Most valuable Carrier Fighter Of WWII

Which Aircraft do you consider to be the most valuable carrier based fighter of WWII

  • Sea Gladiator

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dewoitine D376

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Grumman F3F

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Fairey Fulmar

    Votes: 2 3.6%
  • Mitsuibishi A5M

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Fairey Fulmar

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Bf109T

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Re2000

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Re2001

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Grumman F4F

    Votes: 12 21.4%
  • Hawker Sea Hurricane

    Votes: 4 7.1%
  • Mitsubishi A6M

    Votes: 8 14.3%
  • Supermarine Seafire

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Fairey Firefly

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Grumman F6F

    Votes: 32 57.1%
  • Vought F4U corsair

    Votes: 7 12.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

It just hit me, the SBD is not on the list!

The Most Valuable Carrier Fighter of WW2: I'm going with either the SBD (a dive bomber) the B29 or the ME262.....

I love when we stray off topic like this (actually, some of the best info comes from straying off subject)

Carry on gentlemen
 
Last edited:
What do you base that last sentence on. All I have read indicates otherwise. I dont mean this to be confrontational. I am honestly interested in perhaps a few other books I should read.

It's based upon Sakai's own account of what happened.

Read First Team vol 1 and 2. Volume 2, page 56 recounts Sakai's near fatal encounter with SBDs. He and his wingman and just tangled with another formation of SBDs and scattered it into broken cloud:
 
I apreciate the humor but nobody, certainly not me iis making the case that the SBD was a premier fighter. Only that for a dive bomber or any kind of bomber for that matter it was exceptional even outscoring many of its contemporary fighter designs.

Your thoughts mirror my own. It wasn't a fighter, but like the Wildcat, it performed far better than it should have done based on its paper statistics.
 

If you've read Lundstrom then you'll know that SBD's massively overclaimed IJ fighter kills, and not by 30 or 40% but by 4 and 5 to 1. There's no particular reason why an SBD-3 would do better than a Skua II when engaging slower attack aircraft, but it could not meet fighters on anything like equal terms.
 
Ok that's one instance out of over a hundred. Doesnt seem to have anything to do with your assertion that front kills for the SBD were few and far between. Imho.
 
Ok that's one instance out of over a hundred. Doesnt seem to have anything to do with your assertion that front kills for the SBD were few and far between. Imho.

The most famous SBD front gun kill claim is by Swede Vejtasa on 8 May 1942 but it never happened:
 

There's no particular reason why a Wildcat should do better against a Zero than a Spitfire V, but it did. About 1 to 1 for Wildcat and 7-1 for Spit V.

Not sure why you keep mentioning the Skua, how many Skua/Zero matchups were there? The specs show a Skua top speed of 225 with 4 303's firing forward and 1 Lewis gun in the back. The Dauntless -5 had 2 forward 50's, 2 belt fed 30's in the back, 25-35 mph faster, better climb and probably turned better.

I doubt a Skua could catch a Kate unless it had a lot of altitude advantage and I'd take 2 50's over 4 303's everyday of the week and twice on Sunday
 
What about Midway, Japanese attack on Yorktown. On the way there the Zero escort saw 4 SBD's returning and jumped them. I believe 1 Zero was downed, at least one other was so damaged he had to return to Hiryu, no SBD's were downed (although the flight was lost and never heard from again).

Name another dive bomber that could survive against enemy fighters in that situation. A Skua? Doubtful. A Stuka? Stuka parties got their name for a reason. Could 4 Hurricanes survive that situation? 4 Spitfires? 4 P39's? 4 P40's? I seriously doubt it.

SBD wasn't a fighter, but it was tough, very maneuverable without a bomb and had a record that much exceeded its paper performance stats.
 
Last edited:

I gave you the stats earlier. The Skua II was a 7700lb (clean) aircraft with 905hp at 6700ft for 225mph but speed was measured at 8200lb while carryng a 500lb bomb. The SBD-3 was a 9400lb (clean) aircraft with 950hp at 5000ft and 243 mph so maximum low altitude speed clean for both aircraft must have been similar. The SBD-3 had a two speed blower but this was only useful at higher altitude and this gave the SBD-3 250 mph but at 16000ft.

At low altitude, under 8000ft, the two aircraft had very similar performance with the Skua II having a somewhat better power to weight ratio. The SBD-3 only had ~15 seconds of ammo for it's front guns versus 30 seconds for the Skua. The Skua racked up lots of kills against Luftwaffe attack aircraft but it was no match for a 109.
 
Things get strange when you look at stats. An ME109 and Spitfire were near pears for the entire war. Spitfires and Hurricanes downed JU87's at will. Spitfire and Hurricanes faired poorly against the Zero even through 1943. SBD's did well against Zero's (fighting through to target without fighter escort) Wildcats were about 1 to 1 vs Zero's

Sometime stuff doesn't make sense
 

None of the SBD's did survive, but the exact reasons for that are unknown, so it is quite possible that the Zero's inflicted enough damage to force them all to ditch. This is what Lundstrom has to say about it:

Defensive gun damage whilst engaging strike aircraft is not news. The unarmoured Zero with it's non self-sealing fuel tanks was particularly vulnerable.

The SBD was a good plane, but not spectacular - Iet's not claim it was something that it wasn't. The USAAF was not impressed with the land based A24.
 
Spitfire and Hurricanes faired poorly against the Zero even through 1943

In 1943 Hurricanes were fighting over Burma/India which was a Japanese Army campaign. How often did they meet Naval Zeros. Spitfires fought Zeros over Darwin but that was combats measured in the tens.
 
You know, if some idiot comes along 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 100 years later
and calls a veteran that put his life on the line several times a liar, well, I guess
that idiot can just kiss my ass.

Hey bud, I don't think that it's RCAFson intention to disparage any particular person, and he did in fact provide a reference for what he typed. I know what your saying, but whether it's fog of war or an individual lying (there are certainly cases of both) but when 'Tom' engages squadron xyz on a specific date and claims x many shot down and in fact enemy records say that all of those aircraft were recorded as returning from that mission then there is a problem somewhere.

Respectfully Pinsog
 
In 1943 Hurricanes were fighting over Burma/India which was a Japanese Army campaign. How often did they meet Naval Zeros. Spitfires fought Zeros over Darwin but that was combats measured in the tens.

Your correct that the Spitfire V/Zero engagements over Australia were in the couple of dozen in numbers over 4 or 5 months (not in a position to confirm exactly) But in those raids, the Spitfires never, not 1 time, came out on top. 28-4, only planes downed by gunfire, that doesn't include all the ones that were run out of fuel over their own country (I think 10 on one raid) by Zeros that flew 500 miles 1 way. 3 Zeros and 1 KI43 were, as I understand, total fighter losses for the Japanese. I'm not sure that the Devastator vs Zero record was that bad.

You are correct, the Hurricane fought the KI43 in China, but it suffered badly as well. (I believe the KI43 is one of the most underrated fighters of the war) Hurricane vs Zero only happened a few times that I recall, lie the carrier raid in the Indian Ocean. But as I recall they were out numbered, caught low etc. and nothing would have faired well in that setting.
 
The DBD-5 being used as a scout (clean condition) could
reach 260 mph or more at 13,800 ft. Wind resistance kept
it from flying faster on 1,000 hp. It was a very maneuverable aircraft.

Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive
scroll down to the SBD.
Actually that was the Ferry speed @ 14K ft. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SBD-5_PD_-_August_6_1942.pdf
In the Scout role, it seems the best an SBD-5 could muster was 255 mph.
Most other variations are listed between 238 and 252 mph.
Nice reference site, though. New to me. Thanks for the heads up Corsning!


Elvis
 
Yes something's wrong somewhere but that doesn't mean it's the pilot that's incorrect. God knows record keeping to was often subject to the fog of war.
I am no expert myself but have read that Japanese records in particular were often subject to optimistic outlooks shall we say. I read an article about a year ago about a Japanese army unit later in the war that had basically ceased to exist but those at the top of the command food chain continued to make decisions on the asumption that they were more or less full strength as no one up the chain of command wanted to loose face and admit defete to his superiors.
Also I think its fair to say that many of the Japanese records years later are incomplete.
Also when Swede Vejtasa returned he had wing damage from the third and final A6m that went down in that fight from the colision that not surprisingly the SBD survived and the Zero did not. If he made the whole thing up that would be quite a trick to pull off. Aslo lets not forget the witness in the back seat.
Aslo kinda hard to believe that a guy who would later prove to have superlative skills as a fighter pilot beyond any question would feel the need to fabricate such an event.
Is it posible the Zeros were badly shot up and managed to limp back to there carrier except for the last one involved with the colision and were not therefore technically "lost" maybe but I'm not buyin that Swede made the whole thing up.
 

Users who are viewing this thread