Best Dive Bomber of WWII

[V-1710]

I vote for the Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless.

 

[syscom3]

Me too.

 

[V-1710]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

It sure did, eh Syscom?!?

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

 

[syscom3]

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

There were plenty of exaggerations on both sides apparently.

 

[pbfoot]

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

 

[trackend]

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

 

[V-1710]

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

 

[Gnomey]

Dauntless for me too.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

damn it why did the RAF have any decent dive bombers

 

[Andrew]

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

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

Ju-87...Mmmmm...

 

[pbfoot]

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

 

[MacArther]

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

 

[delcyros]

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

 

[JCS]

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

Where'd you hear that?

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

 

[JCS]

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

 

[V-1710]

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

 

[elmilitaro]

The dauntless gets my vote.

 

[Glider]

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