AL Schlageter
Banned
- 220
- Oct 9, 2007
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wasn't there a Dogfight show where a SBD took on some A6Ms and won?Hi Joe,
I don't recall any instance offhand where an SBD claimed a Zero with it's foward guns, but against enemy bombers they did when acting in the role of anti-torpedo fire. They bagged 5 at Coral Sea (and got one D3A) But also suffered heavily to Zeros as a result of being caught singlarily. SBD rear gunners got from 1-2 A6M's at Midway, and 3 at Santa Cruz.
Wasn't there a Dogfight show where a SBD took on some A6Ms and won?
In firing trials against a Me 109F, a 22 mm laminated duralumin bulkhead in combination with an 8 mm back armour was penetrated by 30% of the 12.7 mm armour-piercing shots fired from 200 yards and 5° off. This shows the statistical nature of the process - a good proportion of the hits were stopped, but there was no safety, and taking a prolonged burst would be certainly lethal.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
But you do seem to be making fairly strong judgements based on analysis of one factor that happens to lend itself to quantitative analysis, firepower
1. I don't know what question you claim I'm evading, unless something I missed among long posts by several people.1. Noting that you came, saw, and evaded the question, I'm going to ask again:
2. Joe, would you please show me the sentence which I typed in this thread which you think contains my fairly strong judgement?
3. I'm not amused by the careless way in which you distort my statements, and this is your chance to correct a misunderstanding. (If it is one.)
The P-47 had 9.5mm or 3/8" hardened armor plate behind and in front of the pilot.
Design Analysis of the P-47 Thunderbolt
The same is indicated in Technical Order and other spec docs.
1. I don't know what question you claim I'm evading, unless something I missed among long posts by several people.
2. It wasn't one single sentence but ongoing theme that the SBD faced a weaker attacker in the Zero, than Ju-87 in Western fighters say early/mid Spit's for example. Was that not your contention? But your main repeated piece of evidence was their higher firepower. True higher (though not really twice and four times for Spit V's and cannon Hurricanes as you maintained) but that's just one factor. In many other cases Zero units devastated Allied non-fighters; it's not clear at all to me that 1941-42 Zero units overall qualitatively represented a significantly more permissive opponent to divebombers than the British fighter units of the same period. They had plenty of 'parties' and other successes against Allied non-fighters in 1941-42, including a/c better armed than any divebomber. Again, I think the SBD's reputation is partly due to the fact that *quantitatively* it didn't face intense Japanese fighter opposition all that often; although there are cases like the Santa Cruz one just discussed where it's reasonable to doubt Ju-87's (any model) could have survived in pairs against 1942 several plane CAP sections of Japanese carriers as SBD's did.
3. There's no such intention, but I haven't said anything in this debate that would offend any reasonable person. I suggest just sticking to defending your positions on the topic, not accusing people of 'distorting'.
Joe
Hi Joeb,
You claim I passed "fairly strong judgements" on the SBD vs. Stuka case in this thread, and I want to see where you got that from, with direct, verifiable quotes from my own posts.
If on re-reading my posts, you'd like to correct your claim, that would be perfectly acceptable of course.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
[edit] Battle of Britain
The Battle of Britain proved for the first time that the Junkers Ju 87 was vulnerable in hostile skies against well organised and determined fighter opposition.
Steady losses had occurred throughout their participation in the battle. On 18 August, a day known as the 'hardest day' as both sides suffered heavy losses, the Stuka was withdrawn after losing 16 of its number and numerous others damaged[9]. The myth of the Stuka was shattered.[edit]
Drgondog's post is one good example. It seemed to me a fairly strong statement, which you then elaborated on with analysis of things like firepower, etc , but without enough IMO consideration to the high overall actual combat effectiveness of JNAF fighter units in 1941-42, against Allied fighters and non-fighters alike, which seriously undercuts the general implication of your statement. If you disagree that that was a 'strong statement' or in any other way, that's your opinion.Hi Joeb,
>I suggest just sticking to defending your positions on the topic, not accusing people of 'distorting'.
Yes, I'm accusing you of distorting my words. It might be entirely unintentional on your part, but it has to stop anyway.
You claim I passed "fairly strong judgements" on the SBD vs. Stuka case in this thread, and I want to see where you got that from, with direct, verifiable quotes from my own posts.
If on re-reading my posts, you'd like to correct your claim, that would be perfectly acceptable of course.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Nikademus,
It's an open question, no doubt. Did you catch the recent cannon article Micdrow posted? It made a comment like "Machine guns have served us well since the Germans have not provided their aircraft with armour yet, but as that is bound to happen soon, we should give 'shell-guns' serious consideration" - with "shell guns" being Flight's term for rapid-fire cannon. The article remarked that "cannon" sounded too much like Trafalgar for their liking
They wouldn't have hit other types any more accurately eitherAnd more seriously, since there were no comparable types around, we can't really use this for a comparison.
I think it was Richard Dunn who recently wrote an article on Oscar armament ... apparently, there were few (if any) Ki-43 fighters with 2 x 12.7 mm, the norm being 1 x 7.7 mm and 1 x 12.7 mm. Surprisingly, the pilots did not like the 12.7 mm gun since it synchronized rather badly, suffering from a major loss in rate of fire as a result. That did of course detract from the advantages of the centreline gun, on which I agree with you!
The low muzzle velocity and the wing position really makes the A6M2 cannon short-range weapons, and their destructiveness doesn't compare to Western 20 mm cannon. I don't think you were such a bad pilot, but merely that you struggled with their objective disadvantages
For an un-armoured A6M2 that had to close in to bring its cannon to bear effectively, I'd add. The same tactics might not have worked so well against Spitfires with armour glass windscreen, re-inforced cowl, self-sealing fuel tanks and a pair of cannon that enabled it to open fire effectively at a longer range. That might have influenced the development of different Stuka tactics ...
Hm, if tight formations of B-17s couldn't slug it out with Luftwaffe fighters and win, asking the Stuka to go and try to defeat the RAF that way seems optimistic. The way I read Shores' comment was that splitting up made it harder for the escort fighters to cover the various groups, but I suppose the Stukas only split into their Vic formations when they had to evade fire ...
>I agree the SBD faced a less lethal environment though I look at it more from the # of sorties/# of fighters PoV.
Hm, I fear I have not fully understood that line of thinking. What are these numbers for both?
Absolutely - the lack of armour really disqualified some otherwise promising Western types ... they were just not considered fit for combat duty. It were only the Japanese who carried on regardless (and even the Japanese Army undertook steps to armour their aircraft). However, the old saying that "there are just two types of aircraft - fighters and targets" really means that whatever type you fly, if it's not a fighter you'll be in trouble.