SBD Dauntless air-to-air score

[ThomasP]

My understanding is that the gun selector switch and firing button were on the throttle quadrant on most of the period Japanese fighters.

Shinpachi gave a very good explanation of the Ki-43 throttle quadrant in this thread: "Japanese Throttle Quadrant"

An image of the A6M2 throttle quadrant:

 

[Stig1207]

Just as an aside, Pacific claims were MUCH less inflated than ETO claims. A lot of it has to do with circumstances.

In the ETO, you had many bombers and many fighters engaging in combat in large streams, at least later in the war, usually simultaneously.

I the Pacific, you had mostly 4 v 4, 4 v 8, or 8 v 8 combat... usually over water where a damaged landing meant a definite loss. It was MUICH easier to keep track of than 250 planes from both side all shooting at something all at the same time.

That would probably depend on what periods of the war you are looking at. Allied fighter claims in the ETO in 1944-45 were probably some of the most accurate of the whole war. Where Allied claims can be compared to Japanese losses, in New Guinea for example, as per Claringbould, then they are not particularly accurate.

 

[Greg Boeser]

That cuts both ways. Japanese claims for the period were also not terribly accurate.

 

[BiffF15]

What is interesting to me is the Zero had no firing button on the stick. It is bare. So, you have one hand flying, and one hand shooting.

This is a A6M5 panel I helped sell, as well as the original stick, which I can't find a picture for.

I thought the firing control was on the throttle for the A6M? I'm not sure a set up with the trigger on the throttle is optimum. I've seen a plunger type button on the top of the stick used, which is again in my opinion not good as it makes you change your grip on the stick in order to use it. The trigger, located on the front of the stick, much like a pistol grip, works nicely as your grip when flying in cruise and or fighting is the same.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[GrauGeist]

I thought the firing control was on the throttle for the A6M? I'm not sure a set up with the trigger on the throttle is optimum. I've seen a plunger type button on the top of the stick used, which is again in my opinion not good as it makes you change your grip on the stick in order to use it. The trigger, located on the front of the stick, much like a pistol grip, works nicely as your grip when flying in cruise and or fighting is the same.

Cheers,
Biff

I beleive the button seen on some A6M sticks were for the two-way radio TX.

 

[GregP]

Some Zeros were set up so the armament selector was on the throttle and the trigger was on the stick.

The Selector let the pilot choose MG, cannons, or both.

I think most had the trigger on the throttle, though.

 

[SaparotRob]

"Ask the man who owns one."

Packard slogan

 

[GreenKnight121]

As the Japanese found, a pair or SBD's could usually hold their own against a fighter attack using a variation on the Thatch Weave.
A frontal attack was hard, they had a pair of .50's that could happily chew you up and the A6M didn't have much of a performance advantage.
A stern or beam attack meant duking it out with the mutual defensive fire of the tail gunners while gaining relatively slowly.

I have to wince at this one.

The A6M had a 75 mph speed advantage and perhaps 8,000 feet in servicer ceiling advantage coupled with an overwhelming armament advantage. It climbed better, but not by too much, and would outturn a Dauntless by some margin. All this means the Zero wasa much better mount for aerial combat, but was not nearly as rugged.

Not too sure the SBD would gain at all, much less very slowly.

The world's best Naval fighter (at the time) versus a dive bomber SHOULD be a win for the Zero. If it wasn't, I think the Zero was surprised or the Dauntless pilot was pretty decent coupled with a non-veteran Zero pilot.

He was referring to the A6M pilot "duking it out with the mutual defensive fire of the tail gunners" while the A6M is slowly gaining on the SBD.

 

[GregP]

OK, but the Zero is enough both quicker and faster that it surely would close fairly rapidly, unless the Zero pilot deliberately closed slowly. I'd think that would not be a good tactic as you'd want to minimize the time you were in a gunner's range, not draw it out.

 

[fannum]

Cause of US Naval a/c losses in wartime is always a problem due to "missing at sea" being often listed ... no observation, night ops, etc.

Same could affect A6M shoot downs if the SBD/TBM/etc. didn't return.

 

[Maxrobot1]

I thought I read somwehere that the SBD could make very tight turns without spinning out or the wings ripping off since it was built to pull up from dives.

 

[GregP]

The SBD Dauntless had 325 square feet of wing area, a gross weight of 10,881 pounds, and 1,200hp ( at S.L.). The wing loading at gross was 33.5 pounds per square foot and the power loading was 9.1 pounds per horsepower. Span loading was 262 pounds per foot.


The A6M5 Model 52 had 229.3 square feet of wing area, a gross weight of 6,032 pounds, and 1,100 horsepower (at S.L.). The wing loading at gross was 26.3 pounds per square foot and the power loading was 5.5 pounds per horsepower. Span loading was 166.9 pounds per foot.


So, the SBD Dauntless had a 27% disadvantage in wing loading, a 65% disadvantage in power loading, and a 57% disadvantage in span loading.


So, the Zero had much better armament, accelerated about 65% faster, turned about 27% tighter, and had a pretty decent advantage if the two airplanes had an encounter at higher altitude, say mid 20,000 feet or so. The numbers for turn and acceleration advantage aren't exact, but give a relative look at the expected capabilities. None of this says anything about pilot skills / experience, numeric advantage, situational advantage, surprise attacks out of the sun, or catching the other guys with their airplanes on deck during a dive bombing attack.

 

[Shortround6]

The SBD Dauntless had 325 square feet of wing area, a gross weight of 10,881 pounds, and 1,200hp ( at S.L.).

That is for an SBD-5 which didn't show up until 1943.

The 1942 battles were fought with SBD-3 with 1000hp engines although they could pull about 900hp in high gear at 12,000ft. At 20,000ft it had 700hp.

On the other hand with bombs gone and with 150 gallons of fuel in the tanks the gross weight was about 8300lbs.
Wing loading was about 25.5lbs/sq/ft which is not enough to get it out of trouble with a Zero, especially the lighter 1942 model Zeros.
So at best the SBD-3 had a power to weight ratio of 8.3 lb/hp and at 20,000ft it was 11.86 lb/hp.

Data for the SBD-3 is from the 1942 Manual.

So, the Zero had much better armament

But everybody knows the .50 cal can destroy a Zero with a single bullet from 4 miles away

 

[Shortround6]

Short production history of the SBD

SBD-1, 1940, 57 built, no protection
SBD-2, early 1941, 87 built, no protection
SBD-3, early 1941, 584 built, Protection added, manual indicates it could be removed(?)
SBD-4 780 built, 24 volt electrics and new prop, etc.
SBD-5 2965 built, 1200hp engine.
SBD-5A 60 built for the USMC
SBD-6 450 built, 1350hp engine, production ended in 1944.
A-24 = SBD-3, 168 built
A-24A = SBD-4, 170 built
A-24B = SBD-5, 615 built (60 given back to the USMC as SBD-5As)

Please note that they opened up a factory in Tulsa OK as a 2nd source by 1943.

 

[Greg Boeser]

But everybody knows the .50 cal can destroy a Zero with a single bullet from 4 miles away

Common knowledge. Plus, those paired .30s could put out more lead than a squadron of Zeros. Ask Saburo Sakai.

 

[SaparotRob]

Testify, Brother!

 

[Greg Boeser]

Short production history of the SBD

SBD-1, 1940, 57 built, no protection
SBD-2, early 1941, 87 built, no protection
SBD-3, early 1941, 584 built, Protection added, manual indicates it could be removed(?)
SBD-4 780 built, 24 volt electrics and new prop, etc.
SBD-5 2965 built, 1200hp engine.
SBD-5A 60 built for the USMC
SBD-6 450 built, 1350hp engine, production ended in 1944.
A-24 = SBD-3, 168 built
A-24A = SBD-4, 170 built
A-24B = SBD-5, 615 built (60 given back to the USMC as SBD-5As)

Please note that they opened up a factory in Tulsa OK as a 2nd source by 1943.

Armor could be removed on many US types. It appears that it was not installed when war broke out. Enterprise didn't get her a/c armor installed until just before the Marshall Islands raid. The Marines of VMF-211 at Wake had bulletproof windscreens, but no back armor for their F4F-3s.

 

[GregP]

At Yanks Air Museum, we put together ... did not yet restore ... one blister turret from a PB4Y-2 Privateer. It has armor in front of the gunner, but not behind. I guess the other gunner supplies the rear armor, assuming the enemy is shooting from exactly behind you!

The armor is about 1/4 inch thick and is quite heavy. I'd estimate maybe 150 pounds of armor for one turret, but I didn't weight it yet. It looks to be enough to stop a 30-cal (7.62 mm). Not too sure about stopping a 50-cal (12.7 - 13.0mm) ... might blow on through, can't say, and will NOT likely get a chance to try it out. PB4Y-2 armor plate isn't exactly in plentiful supply.

 

[taly01]

When Rabaul JNAF staff were interrogated about what is the easiest plane to shoot down they said the Douglas bomber, i'm sure it was SBD rather than A-20.

Could the USN carriers have succeeded 1941-45 with only the SBD! (no avengers, corsair, helldiver, wildcats, hellcats!), with more casualties for sure but probably!

 

[WARSPITER]

But everybody knows the .50 cal can destroy a Zero with a single bullet from 4 miles away

Wow !! Thanks, I didn't know that.