Thumpalumpacus
Major
I'd say "damaging" rather than "crippling", myself.
Fairey Albacore. Was so awful?
- Thread starter Escuadrilla Azul
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'd say "damaging" rather than "crippling", myself.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Well the "Slow but Deadly" SBDs were primarily responsible for sinking about six very formidable IJN carriers (Shōhō, Kaga, Hiryū, Soryū, Akagi, and Ryūjō) and were primarily responsible for sinking at least one battleship, three cruisers, a submarine and crucially, fourteen transports. So it's not like they didn't also sink ships in addition to wrecking or crippling them.
With well trained (i.e. mainly Navy) crews, a squadron of SBDs going out on a strike meant a fairly high likelihood of enemy sailors spending time later in the day treading water in a life vest.
And considering that most of the US made torpedoes were basically non-functional until 1943 or later, this was pretty important, the US was lucky that the SBD was indeed 'deadly'.
.
Shortround6
Major General
Shows the large variations in both Dive Bombers and bombs the resistance of ships.
The Marat was hit (it is claimed) by a pair of 2200lb AP bombs.
Her status is unclear, fully closed up (all water tight openings closed?) or not. She was moored.
Status of boilers?
Status of magazines?
She was one of the oldest battleships in existence at the time and her modernizations were a bit on the sketchy side compared to many other old battleships.
As is her general condition. Sitting in 36ft of water saved her.
Marat was about 26,000tons and she was sort of a hybrid battleship-battle cruiser. She sacrificed armor for engine power/speed, about 3 kts faster than most WW I dreadnoughts and 2-4Kts slower than battlecruisers.
Range of Stukas with 2200lb bombs?
on the other hand ability of Japanese, British, and American dive bombers to inflict fatal damage with just 1 or 2 500-550lb bomb hits is somewhat doubtful.
US was shifting to 1000lb bombs in 1939-41.
If your 500lb SAP or AP bomb isn't good enough to penetrated BB deck armor then use HE bombs and wreck the topsides.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Okay, was U.S.S. Tennessee crippled by the attack on Pearl Harbor? She received bomb damage only but was pinned in by U.S.S. West Virginia for a while.
Depends on the Stukas
The B was of shortest range (450-500km at altitude on max continuous). The R was much better - no wonder, two drop tanks make a lot of difference, up to 1430 km at altitude total; unfortunately, the detailed range/payload sheets for the Ju 87s are not easy to find
The D was still better, with 800L internal fuel vs. 480L on the B and R, as well as with to drop tanks.
Shortround6
Major General
True but especially on the "B"s you weren't flying very far with a 2200lb bomb. Using 1100lb bomb let you fill up the internal tanks and/or fit the drop tanks.Depends on the Stukas
The B was of shortest range (450-500km at altitude on max continuous). The R was much better - no wonder, two drop tanks make a lot of difference, up to 1430 km at altitude total; unfortunately, the detailed range/payload sheets for the Ju 87s are not easy to find
The D was still better, with 800L internal fuel vs. 480L on the B and R, as well as with to drop tanks.
Early SPD could carry a 500lb bomb with 260 gallons, With a 1600lb bomb bomb you could put about 100 gallons in the tanks.
Germans knew where the Marat was. They knew where the airstrips was. Figuring out the mission route wasn't that hard.
How many planes did the US loose at the Battle of the Philippine sea?
Wiki "of the 226 aircraft launched on the strike, only 115 returned. Twenty were lost to enemy action in the attack, and 80 were lost when they ran out of fuel returning to their carriers and had to ditch into the sea, or crashed attempting to land at night"
Operating over water had a few problems of it's own.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
IIRC none of the ones that ditched at Philippine Sea were the SBDs
No doubt about the B being the short range one (thus the R and bigger tanks on the D).
2200 lb bomb allows for full internal fuel tankage, as well as drop tanks (only on R and D, obviously).
(case I is 1000 kg bomb + 370 kg fuel, from the Ju 87B-2 manual dated June 1940)
(case IV is with 1000 kg bomb + 370+444 kg of fuel for the Ju 87R1, manual from March 1942; note still the humble Jumo 211A is used)
Ju 87 have had it's shortcomings, not being able to lift heavy loads was not one of them.
Marat was so close to the Germans that they managed to damage it with 15cm cannons from the terra firma.
Agreed. USN was eager to replace the SBD with the SB2C despite the later being a problematic aircraft - the much better range/radius was worth it.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
She lost four main-battery guns to two bomb hits, I'd call that "crippled" if on open sea having to consider possible surface action -- easier meat at that point.
In harbor with a sound hull, "damaged".
My opinion, worth every penny you've paid for it.
The bomb hits on Tennessee around 0830 did relatively little damage.
Hit 1 - 800kg dropped horizontally from a Kate passed through the catapult on turret 3. It broke up on partially passing through the turret roof. It did not explode, the filler only burning. The fire it caused was quickly put out. There was splinter damage within the turret and ONE gun was knocked out.
Hit 2 - again 800kg bomb dropped horizontally. Hit centre gun barrel of turret 2 knocking that gun out of action and spraying forward superstructure with splinters.
Note that the turrets were designed so that each gun was in its own separate sleeve with each capable of separate elevation (unlike the turrets of earlier classes). The greatest damage was caused by burning oil fuel from Arizona and West Virginia around her stern.
This from DANFS about her condition:-
"While her physical hurts were relatively minor, Tennessee was still seriously threatened by oil fires raging around her stern. When Arizona's magazines erupted, Tennessee's after decks were showered with burning oil and debris which started fires that were encouraged by the heat of the flaming fuel. Numerous blazes had to be fought on the after portion of the main deck and in the officers' quarters on the deck below. Shipboard burning was brought under control by 1030, but oil flowing from the tanks of the adjacent ships continued to flame.
By the evening of 7 December, the worst was over. Oil was still blazing around Arizona and West Virginia and continued to threaten Tennessee for two more days while she was still imprisoned by the obstacles around her. Although her bridge and foremast had been damaged by bomb splinters, her machinery was in full commission; and no serious injury had been done to ship or gunnery controls. Ten of her 12 14-inch guns and all of her secondary and antiaircraft guns were intact. By comparison with most of the battleships around her, Tennessee was relatively unscathed."
Here she was on 10 Dec still trapped inboard of the sunken West Virginia.
She was released from her "prison" on 16 Dec, and sailed for Puget Sound on 20 Dec arriving on 29 Dec. Her repairs were completed by 25 Feb 1942.
Diagram of turret damage here
Your memory is playing tricks again.
Firstly, by Philippine Sea only 2 squadrons were still flying SBDs from TF58 carriers:- VB-10 on Enterprise and VB-16 on Lexington. This summarises the position (from the cv6.org website):-
"There were two SBD Dauntless squadrons remaining in TF 58 at that time: VB-16 commanded by LCDR Ralph Weymouth in Lexington and VB-l0 in Enterprise. Both squadrons were nearing the end of their combat cruise, hence were well experienced. We felt that in the SBD (Slow But Deadly) we had a much better dive bomber than the SB2C (Beast). However, we had about 50-75 miles less combat radius in the Dauntless. Hence, we were the strike-limiting aircraft in the task force. Records will show that of the 26 SBDs flying on that strike, only three Dauntlesses went in the water. Lt. Lou Bangs, my second division leader, our only loss, went in the drink after having been waved off from the Big E because of a foul deck. He was rescued."
Thumpalumpacus
Major
My memory was that all of Turret 2's guns were rendered inoperative by the bomb hitting the center barrel -- hence my math of four guns knocked out. Thanks for the correction.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
I thought the range of the SB2C was worse, hence the Battle of Philippine Sea. SB2C was a lot faster and had folding wings though. Internal bomb bay. Other stuff.
As much of a mess as the SB2C was it contributed to sinking probably more ships than the SBD did (by the time SB2C was out many of their more prominent targets like battleships & carriers were hit both by the dive bombers and the torpedo bombers, sometimes multiple times, so it's hard to give credit to one)
There is a lot of SAC and CS sheets available here; for the SB2C only the doc for the -3 is not present there.
There is also a typo (or miscalculation?) on the SAC sheet for the SB2C-2 wrt. range with 1000 lb bomb.
Shortround6
Major General
You have to look at the range charts.
And make sure you are comparing like to like, sometimes the charts are not comparing the same things. And sometimes the charts were based on estimates of a privious model/version.
Data sheets for SPD-5 shows 20nm less radius for 1000lb than for a 500lb even with same fuel.
However on any particular mission the mission profile flown may not have been the generic mission profile used in the charts.
Even a slightly fast cruise can screw up the range.
To further Tomo's post, much of the data on the SB2C-2 data sheet is based on performance guarantees from the SB2C-1. That is promises from the manufaturer and not actual flight tests.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Right but what I meant in mentioning that battle, when they launched their strike from just outside of range, IIRC the SBDs all made it back, whereas dozens of the SB2Cs had to ditch.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ok lost 3. My 'tricky' memory tells me that they lost more than that number of SB2C
Shortround6
Major General
JU-87 had the advantage of long runways. Long is relative.
The SPD. in theory, was supposed to lift 2250lbs of bombs
fuel unknown (not much)
SPD carrying a 1000lb bomb held 961 liters of fuel and took off in 570ft with 25kts wind over the deck.
A P-40F carrying 500lb bomb and 590 liters of fuel needed 750ft with a 40mph (35kts?) wind.
And that is the better of two charts.
The Japanese navy, RN and US Navy were faced with targets with more armor (if they wanted to kill battleships and not carriers/cruisers) which meant bigger bombs, they wanted more range, and the prospects of getting significantly longer flight decks were small.
Land based planes didn't have to deal with the last consideration (much)
500m (1620 ft) for the B-2, with full load, no wind, to clear 20m obstacle. 1200 PS for take off.
SBD-5 (1200 HP for take off) needed 1225 ft just for take off (no clearing of obstacle) with 1000 lb bomb. With 1600 lb bomb and reduced fuel (minus 90 gals) needed about the same. With a 500 lb bomb and 8 HVARs ('worst' condition), it needed 1469 ft.
Flaps on the Ju 87 were probably much better than what SBD had, wrt. lifting heavy loads? Wing was probably also thicker on the 87.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Albacore
21%/17% greater Vmax (172/163 mph vs 141/139 mph, both clean/with torpedo)
33% greater bomb load (2000 lbs vs 1500 lbs)
50% greater range with 1500 lb torpedo/bomb load (900 miles vs 600 miles, at economical cruise, both with overload fuel and 50 min allowance)
self-sealing fuel tanks (main and auxiliary vs none)
armour protection (for the pilot from the rear vs none)
better stall characteristics
Swordfish
smaller footprint (36' 1" x 17' 3" x 12' 4" vs 39' 8" x 17' 9" x 12'11", both with prop down and tail down)
lighter on the controls/easier to fly/more maneuverable
shorter TO deck roll at lower WOD
NOTE
1. Both aircraft were generally easy to fly, although both aircraft were considered twitchy in pitch with the internal auxiliary fuel tank full, and the Albacore was considered to be somewhat heavy on the ailerons.
2. Both aircraft were designed for and proved capable of operating in severe weather conditions (upto Beaufort 7) and did so during day or night. (The US on the other hand, would normally not operate above Beaufort 5 due to landing ops being too problematic at higher sea states and wind speeds.)
3. Both aircraft were steady in the dive and proved capable of dive bombing at angles upto 70°, although 60° was the preferred dive angle as it was found greater accuracy was achieved at the lower angle.
21%/17% greater Vmax (172/163 mph vs 141/139 mph, both clean/with torpedo)
33% greater bomb load (2000 lbs vs 1500 lbs)
50% greater range with 1500 lb torpedo/bomb load (900 miles vs 600 miles, at economical cruise, both with overload fuel and 50 min allowance)
self-sealing fuel tanks (main and auxiliary vs none)
armour protection (for the pilot from the rear vs none)
better stall characteristics
Swordfish
smaller footprint (36' 1" x 17' 3" x 12' 4" vs 39' 8" x 17' 9" x 12'11", both with prop down and tail down)
lighter on the controls/easier to fly/more maneuverable
shorter TO deck roll at lower WOD
NOTE
1. Both aircraft were generally easy to fly, although both aircraft were considered twitchy in pitch with the internal auxiliary fuel tank full, and the Albacore was considered to be somewhat heavy on the ailerons.
2. Both aircraft were designed for and proved capable of operating in severe weather conditions (upto Beaufort 7) and did so during day or night. (The US on the other hand, would normally not operate above Beaufort 5 due to landing ops being too problematic at higher sea states and wind speeds.)
3. Both aircraft were steady in the dive and proved capable of dive bombing at angles upto 70°, although 60° was the preferred dive angle as it was found greater accuracy was achieved at the lower angle.
Last edited:
