Let's talk about SBDs

[PStickney]

I think dive bombers, due to their overall maneuverability and ability to take hard turns, and maybe due to being strongly built in order to take high-G pullouts, had a bit better odds in air to air combat than other light bomber types. And better than you would think based on their defensive armament and speed. Most did have forward guns too, and the SBD had those two 12.7mm in the nose.

Ju-87s famously got wrecked in the Battle of Britain, largely by Hurricanes, but I think that was in part because they were trying to fly them in big formations. In North Africa and the Med, they used different tactics - when they were attacked, they would split up and start making sharp turns, and dive away sometimes emitting smoke to confuse their attackers. Losses were surprisingly low, in fact it seemed with Ju-87s they often overclaimed a lot, probably fooled by the smoke generating technique. Later Ju -87s had a pair of 20mm guns, and were sometimes used to attack Allied seaplanes etc.

Around New Guinea, D3A Vals were used in kind of a scout / fighter role as well, attacking and sometimes shooting down Allied scouts and light bombers, and they proved to be a bit harder (at least on some occasions) than one might think for fighters to shoot down. Again, I think this is due to maneuverability, as well as being a big, strongly built plane.

The Skua also had a kind of 'emergency fighter' role for a while, and proved able to shoot down German bombers on a couple of occasions IIRC.

Reading through Shores Bloody Shambles III right now, the Vengeance seemed to be surprisingly resilient to losses in combat in Burma.

The A-36 (don't dare call it "Apache", apparently!) was able to perform accurate dive bombing missions in an extremely dangerous environment in Italy, and probably had a better survival rate than any of the fighter bombers. Maybe not quite as well in Burma.

The curious thing about SBDs is that, the extra training really seemed to matter, because Army A-24s did not do well and sometimes got slaughtered, which is what abruptly shortened their career both in the Pacific and (with the Free French) in the MTO.

A few points - G Limits between Dive Bombers and Fighters are pretty much the same. Even if there were a significant difference, it would only be a factor at very high speeds. The limiting factor on turn rate/radius is your Equivalent Air Speed (The dynamic pressure your airspeed at a particular altitude would have at Sea Level), and the Stall Speed of your aircraft (Which increases by the Square Root of the number of G's you're pulling), for Instantaneous Turn, (Induced Drag, (Drag due to lift) is going to slow you down, meaning you can't keep pulling Gs without stalling the airplane), and Specific Excess Powet (How much more power your engine develops than is required to steadily fly in a certain condition) for how long you can sustain the G's that you're pulling.
A Dive Bomber may be roughly the same, or perhaps a bit better, than a fighter in Instantaneous Turn, but unless it's a Early War Royal Navy Carrier Fighter, it'll lose on Sustained turn and climb, in which case you're slow, with no options, and a sitting duck. Another key factor is roll rate, which allows a quick change in direction. Unless you're rolling at more than 120 deg/sec, faster is better - and dive bombers tend not to beat fighters in roll - It's no good if you could pul 1/2 a G more than the attacker, if he's rolling into the turn faster than you can.

Any 2-seat Dive Bomber is at an extreme disadvantage if an equivalent era single-seat monoplane fighter is present. Heavier, larger, with the same powerplant - slower, less excess energy, and, due to the size, slower in roll. You can't argue the physics.

When SBDs and Vals were being used as Field Expedient Combat Air Patrol, their expected targets were Torpedo Bombers - larger, slower, and less well defended than themselves.
The Skua wasn't just intended as an "Emergency Fighter", it started out as the Royal Navy's main Carrier Fighter. The RN had a different Carrier Doctrine than the USN and IJN, expecting to operate within the reach of land-based aircraft, and, pre-radar, not being able to spot an incoming raid in time to launch or vector intercpetors against it, sp they decided to rely on Armo(u)red Flight Decks, Anti-aircraft guns (Such as they were), and having all aircraft struck below. As technology improved warning, fighters equivalent to the land-based aircraft were introduced - although it took some time to realize that FIghter Pilots could, in fact, navigate when out of sight of the boat.

The A-36 was much more a Fighter-Bomber than a Dive Bomber, despite the Dive Brakes. It was, of course, a fighter airframe, with the same weight/energy/armament advantages as any other fighter, albeit tuned ffor Low Altitude work (Like a Spitfire LF. Mk V, but with useful range), able to engage or disengage from an Fw 190 at will, and fight it on an equal footing.
In U.S. Army service, the A-24s never had a chance - they were originaly intended for the Philippines, but they didn't arrive before Dec 7/8, 1941 (Depends on which side of the Date Line you're on), and they were diverted to the Netherlands East Indies, without trained crews, support, or spares. Flying without escort against the Japanese, who had established Air Superiority right off the bat. (It didn't matter how good your airplanes were, if the first warning you get of an incoming raid is the bombs going off on your aiurfield, or the Zeros dropping out of he sun as you struggle to take off) on the far end of the string, it was a forgone conclusion.

 

[MIflyer]

I read of a Marine SBD pilot who flew them in the Pacific and then moved on to fighters. Supporting one amphibious landing he noted that there was a Japanese artillery piece that was very well positioned to hit the Marines landing beach. He flew back to base, got in an SBD, and came back and took out the artillery site. When R-2800 fighters such as the P-47, F4U, and F6F came along they could pretty much take over the dive bomber role for CAS, but I guess if you really wanted to do a good job and counter-air opposition did not exist, the SBD was still superior in terms of accuracy.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

A few points - G Limits between Dive Bombers and Fighters are pretty much the same. Even if there were a significant difference, it would only be a factor at very high speeds.

I would say that depends on the fighter - all dive bombers had to be stressed for pretty high G limits, most fighters were as well, but definitely not all.

The limiting factor on turn rate/radius is your Equivalent Air Speed (The dynamic pressure your airspeed at a particular altitude would have at Sea Level), and the Stall Speed of your aircraft (Which increases by the Square Root of the number of G's you're pulling), for Instantaneous Turn, (Induced Drag, (Drag due to lift) is going to slow you down, meaning you can't keep pulling Gs without stalling the airplane), and Specific Excess Powet (How much more power your engine develops than is required to steadily fly in a certain condition) for how long you can sustain the G's that you're pulling.

How to measure turn rates becomes a complex question. Whether high G turns, sustained turns in which no altitude is lost (ala Soviet Turn tests), vertical turns like loops and split S, low and high yo yo etc., are all relevant to the question. I think for defense from being shot down, skids and instantaneous turns are often the most important.

From reading a few phone books thickness of operational histories, I'd say it was pretty typical for air to air engagements to tend to move downward over time. Even quite powerful WW2 era fighters with big engines or turbos quickly lost speed if they kept turning (esp if pulling G), and were then forced to put the nose down. With some exceptions of course - Japanese fighters could climb at a very high angle even at slow speed, and could sometimes climb away from opponents even in a close fight. Or loop, leading their opponent into a stall if they followed, and shoot them at the bottom of the vertical turn. P-38s would sometimes disengage from Japanese fighters in a shallow high-speed climb that they couldn't follow.

A lot of other fighters would pick up speed in a dive, extend, and then zoom climb back up to altitude to re-engage.

But even into the Korean war with Jets, combat tended to spiral down to a lower altitude if it went on long enough.

A Dive Bomber may be roughly the same, or perhaps a bit better, than a fighter in Instantaneous Turn, but unless it's a Early War Royal Navy Carrier Fighter, it'll lose on Sustained turn and climb, in which case you're slow, with no options, and a sitting duck.

A dive bomber's job in a fight with enemy fighters is usually 99% to just disengage and escape. Not so much to defeat or overcome the enemy fighters. So a nose-down turn, split S or whatever, can achieve this. I.e. it's not a problem for the dive bomber to spiral downward, necessarily.

Another key factor is roll rate, which allows a quick change in direction. Unless you're rolling at more than 120 deg/sec, faster is better - and dive bombers tend not to beat fighters in roll - It's no good if you could pul 1/2 a G more than the attacker, if he's rolling into the turn faster than you can.

That is also quite true, and something I bring up a lot when comparing fighter to fighter. Some dive bombers had decent roll rates, though they all tended to have larger wings than fighters (to help carry the bomb load) so did not always measure up in that sense.

Any 2-seat Dive Bomber is at an extreme disadvantage if an equivalent era single-seat monoplane fighter is present. Heavier, larger, with the same powerplant - slower, less excess energy, and, due to the size, slower in roll. You can't argue the physics.

Well again, it does depend on the fighter. How does an SBD or D3A measure up to say, a Fairey Fulmar? But in general, I agree with you. I was not arguing that dive bombers were meant to contend with fighters on an equal basis. I was pointing out that they were agile and strongly built, and were sometimes used with success as fighters against usually larger and slower enemy aircraft.

When SBDs and Vals were being used as Field Expedient Combat Air Patrol, their expected targets were Torpedo Bombers - larger, slower, and less well defended than themselves.

I would say torpedo bombers were one of their intended targets. Certainly when they were put up as CAP. They also tried to intercept other dive bombers, though rarely with any success.

But in general, both from carriers and land bases, dive bombers were used successfully to intercept a wide range of other planes - seaplanes, flying boats, light bombers, ASW aircraft. I recently read some operational history from the New Guinea area and D3A were being used to attack Hudsons, PBYs, OS2U, Wirraways, etc.

The Skua wasn't just intended as an "Emergency Fighter", it started out as the Royal Navy's main Carrier Fighter. The RN had a different Carrier Doctrine than the USN and IJN, expecting to operate within the reach of land-based aircraft, and, pre-radar, not being able to spot an incoming raid in time to launch or vector intercpetors against it, sp they decided to rely on Armo(u)red Flight Decks, Anti-aircraft guns (Such as they were), and having all aircraft struck below. As technology improved warning, fighters equivalent to the land-based aircraft were introduced - although it took some time to realize that FIghter Pilots could, in fact, navigate when out of sight of the boat.

Yep

The A-36 was much more a Fighter-Bomber than a Dive Bomber, despite the Dive Brakes. It was, of course, a fighter airframe, with the same weight/energy/armament advantages as any other fighter, albeit tuned ffor Low Altitude work (Like a Spitfire LF. Mk V, but with useful range), able to engage or disengage from an Fw 190 at will, and fight it on an equal footing.

Well, in theory. They did not shoot that many down. I think there was only one Ace flying the type. And even though it's adapted from a fighter, I would indeed call the A-36 a dive bomber. They could do high angle (~ 70 degree) dive bombing, and their accuracy was substantially better than any fighter-bomber, assuming that the pilots were well trained. That was really the only reason to use them instead of a regular P-51, P-47, or even a P-40, all of which also proved capable of handling Fw 190s in Italy.

In U.S. Army service, the A-24s never had a chance - they were originaly intended for the Philippines, but they didn't arrive before Dec 7/8, 1941 (Depends on which side of the Date Line you're on), and they were diverted to the Netherlands East Indies, without trained crews, support, or spares. Flying without escort against the Japanese, who had established Air Superiority right off the bat. (It didn't matter how good your airplanes were, if the first warning you get of an incoming raid is the bombs going off on your aiurfield, or the Zeros dropping out of he sun as you struggle to take off) on the far end of the string, it was a forgone conclusion.

IIRC they also used A-24s in New Guinea and it didn't go well.

 

[Shortround6]

. I was pointing out that they were agile and strongly built, and were sometimes used with success as fighters against usually larger and slower enemy aircraft.

I would say torpedo bombers were one of their intended targets. Certainly when they were put up as CAP. They also tried to intercept other dive bombers, though rarely with any success.

I think (could be wrong) that the SBDs were only used intentionally as CAP during the Battle of Coral Sea. Confusion may arise from SBDs returning from strike/scout mission/s crossing paths with Japanese bomber units or recon planes.

Some of this also gets into judgement calls or resources. Shooting down enemy snoopers may keep your fleet safer. Losing 2-3 strike aircraft from tomorrows big battle because they were trying to shoot down a few float planes? Even damaging a plane on landing because a tire is flat from single 7.7mm bullet may take a plane out of service for a few days.

What was "doctrine" at the Battle of Coral Sea may not have been doctrine for the rest of the war.

There is a disparity between American and Japanese aircraft. The SBD carries a lot more firepower than D3A. At both ends. The SBD is also better protected.
The American (and British) obsolete seaplanes, flying boats, light bombers, ASW aircraft tended to go away fairly early in the war.

A Hudson was a tough costumer for a Val. Several Vals could gang up on a single Hudson. The Vals were not as fast low level as they were at high altitude.
Hudsons were better armed than most twin engine Japanese bombers in 1942. Granted that is not saying much but the Vals had about 50% more firepower than a Sopwith Camel.

Not saying there were no successes but the odds are not good.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think (could be wrong) that the SBDs were only used intentionally as CAP during the Battle of Coral Sea. Confusion may arise from SBDs returning from strike/scout mission/s crossing paths with Japanese bomber units or recon planes.

Some of this also gets into judgement calls or resources. Shooting down enemy snoopers may keep your fleet safer. Losing 2-3 strike aircraft from tomorrows big battle because they were trying to shoot down a few float planes? Even damaging a plane on landing because a tire is flat from single 7.7mm bullet may take a plane out of service for a few days.

What was "doctrine" at the Battle of Coral Sea may not have been doctrine for the rest of the war.

There is a disparity between American and Japanese aircraft. The SBD carries a lot more firepower than D3A. At both ends. The SBD is also better protected.
The American (and British) obsolete seaplanes, flying boats, light bombers, ASW aircraft tended to go away fairly early in the war.

A Hudson was a tough costumer for a Val. Several Vals could gang up on a single Hudson. The Vals were not as fast low level as they were at high altitude.
Hudsons were better armed than most twin engine Japanese bombers in 1942. Granted that is not saying much but the Vals had about 50% more firepower than a Sopwith Camel.

Not saying there were no successes but the odds are not good.

I kind of agree with all that, or it represents what I used to think. But reading operational history in more detail, I see that SBDs on missions as scouts were routinely encountering and fairly often shooting down Japanese scouts, float planes, flying boats, bomber-scouts (G4Ms were often used in this role), and this continued after the specific scout squadrons were already long gone.

The D3A, much to my surprise, was also used in a similar manner around New Guinea and in the Solomons, and I would not say that they were so bad at it necessarily. I'll post some examples later from Claringbould. G4Ms were also used this way and routinely attacked Allied bombers and seaplanes / flying boats on recon missions.

I agree that Hudsons were pretty tough, and in theory should be a match for a D3A as they frequently fought off A6Ms and other fighters. But they were still attacked. A lot of these attacks were inconclusive on both sides, but by no means all. And it looks like they were not quite as vulnerable as sometimes depicted. Just like the Ki-43.

It seems from the operational histories that there was a kind of constant low level war going on beyond the reach of the land based fighters. Even B-24s and PB4Ys were stalking and shooting down H6K and H8K flying boats.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think (could be wrong) that the SBDs were only used intentionally as CAP during the Battle of Coral Sea. Confusion may arise from SBDs returning from strike/scout mission/s crossing paths with Japanese bomber units or recon planes.

Lundstrom only cites Coral Sea for this intentional usage, as I remember. I'll look later to see if he comments on other intentional uses in this manner ... I've got kebabs on the grill.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Again I'm not referring specific to CAP, but to armed scouting, basically

 

[GrauGeist]

I think (could be wrong) that the SBDs were only used intentionally as CAP during the Battle of Coral Sea.

Battle of Midway was another occasion.

From the USS Yorktown's action report:
"As soon as the enemy attack group was detected by Radar, the fueling of planes was discontinued and the sixteen VSB planes of Yorktown Attack Group, which were then in the landing circle, were directed to form a combat air patrol..."

This would have been about 1400 on 4 June.

To see the full action report, visit here:

USS Yorktown Action Report

CV5/A16-3 (CCR-10-oah) U.S.S. YORKTOWN PACIFIC FLEET 18 JUN 1942 From: The Commanding Officer. To: The Commander-in-Chief, U.S. PACIFIC FLEET. Via: Commander Task Force SEVENTEEN. (Commander Cruisers, U.S. PACIFIC FLEET) Subject: Report of Action for June 4, 1942 and June 6, 1942...

www.history.navy.mil

 

[MIflyer]

Midway Survivor SBD Recovered from Lake Michigan

One need not travel deep into the isolated regions of former European and Pacific theatre combat zones to uncover the long lost wrecks of World War Two aircraft. This Douglas SBD-2 Dauntless, a veteran of the Battle of Midway, was pulled out of Lake Michigan in 1994. Build number 2106, the vintage fighter bomber left the El Segundo, CA factory in December 1940 for the Far East, where it would primarily be employed against the mighty ships of the Japanese Imperial Navy.

In June 1942, during a raid on Japanese carriers west of Midway Atoll, the Dauntless was riddled with 219 bullets and was one of only eight out of an original 16 aircraft launched to make it back to base. The aircraft returned to the USA for repairs and was ultimately assigned to the Carrier Qualification Training Unit at NAS Glenview, Illinois. It was with that unit, one morning in June 1943, that a student pilot was forced to ditch Dauntless 2106 after straying from an approach to the training carrier USS Sable. The battered wreck remained in the murky depths of Lake Michigan until 1994, when it was recovered and sent to the U.S. National Museum of Naval Aviation at Pensacola, Florida for restoration.


Photo of restoration in PDF document.

 

[GrauGeist]

Looks to be in really good shape.

 

[MIflyer]

Looks to be in really good shape.

With some new tires I think it would pass a preflight. Be sure to drain the fuel sumps, though!

It is nice to see the USN Museum moved out with that find, but given its history it is to be expected, I guess. With some of the other recoveries the reaction at Pensacola has been "Another SBD or F4F? What the hell are we supposed to do with it? We already have more than we can use." I think they even gave one to the USAFM to display as an A-24.

 

[special ed]

When I contacted the Pensacola Museum after the F7U-3 gate guard at the Belle Chasse Naval base had been put in the base dump, I was told "We already have one" which was not true, unless a deal had been made back then for the F7U in a Washington State park was done. Over twenty years later I photoed the F7U from Washington in transit on a big rig on I-10 as it went through south Louisiana on it's way to Pensacola.

 

[GrauGeist]

With some new tires I think it would pass a preflight. Be sure to drain the fuel sumps, though!

It is nice to see the USN Museum moved out with that find, but given its history it is to be expected, I guess. With some of the other recoveries the reaction at Pensacola has been "Another SBD or F4F? What the hell are we supposed to do with it? We already have more than we can use." I think they even gave one to the USAFM to display as an A-24.

View attachment 770891View attachment 770892

I would think that the museum at Pearl Harbor would be fitting.

 

[Army14Bravo]

Hi guys

Wish my Dad was still around to see this discussion. I am a very lucky guy. I spent WW2 on Pensacola Naval Air Station. My Dad was a Navy Captain in charge of Advanced Air Training. I was in elementary school during those years. So I was pretty close to Naval aviation in those days. We lived on base and across the street from our house was a large tarmac with some hangars and about 100 SNJ's. The mechanics cranked all their engines at around 0530 every morning. So every day I was immersed in the sounds of radial engines and the smells that went along with them. After VJ Day, the Navy began downsizing the base and my Dad had more time to spend with the family. He took me flying in just about every thing they had down there. I must be the last person to remember flying in the back (strapped in an airmans lap) of a Kingfisher. Anyway among those he took me up in was the SBD.
I got my pilots ticket when I was 17. One of my Uncles, who flew B25's through the war, got a Cessna 195 and taught me to fly. Later in life I put together a Insurance Brokerage business with two partners. We were very successful and had a number of planes. I flew a Piper Seneca most of the time. I had a new client down in Harlingen Texas in the early 80's and flew down there. That's where I bumped into the Confederate Air Force. I joined the CAF and after a time we donated to the restoration of a P38 and a Martin B26. As a patron, I was able to fly in practically everything they had. From AT6 to B17. Anyway, they had a SBD and I got one of the instructors there to type me on it. Great time flying that old bird. You guys make this old geezer mighty proud with your discussions and the great models you create. I'm still plugging along on that 35 year old Matshbox SBD. Piece by piece.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers

14Bravo

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's badass all the way 'round.

 

[SaparotRob]

Way Cool.