> Draw.



Firefly had a superior ASV radar

*Advantage Firefly*


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 10, 2009)

Could you swap the SBD's Wright R-1820-60, 1,200 hp (895 kW) engine for the Helldiver's Wright R-2600 Cyclone radial engine at 1,900 hp (1,400 kW)?
How would that affect on the SBD's performance, speed, range, ceiling seeing that the SBD was 1400 Kg lighter.....? How much fuel could they carry SBD v SB2C?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2009)

How about this:
Firefly was bombing nothing until June 1944, so the type's war performance in 1943 is equal to the P-38M's (night fighter) achievement in WW2, ie. equal to zero. BY that time, SB2C made it's mark in the Pacific war, despite the shortcomings, and the -3 was being delivered. Therefore, the dash 3 needs to be compared with Firefly, not dash 1. 

Could you please further elaborate this:


> A drawback of the higher perfomance V or inline engines.


Does this mean that better performing inlines had drawback (beacouse of cooling system), or that inlines are more powerful then radials?



> Firefly had a superior ASV radar


Fact or opinion?

As for the tail guns, it was either single .50 cal, or twin .30 cal. ( from Squadron Signal - SB2C in action).


----------



## Freebird (Nov 10, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> How about this:
> Firefly was bombing nothing until June 1944, so the type's war performance in 1943 is equal to the P-38M's (night fighter) achievement in WW2, ie. equal to zero. BY that time, SB2C made it's mark in the Pacific war, despite the shortcomings, and the -3 was being delivered. Therefore, the dash 3 needs to be compared with Firefly, not dash 1.



As I mentioned earlier, the criteria was only on *CAPABILITY*, not War Record. So the Japanese aircraft can be compared on it's abilities, despite the fact that after mid-1943 the Japanese had virtually no successful carrier operations, as in the war they were getting their *** kicked. 
Suppose the Allies had lost the battle of Midway etc etc and the Japanese had the upper hand in the Pacific? Things might be quite a bit different.

Someone could start a later 1944 poll comparing the Firefly mk IV to the SB2C-4, I suppose. 



tomo pauk said:


> Could you please further elaborate this:
> 
> Does this mean that better performing inlines had a drawback (because of cooling system),



Yes.



tomo pauk said:


> Radar - Fact or opinion?



Well, I know that the Firefly had a very good radar system, for bombing and poor-weather operations. (As parsifal has already mentioned)

I couldn't find any record at all of radar installed on the 1943 SB2C-1 version, Lucky does your book mention this?



tomo pauk said:


> As for the tail guns, it was either single .50 cal, or twin .30 cal. ( from Squadron Signal - SB2C in action).



Does it say exactly what the SB2C-1 had?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2009)

freebird said:


> As I mentioned earlier, the criteria was only on *CAPABILITY*, not War Record. So the Japanese aircraft can be compared on it's abilities, despite the fact that after mid-1943 the Japanese had virtually no successful carrier operations, as in the war they were getting their *** kicked.
> Suppose the Allies had lost the battle of Midway etc etc and the Japanese had the upper hand in the Pacific? Things might be quite a bit different.
> 
> Someone could start a later 1944 poll comparing the Firefly mk IV to the SB2C-4, I suppose.
> ...



With restrictions orders what can and can not be valid for this thread, one could get the idea that poll favors certain aircraft.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 10, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Since MkIV was available from 1945 on, he can't even be on that poll.



Reference for that?

Anyways, what might or might be available in 1944 or 1945 is irrelevant for the purpose of this poll



tomo pauk said:


> Well, I know that the Firefly had a very good radar system, for bombing and poor-weather operations. (As parsifal has already mentioned)
> I couldn't find any record at all of radar installed on the 1943 SB2C-1 version, Lucky does your book mention this?
> 
> *Since no facts about Firefly making kills/hits while using the radar are posted, I'll say it's a opinion that radar set was great.*



More useful than an aircraft without one, wouldn't you say?
You havn't provided any facts or references about the Helldiver's radar, or if it even had one in 1943.



> Does it say exactly what the SB2C-1 had?
> 
> *.50 cal was mounted on 1st two series, while from series III on the twin .30 was carried. The change was made in 1943.*


thanks for clearing that up. 8)



> With restrictions orders what can and can not be valid for this thread, one could get the idea that poll favors certain aircraft.



No, it's really quite simple, I don't know how anyone could misunderstand it. 



freebird said:


> *The criteria: A dive-capable carrier bomber, 2-seater, available for carrier operations in mid-1943*
> 
> 
> "Best" means ONLY most capable, versatile, survivability, handling, firepower, speed etc.
> ...



Okay, I'll try spell it out so there is no confusion. 

You are the CAG chief (or Captain whatever) on an Allied aircraft carrier, on May 1, 1943
You have just spent a month or so testing out a squadron of the two newest dive-capable Allied carrier bombers, the Helldiver the Firefly. By an amazing set of circumstances, you also have a captured squadron of Japanese D4Y1 "Judys"

None of these planes has been in combat, so there is no war record or anything. 
Your orders are now to choose a squadron of the best of these 3 aircraft to take aboard, to set out for operations. (but have a couple of months to train pilots on it of course....) 

Make sense now?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 10, 2009)

Throw the Helldivers over the side right away (it only saves time) and check the other two planes again.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 10, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Throw the Helldivers over the side right away (it only saves time) and check the other two planes again.



When I put up the poll I didn't know that the Helldiver was such a problem aircraft in it's first year.  Learned something new. 

I wonder why so many people chose the Helldiver anyways?

I also wonder, how many battles were there where the Dauntles or Helldiver was intercepted by Zeros? How big a handicap was it for the Dauntless, which was ~80 mph slower? Was speed the main factor, or manouverability?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2009)

> Reference for that? [= Firefly MkIV able only from 1945]



Signal Squadron - Firefly in action.

Now isn't it funny that I cite my references, while you, freebird, avoid the same when asked time and again. So until you provide your sources about the _wuderwaffe_, I'll follow you example.



> Anyways, what might or might be available in 1944 or 1945 is irrelevant for the purpose of this poll


Dude, you proposed that...



> [about skewing the poll 'rules' to favor a particular plane]
> No, it's really quite simple, I don't know how anyone could misunderstand it.


Don't worry, I've understood that all right.



> Okay, I'll try spell it out so there is no confusion.
> 
> You are the CAG chief (or Captain whatever) on an Allied aircraft carrier, on *May 1, 1943*
> You have just spent a month or so testing out a squadron of the two newest dive-capable Allied carrier bombers, the Helldiver the Firefly. By an amazing set of circumstances, you also have a captured squadron of Japanese D4Y1 "Judys"
> ...



No confusion at all.
I'll choose SB2C, since those are a) operational (= Firefly falls off) and b) Judy has engine survivabilty issues on that May 1, 1943.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 10, 2009)

freebird said:


> When I put up the poll I didn't know that the Helldiver was such a problem aircraft in it's first year.  Learned something new.
> 
> I wonder why so many people chose the Helldiver anyways?
> 
> I also wonder, how many battles were there where the Dauntles or Helldiver was intercepted by Zeros? How big a handicap was it for the Dauntless, which was ~80 mph slower? Was speed the main factor, or manouverability?



Too bad we cant go back and change our choices. Lots of great info comes out and youre stuck with what you "thought" was the best.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 10, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Signal Squadron - Firefly in action.
> 
> Now isn't it funny that I cite my references, while you, freebird, avoid the same when asked time and again. So until you provide your sources about the _wuderwaffe_, I'll follow you example.



Dewd, come back to reality.  You havn't asked for any reference other than the radar, which was Parsifal's quote - you can ask him about that. 



parsifal said:


> Firefly was designed, built and used as a true multi role aircraft, which has both advantages and disadvantagers as a concept.
> Nearly all the day equipped fireflies were equipped with an advanced ASV radar, to allow blind bombing.
> 
> Some hundreds of the type were equipped with AI MKX airborne radar for night fighting, and the type remained the RNs principal night fighter for some years after the war.



"Time time again"? Try again. I've already quoted my reference: Complete book of Military Aircraft of WWII, Military Press NY. ISBN 0-517-66475-5
If I've used a website (like "FleetAirArmArchive.net") I've quoted that as well. 

You havn't cited any reference that the Helldiver operated with radar in 1943.

Any more questions?




tomo pauk said:


> Dude, you proposed that...



No, I suggested that someone else could if desired. 
_"Someone could start a later 1944 poll" _



tomo pauk said:


> Don't worry, I've understood that all right.
> No confusion at all.
> I'll choose SB2C, since those are a) operational (= Firefly falls off) and b) Judy has engine survivabilty issues on that May 1, 1943.



No, apparently you don't understand or are being deliberately obtuse. All 3 aircraft were first delivered between Jan and Mar of 1943, so all 3 are "available". I didn't specify "already operational", as none were on May 1, 1943. (My book says Helldiver first operational "second half of 1943", so that would be July or later.

In any event, *if you read again what I wrote*, choose the superior aircraft, *as all 3 are available in May 1943*, and then



freebird said:


> ( have a couple of months to train pilots on it of course....)


 So after a few months, your pilots would be trained and the squadron could become "operational"

Why does that seem complicated to you?


----------



## Freebird (Nov 10, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Too bad we cant go back and change our choices. Lots of great info comes out and youre stuck with what you "thought" was the best.



Were we not able to do that before? I seem to remember we could. Maybe the new "skin" 

Rumor has it that one of the Mods can edit your vote... (payment in pop-tarts  )


Anyways, I would have hoped more folks would have chipped in "I voted for xxx because"...


----------



## parsifal (Nov 10, 2009)

APS-6 Airborne Radar


Wavelength: 3 cm
Power: 1 kW
Range: 5 nautical miles (9 km) on aircraft
15 nautical miles (30km) submarine
30 nautical miles (55km) on merchant ship
75 nautical miles (140km) coastline
Scope " gunsight
Accuracy: 3 degrees
Weight: 150 lbs
Production: 791 sets between April 1944 and April 1945



Also known as AIA-1, the AN/APS-6 airborne radar was a simplification of AN/APS-4 (ASH) suitable for single-seat fighters. It used a much smaller display, just 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter, which eliminated the need for a radar operator and served as a radar gunsight.


See also 
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/radar/aps-4a-radar-5069.html#post198648


See also 

US Radar: Operational Characteristics of Radar Classified by Tactical Application [FTP 217]
In summary this site has this to say about ASH/APS-6 radar

AN/APS-4 (ASH) Lightweight ASV and Interception Set
DESCRIPTION:	Lightweight airborne search and interception set primarily for carrier based aircraft. All major components are contained in a single pressurized housing similar to a Mk 41 depth bomb, and detachable in the same manner as an ordinary bomb. 
USES:	For locating and homing on ships and coastal targets; for locating planes and making interception approaches; and for navigating. Range, bearing and elevation data are given as B or modified H indications appearing on the same scope. Set operates with AN/CPN-6 racon, and has provisions for IFF connections for identifying targets.
PERFORMANCE:	Reliable maximum ranges are 15 miles on surfaced submarines (broadside), 30 miles on 4,000-8,000 ton ship, 75 miles on well-defined coastline, and 5 miles on aircraft. Aircraft can be tracked to 300 feet. Range accuracy is ± 5%. Covers ± 75° in bearing. Bearing accuracy is ± 3°. Covers -30° to +10° in elevation when searching, ± 30° when intercepting. Elevation accuracy is ± 3°.
TRANSPORTABILITY:	Packaging not yet fixed, but set will be shipped in two cases, largest of which will measures 24" x 24" x 60" and weigh approximately 150 lbs. Total packaged weight should not exceed 250 lbs.
INSTALLATION:	For installation in light carrier-borne aircraft. Installed weight is 150 lbs.
PERSONNEL:	One operator per set is required, except when operated by the pilot of single-place aircraft. 12 maintenance men per group for carrier-based planes, or 4 per squadron for shore-based planes are recommended.
POWER:	Total primary power required: (a) from combination AC-DC primary generator -- 10 amps. 27.5 V DC and 1000 watts, 115 V, 800-2400 cycles AC; or (b) from primary DC generator, requiring use of motor-alternator -- 68 amps. 27.5 V DC


This link is also interesting

[5.0] Microwave Radar At War (2)


----------



## parsifal (Nov 10, 2009)

freebird said:


> When I put up the poll I didn't know that the Helldiver was such a problem aircraft in it's first year.  Learned something new.
> 
> I wonder why so many people chose the Helldiver anyways?
> 
> I also wonder, how many battles were there where the Dauntles or Helldiver was intercepted by Zeros? How big a handicap was it for the Dauntless, which was ~80 mph slower? Was speed the main factor, or manouverability?



IMO the SBD was the best daytime D/B of the war. It was the ideal mix of stability, accuracy, range, firepower and defensive capability. Its performance was not that bad when compared in the fully loaded state.

The runs it got onto the board are testament to its effectiveness

By contrast, I consider the Firefly to be probably the best the multi-role carrier aircraft of the war. It is often passed over because of its non-American origins.

Its postwar career is testament to its effectiveness


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2009)

freebird said:


> I also wonder, how many battles were there where the Dauntles or Helldiver was intercepted by Zeros? How big a handicap was it for the Dauntless, which was ~80 mph slower? Was speed the main factor, or manouverability?



While the Dauntless was 80mph slower that may be for top speed. If the planes were "bounced" at cruising speeds the difference might be a lot less. Long range cruise for the Helldiver was under 200mph. How much warning did the SB2- need to accelerate up to top speed and how long could it run at top speed? 
If you are 300 miles from the carrier cooking the engine isn't your only problem. how many minutes of combat power can you use before you don't have enough gas to get home. For Carrier planes there just aren't many alternate landing feilds.


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 11, 2009)

Frankly don’t know all that much about Fireflies. I knew they were operating over Sumatra and Borneo, Okinawa, and the Japanese home islands; there’s been some interesting info posted above. The question in my mind would be, with this multi-purpose role, was the Firefly a true dive bomber or did it perform what some would call dive bombing at the steep end of the glide bomber envelope?

And as has been noted, the SB2C suffered structural problems throughout its development and into its initial deployment. It was generally believed that the -1 was a real dog; had a tendency to shed parts up to and including the entire fuselage aft of the rear gunners compartment (if he was lucky). There was an entire post-production modifications assembly line set up at the Curtiss plant where planes were rolled off the assembly line straight into the modification line. Even the -3 had severe vibration and buffeting problems in the dive envelope (optimum for the SB2C was 78°) which translated into accuracy problems. Changes in the number and placement of holes in the dive brakes eliminated most of these problems in late -3’s and in the -4, but the -4 did not start to reach squadrons in combat until mid-October of 1944. And was the SB2C faster than the SBD? Certainly, but no one cruises at max speed and you don’t need max speed for a dive bomb attack profile, in fact you’d really rather slow it down.

Since the original poll addressed best carrier dive bomber in 1944, one of the questions raised by myself and others was “what about the SBD?” After all, the SBD was in action from carrier decks into July of 1944 – and I won’t talk about the 35,341 combat action sorties flown by land-based SBD drivers in 1944 and 1945 compared to the 2,023 same flown by land-based SB2C drivers. 

Incidentally, and apropos of nothing else, the SB2C made its combat debut sixty-six years ago, 11 November 1943.

If we look at squadrons in action off US carriers for the first seven months of the year we see an average of 4 SBD squadrons and 3 SB2C squadrons operating per month. On the average, the SBD squadrons numbered about 27 aircraft and the SB2C squadrons about 35, one supposes the advantage of folding wings. On the other hand, more aircraft per squadron means higher sortie rates. The highest months for SBD squadrons in action were January and February with 8 active squadrons each. SBD squadrons in action per month started to decline after that; for March through July squadrons in action were 3, 4, 1, 2, and 2. The opposite effect is seen with SB2C squadrons. SB2C squadrons in action for the corresponding period were 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Subsequent to July and through the end of the year, SB2C squadrons in action were 6, 8, 9, 11, and 7. Carrier based SBD’s flew 3468 combat action sorties in 1944; SB2C’s flew 11,687. 

Presuming we’re limiting the discussion to 1944 we can forget SBD’s that could have been shot down at Midway as was mentioned in one post simply because “would have’s” and “could have’s” don’t count. Further, it was said the SBD was left off the poll as the pollster did not want the vote tainted by the results from Midway. Okay fine, no Midway, in fact, no 1942 or 1943, or 1945, nor any land-based, for that matter.

Also I think we can dispense a posted comment regarding SBDs being jumped by Wildcats as I am pretty confident that would not happen. But what about air-to-air confrontations in 1944 with SBD’s and SB2C’s running into Japanese air opposition?

Of the 3468 combat sorties flown by SBD’s, 1.4% or 49, involved engaging a total of 50 enemy aircraft. In the course of these engagements, 2 SBD’s were lost. That works out to 4.08% of air-to-air engaged SBD’s or 0.06% of combat action sorties. In the same year, SB2C combat sorties involving aerial engagement numbered 195 against 236 enemy aircraft, or 1.7% of SB2C action sorties. In these 195 engagements, 14 SB2Cs were lost, or 7.18% of air-to-air engaged SB2C’s or 0.12% of combat action sorties. Presuming equal skill and aggressiveness on the part of the Japanese, it would seem that, just in terms of action survivability, SBD’s came off better than the SB2C’s. 

In these same actions SBD’s were credited with 5 enemy aircraft shot down for a 2.5 to 1 exchange rate. SB2C’s credits were 38 enemy planes for a 2.7 to 1 exchange rate. SBD’s credits included 2 of the 47 fighters with which they were engaged, 4.3%. SB2C’s fighter credits 26 of the 202 with which they tangled, 12.9%. So it would appear that though their exchange rates were about the same, the SB2C was a better fighter killer than the SBD.

Results for survivability in exposure to AA fire were more pronounced. In 1944 carrier based SBD’s encountered enemy AA fire in 71.4% of their combat action sorties, a total of 2526 sorties. In the course of those encounters 147 SBDs were hit and of those 147, 16 were lost. That translates to a 0.6% loss rate for all SBD’s encountering AA fire and 10.9% of those hit. SB2C’s, on the other hand, encountered AA fire in 9328 of its combat action sorties, 75.6%. Of the 586 SB2C’s hit by AA fire, 162 were lost. The percent of SB2C’s encountering AA and lost was 1.7% almost double the SBD rate. Worse, at 27.6%, the percent of SB2C’s hit and lost was 2.5 times the rate for SBD’s.

Ordnance, SBD’s and SB2C’s delivered 8,757 tons of bombs, 1,529 and 7,228 respectively. The SB2C had a maximum bomb load twice the maximum load of the SBD, but was carrying a 2000 lbs bomb a common practice? Not according to the statistics. In 1944, the average SB2C in carrying out 78% of the carrier VB combat action sorties delivered 82.5% of the bomb tonnage, but the average SB2C delivered but .62 tons (1240 lbs) per attack sortie. What the oft presented lists of capacities often fail to mention is the trade-offs between speed, range and ordnance hauling ability. The conclusion might be that SB2Cs were hauling more 1000 lbs than 500, but probably not too many 2000 lbs bombs, but the 1945 data, below, suggests a slightly different picture. And the SBD, well, in delivering 17.5% remaining balance of bombs dropped by US carrier dive bombers in 1944, the average SBD carried .43 tons per attack sortie, 864 lbs. This might mean that most SBD’s were hauling 500 lbs bombs, but one might draw a different conclusion from 1942-1943 data, below. While the actual break down of bomb types carried by these aircraft in 1944 combat action sorties is not available, data is available for the 1942-43 period for carrier based SBD’s and for 1945 for the SB2C. So, breaking my promise to stick to 'just" 1944:

In the 1942 - 1943 period, carrier based SBD’s delivered:
Ordnance -- Tons -- Percent 
100 lbs GP -- 38 -- 4.0% 
500 lbs GP -- 167 -- 17.5%
1000 lbs GP -- 640 -- 67.0%
SAP and AP -- 91 -- 9.5%
260 lbs Frag -- 3 -- 0.3%
Depth Bombs -- 16 -- 1.7% 
TOTALS -- 955 -- 100% 

Carrier based SBDs flew 2,356 combat action sorties in 1942 and 1943. The average weight of mission ordnance, then was 40.5 tons, 810 lbs; somewhat less than the 1944 type total. Note that in terms of actual pieces of ordnance, the 1000 lbs GP usage was almost 2 to 1 over the 500 lbs GP.

Carrier based SB2C’s, in 1945, delivered
Ordnance -- Tons -- Percent 
100 lbs GP -- 6 -- 0.15%
250 lbs GP -- 747 -- 18.55%
500 lbs GP -- 2,344 -- 58.21%
1000 lbs GP -- 573 -- 14.23%
500 lbs SAP -- 25 -- 0.62%
1000 lbs SAP -- 202 -- 5.02%
Armor Piercing -- 28 -- 0.70%
260 Frag -- 102 -- 2.53%
TOTAL -- 4,027 -- 100.00%

Note that there were no 2000 lbs GPs delivered and note further the preponderance of 500 lbs GP. During 1945 carrier based SB2C’a flew 6,555 combat action sorties. With 4,027 tons delivered, that means the average weight of ordnance per sortie was .61 tons, or 1,229 lbs, a less than 1% difference from the 1944 bulk tonnage data.

The obvious conclusion, though, is that, as it relates to combat operations, the ability of the SB2C to carry a 2000 lbs bomb - which, incidentally, would not actually fit in the plane’s bomb bay, the doors of which would have to be closed on the bomb itself for take off and, according to the manual, once airborne, the doors were to be set to the open position and not closed until after the weapon has been delivered - becomes somewhat of a red herring. The 1945 preponderance of 500 lbs GP bombs in SB2C missions, roughly 8 to 1 ratio of 500 lbs GP to 1000 lbs GP delivered tends to belie the supposed use of 1000 lbs GPs with greater frequency theory as well. If the load pattern for the carrier based SBD’s in 1944 were similar to those of 1942 and 1943, then the SB2C’s advertised ability to carry the 1000 lbs GP rates but a “so what” when compared to the ordnance actually carried.

All in all, IMO, in actual combat, the SB2C was not all that much of an improvement, if any, over the SBD.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 11, 2009)

great post mr Leonard....I will see if I can find any information about dive angles for the Firefly, though I think you are correct, I think it was more a steep glide angle rather than a divebombing angle. 

I have seen footage showing Fireflies attacking up to angles of about 75 to 80 degrees angle of attack. Where does that place the Firefly. I do know it could effectively control its rate of descent using its combat flaps as defacto dive brakes. Its ability to slow the ratg of descent if required did improve its accuracy measuarably compared to other FBs


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2009)

parsifal said:


> APS-6 Airborne Radar
> 
> 
> Wavelength: 3 cm
> ...


Cool. So no radar for 1943 Fireflies.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2009)

Whatever plane is better, this is important:
All this talk about carrier planes really got me doing a lot of research, so my knowledge about Fulmars, Fireflies, SB2Cs, Barracudas etc is much better then two weeks ago.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 11, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Cool. So no radar for 1943 Fireflies.



ah no, the refernce to production of the APS-6 in 1944, refers to the APS-6. The Fireflies were equipped with the APS-4, which was known also as ASH radar. The characteristics were the same except that the ASH radar required a second operator due to the size of the scope.


APS-6 was the set fitted to night fighting Corsairs and Hellcats. 

Fireflies carried the ASH radar into battle from the very beginning. They were not fitted with AI Mk X (which had greater airborne detection ranges....out to approximately 100 miles under ideal conditions, and was the same gear as fitted to the Mosquitoes by then flying over Germany until the latter half of 1944


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2009)

Methinks that this settles the score (no radars for F Mk.I, but the FR Mk.I, first used in 1945):


----------



## parsifal (Nov 11, 2009)

Ah not so. Most Mk1s were upgraded to Mk1A standard which carried the radar in underwing pods. It was simply found that locating the APs-4 array in the nose was more efficient. The first Mk1As were converted in 1943. 

Nearly all RN carrier borne strike aircraft had carried some form of ASV radar since mid 1941. Because the RN emphasised the importance of night attack at this time, and also needed to counter u-Boats, the development of an effective high resolution ASV radar was a high priority.
 
What set the APS-4/6 assembly apart was that it could undertake aerial interception as well as ground strikes. The RN still preferred AI MkX for dedicated NF units because it was better at aerial combat


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2009)

> Ah not so. Most Mk1s were upgraded to Mk1A standard which carried the radar in underwing pods. It was simply found that locating the APs-4 array in the nose was more efficient. The first Mk1As were converted in 1943.


And the source is?


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 11, 2009)

parsifal said:


> great post mr Leonard....I will see if I can find any information about dive angles for the Firefly, though I think you are correct, I think it was more a steep glide angle rather than a divebombing angle.
> 
> I have seen footage showing Fireflies attacking up to angles of about 75 to 80 degrees angle of attack. Where does that place the Firefly. I do know it could effectively control its rate of descent using its combat flaps as defacto dive brakes. Its ability to slow the ratg of descent if required did improve its accuracy measuarably compared to other FBs




Mercy-buckets

Not sure how dive versus glide bombing was defined on the RN side of the pond. The USN spelled out their definition at the time, amongst other places, I am sure, in Chapter IX “Tactics and Flight Operations” of OPNAV 33-NY-85, “Introduction to Naval Aviation”. In this document is Section 4, “Bombing Tactics” which defines the differences in the attack profiles:

“Naval bombing takes the following forms:
1. Dive bombing, a high-angle attack of 60° to 90°
2. Glide bombing, at an attack angle of 30° to 55°
3. Low-level bombing, at minimum altitudes
4. Horizontal bombing, at level flight and usually from high altitude employing radar or an optical sight.”

If Fireflies were going in at angles greater than 60° on a regular basis then by this definition one of those “multiple roles” would be dive bomber. Certainly works for me.

Rich


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 11, 2009)

Helpful as ever Rich!


----------



## Freebird (Nov 11, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Whatever plane is better, this is important:
> All this talk about carrier planes really got me doing a lot of research, so my knowledge about Fulmars, Fireflies, SB2Cs, Barracudas etc is much better then two weeks ago.



Yes indeed, most interesting information



parsifal said:


> IMO the SBD was the best daytime D/B of the war. It was the ideal mix of stability, accuracy, range, firepower and defensive capability. Its performance was not that bad when compared in the fully loaded state.
> 
> The runs it got onto the board are testament to its effectiveness
> 
> ...



Yes I would agree with you on all points.

If this had been "Best DB in 1942" (or 1941 for that matter) the Dauntless would be hands down winner.

The fact that it was key in the Midway victory, the failure of the SB2C as a replacement (until late '44 at least), the fact most of Japan's Naval Air capability was lost within 6 months of Pearl, and the fact that DB's were not much used in the ETO, all helped to put the Dauntless as runaway favorite.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2009)

The picture of SB2D-1 (early, with 4 x .50 cals and 3-blade prop - the 1700 HP engine). Note the yagi antennas of two planes attached to the underside of outer wing pannels, a part of ASB radar.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 11, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> And the source is?



I knew you were going to ask me that....and i dont have an accessible source that you can read about this in a single document. Most of my information about the Firefly i obtained in visits to the RANs avaition museum, based in a town called Nowra here in Australia, located about 200 km from where i live. The place has a fantastic database on most of the aircraft on display, including the firefly that served in the RAN until 1955.

However, some inling of why I say what i say can be found from this reasonable single page resource...


Fairey Firefly

Relevantly it says:

"the first production Firefly F.Mk 1 aircraft were delivered in March 1943. A total of 459 of this version was built, 327 by Fairey and 132 by General Aircraft under sub-contract. The addition of ASH radar beneath the engine identified the Firefly FR.Mk 1, of which 236 were built, and a number of Firefly F.Mk Is modified to Firefly FR.MK 1 standard had the designation Firefly F.Mk IA. A Firefly NF.Mk 11 night-fighter version was developed, but when it was realised that its AI Mk 10 radar could be pod mounted beneath the engine, as with the ASH radar of the Firefly FR.MK 1, the planned 328 aircraft programme was cancelled. Instead, 140 Firefly FR.MK Is were modified on the production line to Firefly NF.Mk 1 configuration, the 37 Firefly NF.Mk IIs that had been built being converted back to Mk 1 standard."

What is not stated here is that nearly 380 of the 430 Mk1 were converted to Mk1A standard, and that this conversion pre-dated the introduction of the FRMk-1. This numvber of conversions is stated on the Fleet air arm site, if you want to get verification.

So the critical piece of information you are asking for i dont have, but i have seen, namely that the Mk-1A conversions predated the FR-Mk-1 purpose built aircraft. I can tell you that the barracuda, as built, and predating the firefly, were fitted with ASH radars from the beginning. Perhaps the Mk-1A conversions stemmed from the experiences of the radar equipped Barras....but that is just speculation 

If ever you are in Australia, I would be happy to take you to the museum to view the resources for yourself.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 12, 2009)

It would be cool to visit Australia per se, let alone the museum(s)...


----------



## Freebird (Dec 4, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Remember the Captain of USS Yorktown CV-10 that had his Helldivers swapped for SBD-3 Dauntless', because, as he put it, wouldn't use them as anchors!
> 
> SBD for me all the way!





Shortround6 said:


> Throw the Helldivers over the side right away (it only saves time) and check the other two planes again.



OK, so it would seen that the SB2C is "Not ready for prime time" in the spring of '43. From what Syscom Lucky have posted, it seems the Helldiver wasn't really viable until late 44/45.  (Tailhooks ripped off parts falling off your aircraft pretty much rules it out for me.  ) Sounds like the Judy has too many problems in the spring of '43 also.



parsifal said:


> IMO the SBD was the best daytime D/B of the war. It was the ideal mix of stability, accuracy, range, firepower and defensive capability.



My question: How does the SBD-5 compare with the Firefly? Would the Firefly be inferior in any of the DB's imprtant categories? 

In addition to payload, I'll add the items from Parsifal's list: 

1.) payload - Firefly 2,000 lbs vs 1,200 for the SBD

2.) stability - The Dauntless performed well aboard carriers AFAIK, but the Firefly was very manouverable at low speeds, due to the F-Y flaps

3.) accuracy - The Dauntless performed well, I haven't heard of any problems with the Firefly... Anyone have any data on the Firefly's DB accuracy? 

4.) range - about the same: 1,364 Firefly vs 1,345 Dauntless

5.) firepower - Firefly 4 x 20mm, Dauntless 4 x MG

6.) defensive capability.- The Dauntless had 2 MG's in the rear, but the Firefly had the 4 x 20mm cannon, and was very agile at low levels. The Firefly was also far faster, at 319 mph it was almost as fast as the A6M2 (330 mph) compared to ~250 mph for the SBD-5


----------



## parsifal (Dec 4, 2009)

Problem with the Judy was its inadequate protection. Its hard to gauge how the Judy would have fared if it had been in USN service. It had good range and good performance, but was lightweight and vulnerable


----------



## renrich (Dec 5, 2009)

Actually the TBF probably should be included on this list. It delivered far more bombs than torpedoes.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 5, 2009)

How does the war record compare between these, ship sunk/damaged, aircraft damaged/shot down etc., etc....?


----------



## renrich (Dec 5, 2009)

For the whole war, USN TBF,TBM delivered more than 24000 tons of bombs.USN SBD delivered more than 2500 tons of bombs. The TBF first got into action at Midway in 1942 so my guess is that in 1943 TBFs dropped a lot more bombs than any of the other contenders. One question I have always had about the Avenger is why it had only one forward firing pea shooter, a 30 cal. SBD3s and later had two fifties which would make a head on run hazardous.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 6, 2009)

Wasn't Avenger equipped with 2 x .50 cals in wings for a better part of war?


----------



## renrich (Dec 6, 2009)

TP, I looked it up and according to wiki you are correct. The Avenger at some point was equipped with 2-50 cals after the pilots complained about the single 30 cal. I don't blame them.


----------

