The problem with dive bombers is that they are low energy.
You have to balance the G loading with the available power and the drag. An SBD-5 used an engine like a Hawk 75 (just later by a few years) and while the SBD may have had a lower wing loading (no bombs and 1/2 fuel) it was heavier and had higher drag. It could turn as well for a short period of time but it couldn't sustain it. It started slower and lost speed quicker in the turn quicker. Also couldn't climb anywhere near like a fighter, even a slow one.
They can jink or short sharp turn to throw off the fighters aim and make it come around again. But the dive bomber can't keep turning, it has to fly straight (or gentle curve) to regain energy for the next maneuver.
Against 3 seat torpedo bombers or float planes it looks like a rocket.
And
that is basically the point. I never compared an SBD to a Hawk 75. Nor did I claim it could handle Zeros on an equal basis (as some people have done, and with due respect to a certain 'Swede'). The point is simply that dive bombers, probably all of them but certainly the SBD and I think the Skua as well,
could in fact successfully engage scout planes, flying boats and yep torpedo bombers (SBDs definitely shot down a few of those), and since carrier groups spent most of their time operating beyond the range of land based fighters, even in the Pacific,
this was a vital role.
Scouts and float planes, intermediate aircraft like Hudsons, He 115s and Fw 200s may seem fairly
boring compared to a high performance fighter aircraft, but allowing them to operate with impunity near or over your fleet was very dangerous, and could in fact spell doom for convoys and naval task forces. You needed aircraft that could both scout and shoot down enemy aircraft.
Yes I agree, using the SBDs to try to stop enemy strikes that were escorted by Zeros was an act of desperation. Sometimes you need to do that in war. War is often desperation, in fact unless it's some serious mismatch desperation is almost the norm. But on a much more routine basis planes like SBDs could and definitely did engage enemy aircraft, it was part of what they were designed and intended to do, and this ongoing lower intensity battle that was always going on any time a friendly fleet was operating near enemy bases or fleets, you needed all the resources you could get. Sure it would be great to send out another five carrier groups, or if you had a carrier that was twice the size of the one you had and carried three times as many fighters. But none of that was real. They had to fight with what was available. And given that fighters in the early war did not have the ship-sinking strike capability that either dive bombers or torpedo bombers had, those small carriers often had at least three types of aircraft on them. Certainly two types at a minimum. Your Fairy Swordfish isn't going to shoot down an enemy torpedo bomber of flying boat. Neither is a TBD Devastator. But an SBD can. A Skua can.
Looking at a combat history for the Z.506 during the battle of Greece. Not bothering with whether claims were real or not, they were engaged with aircraft like Blenheims (multiple times), Fairey Battles, Sunderlands, Gladiators. They weren't fighting Ta -152s or Spitfire Mk 21s. It's not a decisive clash like Midway or an epic struggle like the Battle of Britain, but these combats were important. And that is what 'second tier' fighting aircraft could do, you could count most dive bombers in that category. They were definitely better than a Blenheim in this role and yet, Blenheims were also used. This is what was happening in between the big famous engagements, and this was part of what turned the tide one way or the other.
Using dive bombers as fighters was a sign of desperation, not good planning.
Which part of WW2 prior to the Axis collapse went according to plan, exactly?
dingeraviation.net
