British Dive Bombers or lack thereof

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Shortround6 said:
It was a dead duck in 1940 without escort, but so was a Wellington or a DB-3.

So was the Ju 87.

This assumes a decent number of interceptors vs bombers.
Click to expand...

My point is that they were not using the He 111 in day time strikes against ground targets in the Western desert, almost ever, from say Dec 1941, whereas Stukas were still being used well into 1943. Fighter protection for the Axis bombers was always intermittent at best.
 
Last edited:
Stuka was outfitted with drop tanks before the BoB, the Ju-87B-based R version (and later the R2 version, based on B2). The 87D versions were also with greater internal fuel + drop tank capacity.
The biggest drawback in my eyes was it's low speed.
 
They put drop tanks on it, but that slows it down even more and range still isn't that great... and they can now only carry a single 550 lb bomb. The D was definitely better and extended the life of the Stuka, but eventually as you say, the speed was a problem, and the range still mediocre (compare to say, a Yokosuka D4Y or Aichi B7, or even a Vultee Vengeance).
 
A number of dive bombers could trade bomb load for fuel. A lot depends on which version (engine) and allowable gross weight.
By the fall of 1942 the SBD was rated at 10400lbs max gross but early in 1942 the Pilots manual limited the plane to 9031lbs (protection, a 1000lb and 100 US gallons of fuel)
With an extra 1300lbs of gross weight they could fill the tanks with another 149 gallons of fuel. Of course a few other things were affected, like it took 12 minutes for the plane with the extra fuel to hit 10,000ft in a climb while the more lightly loaded version took 12.6 minutes to hit 15,000ft.

A lot depends on what you want to do. A single 500-550lb bomb or a 1000-1100lb bomb, Is it moderate weather or over 100 degrees F.

The Ju 87 got a little faster (20mph?) but a D-1 was over 2,000lbs heavier empty than a B-1, however the max weight went from 9560lbs (later Bs or Rs got heavier) while the D-1 went to 14,450lbs. the D went to 800 liters of internal fuel vs the 500 liters in the B-1 ( R-2s got more internal fuel )
The rear guns may have helped a little with survival, The MG 81z had about 3 times the fire power of the MG 15 and the belt feeds meant the gunner wasn't frantically changing drums ever 6-7 seconds of fire. Ds had a bit more armor?

The Yokosuka D4Y was the dive bomber that wasn't. They don't fix the strength/flutter problem until part way through 1943 (prototype flew Dec 1940), it won't operated from the Japanese smaller, slower carriers in 1943/44 (most what they have left) In 1943 against Hellcats they are not fast enough and the single Japanese built MG 15 machine gun isn't enough for defense.
 
But the issue isn't so much heavy loads as range. I think they only made a few Ju87R right?

Weight is one thing, weight + a lot of drag is more of a problem. The D was better protected for sure (twin guns with very high ROF are helpful) but it also had less drag, they rearranged the radiators etc. Drag also effects range, i.e. your engine may have 1,400 hp or whatever, but it's going to be working that much harder on a plane with fixed undercarriage and big old flaps sticking out in the slipstream.

D4Y definitely had problems, though they did hit ships with them. Their biggest problem was their fighter escort couldn't really cope with F6 and F4U. B7 was excellent but came too late, and the Vindicator may not have been fast enough to contend with Bf 109s (I'm not certain it was, given fighter escort, but it may have been) but all three had better range than a Ju-87B or D.
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
But the issue isn't so much heavy loads as range. I think they only made a few Ju87R right?
Click to expand...

German production was such that they also shipped some to Italians. Seems like 105 of the Ju-87R1 was made before 1st July 1940, and 7 of R2 (based on B2, with 1200 HP engine), with plan for another 609 of R2 between 1st July 1940 and August of 1941.
(one R1 - or R2? - was downed near the place I live at 6th April 1941 by the AA, when Axis countries attacked Yugoslavia; that one overflew Adriatic to attack Yu navy assets in Šibenik)
Ju-87B1 and B2 was made in 697+129 copies respectively before 1st July 1940, after that it was planed to make another 96 B2s, and order was made for 495 Ju-87Ds.
Production of Ju-87B1 and R1 stopped before end of June 1940.


Draggy it certainly was, the Stuka. Drop tanks more than doubled the fuel carried on the B, though.


D4Y indeed have had it's share of problems. The main problem was probably that it's tanks were not self-sealing, and protection for crew was lacking. Lesser problem was that it took them to fully rate it for dive bombing.
It was very fast for a bomber, and indeed a rangy one.
Granted, fighter escort for the D4Y was woeful, but that is not fault of the designers or the D4Y. Same problem was shared by the B7A.
It was probably too bad that R-1830-powered Vindicator was not followed through.
 
agreed, I was being a bit ironic - I think the D4Y would have posed quite a threat if the Japanese hadn't already basically lost air superiority by the time it was deployed. The B7A was a bit more formidable than the D4Y as it was protected with armor etc., was even faster (350 mph, allegedly) and apparently very maneuverable, and heavily armed as well (two 20mm cannon). Maybe not enough to put dents in US fleets without strong fighter escort, but it was a more dangerous bird than the D4Y, IMO. Of course it came out far too late.

Also agree about the Vengeance. Some of the Aussies seem to have felt it was a very good aircraft.

EDIT - I got confused here and misread that, I thought you meant the Vengeance. Really should put on the glasses before reading forums. I'm not as bullish on the Vindicator.
 
Last edited:
The UK may have had to go over ADM King's body to get SBDs after 1941
 
pinehilljoe said:
The UK may have had to go over ADM King's body to get SBDs after 1941
Click to expand...
We got 9 SBD-5 in 1944 that were used for trials purposes only, mainly for comparison against the SBW-1 Helldiver. But by then there were plenty in US service.
 
Hi
Plenty of information on Wann/Woodhall around in various publications including 'Air Support AP 3235' Air Ministry 1935 (Available on Air Historical Branch website), extracts:


'Strategy for Victory, The Development of British Tactical Air Power, 1919-1945' by David Ian Hall, Praeger 2008:

'The Development of British Tactical Air Power 1940-1943, A History of Army Co-operation Command' by Matthew Powell, Palgrave 2016 (I believe the PhD this is based on is available on-line) extracts:



The British and French ordered the Vengeance in the summer of 1940, the latter did not get any of course but the RAF ordered 700 and finally entered service with the RAF in India August 1942, first operation on October 1942, last operation 12 July 1944. The squadrons equipped had their Vengeance aircraft replaced by Mosquito Mk. VI during 1944. When the USA entered the war the USAAF repossessed a number of the British order, including 243 from their cash contract, so obviously causing a delay in their use by the RAF. According to Swanborough & Bowers in 'United States Military Aircraft since 1909', Putnam, a US Army General described, in 1943, the aircraft as "a shining example of the waste of material, manpower, and time in the production of an aeroplane which this office (Directorate of Military Requirements) has tried to eliminate for several months."
As for the A-24, when the USAAF started to use it in the Far East in February 1942 it was found to be too slow, too short of range and too vulnerable for continued operations.
I believe both types would have found the European and North African combat environments quite challenging in the same time periods.

Mike
 
Oh, Dear Lord, we can't have that!
Army AND Navy personell working together?
No no, there'll be none of that! ( )
 

It's clear that training was one of the biggest issues with the SBD, as you could see USMC and USN units flying the same aircraft against the same targets in the same area at the same time and the Navy pilots had much better results, both offensively and defensively. The USAAF didn't even do proper dive bombing with them and had little training on type.

This is an issue, IMO, with WW2 aircraft, that we don't always recognize. Some of them took far more training to use operationally. Others were easier to figure out in the field. It's the sad reality that many combat pilots were more or less thrown into the breach with very little if any training on type. Dive bombing in general, and I think SBD in particular, did not lend themselves well to this kind of sink or swim situation that so many Allied pilots faced in the early war, and so many Axis pilots faced in the second half of it.

But that said, the SBD was slow and I think would have been fairly vulnerable against land based Luftwaffe fighters - too much so for the ground war probably. The DAF already had their fighter-bombers, plus Boston, Baltimore and later, B-25s and B-24s to do the bombing in the land war, and they worked out quite well. Later still after Anzio they had the A-36 which was quite effective in the dive bombing role and fast & agile enough to evade even the best Axis fighters.

On the other hand, had the SBD been able to operate from RN aircraft carriers it would have been quite useful both in the Med and North Sea, IMO much superior compared to Skua, Swordfish and Albacore, in my opinion. It had a much greater range for one thing, was more survivable, and was quite accurate in bombing (with sufficient training). Dive bombing attacks are a bit harder for AAA to cope with than long, slow torpedo runs, and can't be prevented with nets. The main issue preventing their use was probably the lack of folding wings.

I think the Vengeance, though larger than the SBD, might have also been quite useful for the RN. The Avenger / Tarpon obviously did turn out to be effective for the FAA and replaced their obsolete biplane types.
 
Overall that speaks to the (to me) interesting issue of how some aircraft performed well in one Theater, in the hands of one military branch, and poorly in another. Very common situation in WW2.
 
The SBDs also had a bit of problem in New Guinea getting from the Allied airfields to the Japanese airfields.

Climbing over the Owen Stanley mountains sucked fuel more than the more typical navy flight path (burn off some fuel before climbing).
With a 1000lb and 100 gallons of fuel the SBD needed about 850ft of runway in standard conditions (non-tropical) and it needed 1250ft with the 1000lb bomb and 249 gallons also non tropical. That is runway ground run, not distance to 50ft. 500lb bombs need shorter distances.

A lot also depended on when. The Air fields got better but the Allies based a number of their bombers away from Port Moresby and just routed through in order to avoid Japanese air raids.
The A-24s had been intended for the Philippines and had been rerouted.
 
I know about the SBD in the Med, which was mainly against Vichy fighters (and they did well), don't know much about SBD Operational history in Norway. The only example I know of is "Operation Leader" - a small campaign but it seems they did pretty well there. Sunk and damaged several German ships and daamged occupied Norwegian ports and had fairly light losses (2 aircraft). I don't think they encountered German fighters though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Axis Strategic Heavy Bombers?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
A
British Aerial Ordnance Exotica
Replies
2
Views
852
Shortround6
S
S
Adherent or Mafia?
Replies
6
Views
991
Shortround6
S
German heavy bombers
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register