D4Y3 vs SB2C

[METTATON6662]

Both were dive bombers introduced in the second half of ww2 and both are relatively unknown, as they didn't have important kills such as the d3a and the SBD. The SB2C wasn't really liked by the pilots and the D4Y had technical issues and did not have the chance to show itself well enough, but which of them would be more effective against enemy carriers with fighter cover? The D4Y was a lot faster (by nearly 100 km/h) and had better handling characteristics than the American counterpart, but the SB2C was, of course, better armored, had a better range and had the ability to carry torpedoes as well. So which one is better (this should completely depend on the planes themselves and not side factors such as better fighter cover for the US)?

 

[wlewisiii]

SDB-6

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If I remember right, the D4Y was not only faster, but more nimble, which perhaps would have helped survivability and/or attack set-up?

I'd imagine the Helldiver's ability to carry a broader array of ordnance, as well as its SS tanks and armor, would make it more useful.

I do know I wouldn't want to fly any bomber in contested skies lacking SS tanks and armor, myself ... but from accounts I've read, the SB2C was a pig to fly.

 

[METTATON6662]

The D4Y could compete with a fighter, but its bombload wasn't as impressive as the SB2C4 one and it wasn't really armored, however it was more durable than its predecessors. The only reason its success was limited is because it had few opportunities to perform and the pilots weren't the same as two years ago

 

[METTATON6662]

SDB-6

The SBD was too slow and sluggish and had no bigger payload than the D4Y, it was too outdated at that time