Dive bomber accuracy in perspective.

[buffnut453]

Most of these encounters are going to be a single plane (or perhaps 2-3 Skua's) encountering the German (or Italian) plane with both sides at cruising speeds and a lot depends on who sees who first AND what course the planes are steering. As an example if the Skua is 10mph faster than the axis plane and is 5 miles behind it even with a radar vector from a ship it it is going to take 30 minutes to catch the enemy. A lot of hide and seek among the clouds.

The scenario you paint was not the case for Skua ops over Norway, in which Skuas which accounted for 20 Luftwaffe aircraft in air-to-air kills plus another 12 destroyed in strafing attacks and 8 more that were destroyed when they crash-landed after the engagement (figures from "Flying Sailors at War" by Cull et al, and are actual German losses not merely Skua claims).

Air-to-air claims included:

1 x Dornier Do 26 Flying boat
3 x Dornier 18 flying boat
2 x Heinkel 115 floatplane
9 x Henkel 111 bomber
5 x Junkers Ju 88

There's some good info here:

Blackburn Skua and Roc operations in the Norway campaign.

dingeraviation.net

Also recommend "Fledgling Eagles" by Shores et al that includes coverage of the Norwegian Campaign in 1940.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The scenario you paint was not the case for Skua ops over Norway, in which Skuas which accounted for 20 Luftwaffe aircraft in air-to-air kills plus another 12 destroyed in strafing attacks and 8 more that were destroyed when they crash-landed after the engagement (figures from "Flying Sailors at War" by Cull et al, and are actual German losses not merely Skua claims).

Air-to-air claims included:

1 x Dornier Do 26 Flying boat
3 x Dornier 18 flying boat
2 x Heinkel 115 floatplane
9 x Henkel 111 bomber
5 x Junkers Ju 88

There's some good info here:

Blackburn Skua and Roc operations in the Norway campaign.

dingeraviation.net

Also recommend "Fledgling Eagles" by Shores et al that includes coverage of the Norwegian Campaign in 1940.

Yeah this is quite interesting. Of course it's claims rather than real verified victories, but they probably got a few of these for real. And this is exactly the kind of thing that a dive bomber or other miscellaneous armed aircraft would be good for. Dive bombers were agile and often fairly well armed, strongly built to take the stresses of high-G pull out etc. If you are flying in an He 115 or an early He 111 a Skua probably looks pretty scary.

I'm not surprised to see their victories over flying boats and seaplanes, early He 111s somewhat (later He 111s would probably be too fast) and I'm impressed and a bit surprised to see that they got a few Ju 88s (fighter versions? What did that mean at that time? That's before Ju 88C right?), and they seem to have been able to survive combat against Bf 110s too.

But clearly the Skuas got wrecked when they encountered the 'first tier' land based fighters i.e. Bf 109s losing eight of 15 Skuas in one encounter. So that pretty well delineates the role I'd say. Flying boats and seaplanes, and the slower long range bombers (Fw 200, G3M etc.) still need to be stopped. They may be working with / spotting for submarines and some of them carry torpedos and bombs (He 111s and He 115s sunk a lot of ships in some convoy fights, G3M were certainly deadly ship killers if left unmolested). If you have an aircraft like a Skua or an SBD that can eliminate these and / or drive them off, of course you are going to use it. The best real fighters available to the FAA in the early war like Sea Gladiators, Sea Hurricanes, and Fulmars were either too slow, didn't have the combat range, or were not yet available. There were never enough of them regardless.

I found some similar combat histories I'll post shortly.

 

[buffnut453]

Yeah this is quite interesting. Of course it's claims rather than real verified victories, but they probably got a few of these for real.

Nope...these are verified victories based on German loss records.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Nope...these are verified victories based on German loss records.

Even better

 

[elbmc1969]

It wasn't? Stukas seem to have sunk a ton of ships lol

If you sink 100 ships, but fly 10,000 sorties to accomplish it, I wouldn't call the aircraft especially "effective."

 

[wuzak]

Dive bombers were agile and often fairly well armed, strongly built to take the stresses of high-G pull out etc.

Were they agile?

Well armed? Didn't they usually have a couple of guns up front and one gun out back?

Strongly built also suggests heavy, which would seem to be detrimental to agility.

 

[Shortround6]

Were they agile?

Well armed? Didn't they usually have a couple of guns up front and one gun out back?

Strongly built also suggests heavy, which would seem to be detrimental to agility.

An SBD-3 as per the manual weighed 7,306lbs with crew and equipment and guns but no bomb/s, zero fuel and zero oil.
Unarmed (means no bombs) scout mission called for 150 US gallons of fuel, oil could be 90lbs.
It did have a 324sq ft wing.
Rated climb was 10.9 minutes to 15,000ft.

Two . 50 cal out the front. one or two .30 cal out the back, (add a bit of weight for 2nd gun?).
The SBD had about the best armament for common dive bombers until about the 2nd 1/2 of 1943.
The four guns in the Skua are good for 1939/1940.

Trying to imitate Swede Vejtasa with an SB2C was probably not going to happen even with a pair of 20mm cannon.

you did have low wing loading but the question becomes how well did it roll or respond to the other controls. Probably not too bad or dive bombing accuracy wouldn't have been good but it couldn't be too twitchy either.
If you are trying to shoot down Kates, it may work, likewise float planes/flying boats. Not sure about attacking an Emily.

 

[Zipper730]

The RAF, meanwhile, was still fielding aircraft like the Vickers Wellesley...

This is rather interesting... according to the initial spec, the plane was designed with a dive-bombing capability.

During 1931, the Ministry released Specification G.4/31, which called for a general purpose aircraft that was capable of carrying out level bombing, army co-operation, dive bombing, reconnaissance, casualty evacuation and torpedo bombing.

Was this retained by the time the plane entered service?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Were they agile?

Yes. Agile. At least once they drop the bomb(s). I don't know about the Skua, but many, many pilots described the Stuka, the D3A, and the SBD as very agile.
They had a low wing loading, and being stressed for high G loads they could pull high G turns.

(SBD-5 is 28 lbs / sq ft earlier versions are better than that, D3A1 had 22 lbs / sq ft, Ju-87B-1 was about the same or a bit less)

Well armed? Didn't they usually have a couple of guns up front and one gun out back?

SBD had two heavy machine guns in the nose, which in 1941 or 42 was fairly good, better than a lot of fighters, Skua had 4 rifle caliber machine guns. Soviet Su-2 had four or six rifle caliber mg. Early Ju 87 only had rifle caliber machine guns (and so far as i know, wasn't used very much against other aircraft) but the later Ju 87D had a pair of 20mm cannon and was used in this manner sometimes. The A-36 had 6 .50 caliber machine guns, some in the fuselage. SB2C had a pair of 20mm cannon in the wings (some also carried four .50 cals in gun pods under the wings). D3A1 admittedly wasn't very heavily armed, but no worse than many of the early Ki-43s. It was probably the most maneuverable of the major dive bomber types.

The late war, barely produced but excellent Aichi B7A had two 20mm cannon as well.

Strongly built also suggests heavy, which would seem to be detrimental to agility.

In reality they would pull a lot of G to avoid being shot down, and this worked surprisingly often. This also meant they were difficult to evade if they were attacking a relatively slow enemy aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

Using dive bombers as fighters was a sign of desperation, not good planning.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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?

 

[Shortround6]

In early 1943 the US was coming up with a doctrine or plan that future strike aircraft would be single seat aircraft. This led to the specification that resulted in the Skyraider and Mauler.
The plan was for improved fighters and greater numbers of fighters to remove the need for defensive guns on the strike aircraft. They were not happy with the way Douglas Destroyer was going.

First flight April of 1943.The order was placed in June of 1941. A year before Midway.

The problem they were finding with existing 2nd tier "fighter" aircraft like the Dauntless and the Val was that they could only engage 2nd (or 3rd) tier recon aircraft.
Depending on Vals to shoot down even a Hudson ( converted 1937 airliner) was a bit of problem. The Hudson was as fast as an A3D1 and it had a power turret with better guns than the Val had.
The SBD couldn't keep up the Betty if the Betty got up to full speed. And that was the early Betty, doesn't matter that the SPD could shoot down a Nell, the Nells were going out of production in 1941 as Bettys took over the plant. And the last Nells built (Nakajima) had better engines and could outrun the SBD at higher altitudes.
The writing was on the wall, depending on strike aircraft to stop snoopers wasn't going to work, the snoopers were getting better and stopping only a small number is not what you want to bet your carrier fleet on. You might not stop all of them using real fighters but it was a better bet. And more fighters helped make sure your strike aircraft reached the target because the strike aircraft could not do it alone, even with power turrets. The single seat strike aircraft could carry a bigger load so more fighters with fewer single seat strike aircraft carrying heavier loads actual was planned to put more bombs into the target area than few fighters and more multi seat strike aircraft (roughly equal total numbers).

Using 4 fighters to escort 12 or more strike aircraft wasn't working.

 

[WAFU]

Were they agile?

Well armed? Didn't they usually have a couple of guns up front and one gun out back?

Strongly built also suggests heavy, which would seem to be detrimental to agility.

The Douglas SBD was a very agile aircraft, well armed and extremely tough. It proved a fearsome opponent to even the A6M Zero.

 

[WAFU]

Using dive bombers as fighters was a sign of desperation, not good planning.

The use of the Air Groups SBD's for second line air defence was always part of USN planning.
They comfortably outperformed enemy bombers. The Douglass SBD's climb performance far outclassed the Fairy Fulamar 'fighter' and was much more nimble - and its two forward firing .50 MG's would shred most opponents.

 

[WAFU]

It wasn't? Stukas seem to have sunk a ton of ships lol

Really? They sometime did 'OK' against ships tied up in harbour or in congested waters, but even then, were by and large pretty useless.
See their laughable performance during the Dunkirk evacuation.

 

[WAFU]

re "Against ship with sea room and the ability to manoeuvre at speed, the Stuka proved remarkably ineffective.
Although it wasn't much better against slow moving ships proceeding in convoy"

??

See the many attempts by Stukas to interdict the British coastal convoys through the Dover straits. Ships plodding along in daylight in plain view of the enemy coast at 8 lots with no room to manoeuvre.

 

[Shortround6]

When comparing aircraft it helps to use actual numbers, it also helps to say which aircraft you are comparing.
SBDs came with 3 different engines. 1000hp Take-off from the SBD-1 through -4. 1200hp in the SBD-5 and 1350hp in the SBD-6.
Fulmars came with 2 engines, MK Is got 1080hp engines (T-O) while the Mk IIs got 1300hp MK 30 engines.

Another thing to look at when comparing is altitude, Fulmar speeds are usually given at around 6-8,000ft. A Hurricane IIA was about 25mph slower at that altitude than a peak speed (18,000ft or so) An SBD-3 wasn't going to be doing 255mph in level flight at 8,000 ft. It was doing 233mph at Sea level.

Conditions of climb also make a difference. Most British climb data (but not always) is done at cruise climb, usually a 30 minute rating at less than full RPM and less than full boost.

I would also note that the Skua was out of production in 1940 (well out of production) and the Fulmar II was entering production in Jan 1941.
The SBD-5 didn't enter production until Feb 1943.
Edit : Correct typo

 

[WAFU]

When comparing aircraft it helps to use actual numbers, it also helps to say which aircraft you are comparing.
SBDs came with 3 different engines. 1000hp Take-off from the SBD-1 through -4. 1200hp in the SBD-5 and 1350hp in the SBD-6.
Fulmars came with 2 engines, MK Is got 1080hp engines (T-O) while the Mk IIs got 1300hp MK 30 engines.

Another thing to look at when comparing is altitude, Fulmar speeds are usually given at around 6-8,000ft. A Hurricane IIA was about 25mph slower at that altitude than a peak speed (18,000ft or so) An SBD-3 wasn't going to be doing 255mph in level flight at 8,000 ft. It was doing 333mph at Sea level.

Conditions of climb also make a difference. Most British climb data (but not always) is done at cruise climb, usually a 30 minute rating at less than full RPM and less than full boost.

I would also note that the Skua was out of production in 1940 (well out of production) and the Fulmar II was entering production in Jan 1941.
The SBD-5 didn't enter production until Feb 1943.

Any version of the SBD could fly rings around any version of the awful Fulmar - a 'fighter' that was so awful, it struggled to catch the very bombers it was supposed to interdict.

 

[wuzak]

Another thing to look at when comparing is altitude, Fulmar speeds are usually given at around 6-8,000ft. A Hurricane IIA was about 25mph slower at that altitude than a peak speed (18,000ft or so) An SBD-3 wasn't going to be doing 255mph in level flight at 8,000 ft. It was doing 333mph at Sea level.

Typo?

 

[WAFU]

Typo?

Considering the fastest a Fulmar ever reached was just over 415mph in a steep dive from 16,000ft, that might be the speed just before it crashed into the sea.
Its performance was at best 'pedestrian', shy of 300mph at best, so pedestrian most bombers could simply turn away and avoid it