best carrier attack A/C

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Fieseler himself descended from 9,800 ft. to 100 ft. while remaining stationary over one spot while retaining full control.


I suppose it was the best carrier borne aircraft that could go through helicopter manuvers. But it could still be shot down like any other dive bomber thats losing altitude to attack a ship, maybe even more vulnerable, staying in one spot.

For straffing a ship, or perhaps launching a torpedo, hovering would provide a stable platform to do it, but it doesn't sound the best for dropping a bomb on top of a ship.


I don't see why even an early jet like the Skyhawk would lose the competition to the 167 in attacking an Aircraft Carrier. Would the 167 really survive the flak better than the Skyhawk? If the 167 is the winner, why aren't we still using Navy bi-planes today instead of the volatile jets?

 

[lesofprimus]

The B7a doesnt have a significant combat record to back up being the best, and with only 80 or so actually gettting into a combat unit, I cant justify it....

Yea, the potential it COULD have had was immense, but seeing how it never flew operationally FROM a carrier, no one will ever know....

As far as ur quote from Wikipedia, have u ever added info into a certain topic there??? Any meatball with a keyboard can add things to those "information" tidbits.... In all my experience, there were very few pilots that flew the Helldiver with joy, and the vast majority of former Dauntless pilots disliked it as well...

 

[syscom3]

What was wrong with the Helldiver?

It had an alarming tendency to lose its tail on occasion.

 

[comiso90]

As far as ur quote from Wikipedia, have u ever added info into a certain topic there??? Any meatball with a keyboard can add things to those "information" tidbits.....

I admit that Wiki is too often the easy answer and I am often lazy. It often shows up high on searches but.... it is far from a hack job, it is a good resource.

 

[comiso90]

The B7a doesnt have a significant combat record to back up being the best, and with only 80 or so actually gettting into a combat unit, I cant justify it....
..

better combat record than the Fi 167.

LOL

 

[syscom3]

better combat record than the Fi 167.

LOL

 

[Civettone]

While the Brits, US and Japan were figuring out that slow moving torpedo bombers were sitting ducks, here comes a plane that remains motionless. Easy pickings for the AAA.

I said it could remain motionless when landing. How you interpret that as attacking while motionless is beyond me. You can read, can't you?

The "Kate" torpedo bomber also carried a heavier payload than the 1000 pounder than this airplane did.

Obviously you can't read. A 1000 pounder is not equal to a 1000 KG bomb.
Yeah, it blows your mind, doesn't it??

And the figures for the navalized version for this plane are?

The same as for the Ju 87D...
Kris

 

[delcyros]

As far as ur quote from Wikipedia, have u ever added info into a certain topic there??? Any meatball with a keyboard can add things to those "information" tidbits.... In all my experience, there were very few pilots that flew the Helldiver with joy, and the vast majority of former Dauntless pilots disliked it as well...

I was concentrating on a book rather than on Wiki regarding the B7. It deals with the IJN Shinano which should receive an airwing of B7´s but sunk before that. There are few good infos on the B7 out in the net, that´s why I would like to hear Your thoughts.

Aichi B7A "Ryusei"

P.S.: Yup. I recently deleted an entry in the HMS Queen Elizabeth class entry of Wiki, which told that they sunk SMS Lützow at Jutland.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just in 1942, count up the % of attacks made by SBD's v Vals that scored at least some hits. If you did that I don't see how you could argue with my statement, early in the war formations of Vals almost never wholly missed their ship targets, SBD's sometimes did (more often that not did off Guadalcanal, for that specific campaign count up all the cases in Frank's "Guadalcanal" and see what you find). SBD's did enough damage to the Japanese to contribute in a major way to turning the tide in 1942. But the two statements aren't contradictory, SBD's were effective in 1942, Vals were more accurate still in general.

So that meant the SBD hit "better" targets based on their contribution in "turning the tide," right?

 

[syscom3]

Obviously you can't read. A 1000 pounder is not equal to a 1000 KG bomb. Yeah, it blows your mind, doesn't it??

You're right, it did say "KG".

The same as for the Ju 87D...
Kris

You sure about that? All they had to do was add an arresting hook with no changes to the airframe?

BTW, The Japanese "Kate" carried almost the same payload, but at a far superior range, and a significantly faster speed than your choice.

Just by specifications only, the Kate is superior.

 

[delcyros]

The conversion of the Jumo-87B into -C included several modifications to the filter systems, a salt water resistent camouflage, a generally strengthened fuselage, a new outer wing design with folding ends and the Hook.
The same should be expected for conversions of the Ju-87D into a carrier varient. That´s not simply done by fitting a hook to the fuselage.

 

[Civettone]

Like I said, flight performance of the Ju 87E stayed the same. There were several changes but the weight increase was kept to a minimum. Most Ju 87D's carried 600 kg of armour and yet it kept its flight performance.

BTW, The Japanese "Kate" carried almost the same payload, but at a far superior range, and a significantly faster speed than your choice.

Syscom, you're mistaking:
- The Stuka could carry up to 1,800 kg though a single 1,000 kg bomb was more common. The Kate could carry up to 1,100 kg though 3 250 kg bombs were a more common load. That's not even close to almost the same payload.
- far superior range? The Ju 87D could fly over a 1000 km with a bombload or 1530 km without it. As far as I know the Kate had a better range but I wouldn't call it far superior, and definitely not when carrying something like a torpedo.
- significantly faster speed? The Ju 87E flew at 400 km/h, Kate at 370 km/h.

Now let's go beyond that. Kate had hardly any armour and carried a single 7.7mm MG. The Ju 87E would have carried 600 kg of armour and was the best protected single-engined bomber in existence. It would probably have gotten 2 20mm cannons in the wings and a double MG in the rear.

As it was both a torpedo bomber and a dive bomber, I think it would have been the best in its timeframe. But I already voted for the Fi 167 because of handling.
Kris

 

[syscom3]

I was referring to the Kate vs the -187.

The Stuka is not a torpedo bomber and the Kate is not a dive bomber.

 

[renrich]

If this is about WW2 carrier attack planes and we are talking about overall effectiveness as well as survivability I would have to vote for the SBD. It was even used as a CAP(against torpedo attack planes) in the early days of the Pacific war before the carriers embarked more than one VF squadron. Also it was a good scout plane because of it's long range(around 1100 miles) The Kate was a good torpedo plane as well as a horizontal bomber. I believe the bomb(converted naval projectile) that did the most damage at Pearl Harbor to the Arizona was delivered by a Kate.

 

[Civettone]

Syscom, I suppose you mean the -167? I reread your post and you were replying on my comment on the Ju 87:
You sure about that? All they had to do was add an arresting hook with no changes to the airframe?

BTW, The Japanese "Kate" carried almost the same payload, but at a far superior range, and a significantly faster speed than your choice.

Just by specifications only, the Kate is superior.

And the Ju 87E was also a torpedo bomber.
Kris

 

[syscom3]

So now the Stuka is also a torpedo bomber?

Simply amazing airplane isnt it.

BTW, when it comes to carrier warfare, range with a usefull payload is paramount.

The Kate was superior to the -167 in all aspects. It carried its payload at a further range than your -167. In fact, it did this under actual combat missions, something which your choice didn't do.

Important sea battles where the Kate made its presence known...
Pearl Harbor
Indian Ocean Raid
Coral Sea
Midway
Eastern Solomons
Santa Cruz

Important battles where your -167 made its presence known......

 

[Civettone]

Yes, the Ju 87E was also a torpedo bomber. As such it would have replaced the Fi 167 and the Ju 87C.

About the Fi 167. Just because the Fi 167 didn't see action doesn't mean it was worse than the Kate. I gave the example of Swedish Saab-35 and -37 jets. They were arguably the best interceptors in the world though they were never used in combat.

The Kate was probably the most vulnerable bomber of WW2: slow, unarmoured and one light MG for defence.
Kris

 

[JoeB]

1. If this is about WW2 carrier attack planes and we are talking about overall effectiveness as well as survivability I would have to vote for the SBD.

2. It was even used as a CAP(against torpedo attack planes) in the early days of the Pacific war before the carriers embarked more than one VF squadron.

3. Also it was a good scout plane because of it's long range(around 1100 miles)

4. The Kate was a good torpedo plane as well as a horizontal bomber.

1. Survivability is mainly relative, unless we are comparing different planes that performed the same mission on the same side at the same time. For Type 99 (Val), SBD and Ju-87 we're generally speaking of different opposition. I agree between the SBD and Type 99 in the Pacific in 1942, the SBD was relatively more survivable, but it faced a different defence. The SBD's biggest successes came when the Japanese basically failed to intercept it, at Midway (lack of radar direction and flaws in their CAP practices) and in most missions flown from Guadalcanal (Zeroes were based too far away to give good fighter cover to J convoys near G'canal, for the most part). In absolute terms, most SBD's that fought in 1942 (eg. SBD-3) had armor and self sealing tanks, better rear firing armament (2 v 1 rifle cal mg's) and much better fwd firing (2*.50 v 2 *.30), but the Val was actually faster despite the obsolete fixed gear arrangement, and probably more maneuverable (it was considered highly maneuverable even by Japanese standards).

2. But that was a failure. SBD's were used that way at Coral Sea and lost 4 while being credited with 4 Zeroes in one combat, but the combat involved Zuikaku Zeroes and they didn't record any losses. And even the USN at the time realized the SBD's had failed to catch the Type 97's (Kates) the Zeroes were escorting: they blew past the SBD's in a shallow dive. The tactic assumed enemy VT would approach very low and slow like USN VT because they had to launch their torpedoes very low and slow, but the Japanese didn't. Even just defending themselves, SBD's only downed a small handful of Zeroes in 1942 that can be verified in Japanese accounts (though they did also wound Saburo Sakai over G'canal). SBD success in air combat is mainly a misimpression given by war time claims.

3. It was a good scout. But comparing to the Japanese they didn't use the Type 99 as a scout. They used floatplanes as much as possible to conserve striking power, supplemented by Type 97's, in 1942. And the Japanese often flew longer searches than the US std 250 mile so practically the SBD didn't give the USN a longer scouting reach. An SBD was more survivable than most floatplanes though and carried bombs on scouting missions; Zuiho was hit at the Battle of Santa Cruz by a pair of scouting SBD's.

4. The Kate was clearly the most effective carrier based torpedo plane in 1942, and what's more it had been around since 1937, was really the TBD's contemporary not the TBF's. But I don't know how to compare a divebomber to a level bomber/torpedo plane.

I like the SBD, but I don't see a big difference between it and the Type 99 in 1942. The Type 99's and crews were more accurate in general in 1942, but the SBD scored more important hits as it happened. The Type 99 was relatively less survivable against the opposition it met than the SBD, but clearly an unescorted formation of either would be in trouble against numerous well piloted fighters of the most modern types in 1942 (eg. situations where Ju-87's got badly mauled).

Joe

 

[renrich]

Joe, good points all. One interesting consideration is that the success of the SBDs depended a great deal on the IJN pitiful attempts at damage control. Very few large Allied ships were sunk principally by dive bombing. Almost all were put down by torpedos. Bombs let light in, torpedoes let water in.

 

[Civettone]

Good posts!

Kris