SBD Dauntless air-to-air score

taly01 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not sure which Douglas they were referring to, but the SBD losses for the Pacific War were a fraction of the nearly 6,000 manufactured (not including operational accidents or ditching due to fuel exhaustion).

Shortround6 said:

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

Click to expand...

That's exactly why the 7.62's on The Plane That Is Not To Be Named were completely useless.

The Dauntless family,
XBT-1, accepted in July 1937
BT-1, 53 accepted November 1937 to October 1938
XBT-2, accepted in February 1939.

8A-1, 1 exported to Sweden around August 1938
8A-2, 10 for Peru in first half of 1939, 18 for Netherlands in second half of 1939
8A-4, 15 for Iraq April to June 1940
8A-5/A-33, 36 for Norway October 1940 to February 1941.

El Segundo, (So say War Production Board, USN, USAAF and CAA).
SBD-1, June to December 1940, 57 built, no protection as built, 900 HP engine
SBD-2, November 1940 to May 1941, 87 built, no protection as built, 1,000 HP engine
SBD-3, March 1941 to October 1942, 584 built, 1,000 HP engine
SBD-4, October 1942 to April 1943, 780 built, 24 volt electrics etc., 1,000 HP engine
A-24/SBD-3A, June to October 1941 (78), July to October 1942 (90), total 168 built
A-24A/SBD-4A, October 1942 to March 1943, 170 built
SBD-5, February 1943 to April 1944, 2,965 built, 1,200hp engine.
SBD-5A, April to July 1943, 60 built
SBD-6, February to August 1944, 450 built, 1,350hp engine.

Tulsa, (So say War Production Board, USN, USAAF and CAA).
A-24B/SBD-5A, 615 built March to December 1943

Fuel capacity gallons, protected/if protection removed, SBD-1 180/210, SBD-2,-3,-4 260/310. Oil 11.7/13, 16.5/19.5.

Geoffrey Sinclair said:

The Dauntless family,
XBT-1, accepted in July 1937
BT-1, 53 accepted November 1937 to October 1938
XBT-2, accepted in February 1939.

8A-1, 1 exported to Sweden around August 1938
8A-2, 10 for Peru in first half of 1939, 18 for Netherlands in second half of 1939
8A-4, 15 for Iraq April to June 1940
8A-5/A-33, 36 for Norway October 1940 to February 1941.

El Segundo, (So say War Production Board, USN, USAAF and CAA).
SBD-1, June to December 1940, 57 built, no protection as built, 900 HP engine
SBD-2, November 1940 to May 1941, 87 built, no protection as built, 1,000 HP engine
SBD-3, March 1941 to October 1942, 584 built, 1,000 HP engine
SBD-4, October 1942 to April 1943, 780 built, 24 volt electrics etc., 1,000 HP engine
A-24/SBD-3A, June to October 1941 (78), July to October 1942 (90), total 168 built
A-24A/SBD-4A, October 1942 to March 1943, 170 built
SBD-5, February 1943 to April 1944, 2,965 built, 1,200hp engine.
SBD-5A, April to July 1943, 60 built
SBD-6, February to August 1944, 450 built, 1,350hp engine.

Tulsa, (So say War Production Board, USN, USAAF and CAA).
A-24B/SBD-5A, 615 built March to December 1943

Fuel capacity gallons, protected/if protection removed, SBD-1 180/210, SBD-2,-3,-4 260/310. Oil 11.7/13, 16.5/19.5.

Click to expand...

The BT-1 was built by Northrop and began in 1935. Northrop El Segundo was taken over by Douglas in 1937 and the active project continued under Douglas.

The BT-1 was heavily modified and redesignated as the XBT-2. It was further modified by Douglas into the XSBD-1.

All three were the same airframe.

Jack Northrop had 3 companies (Avion Corporation 1928, Northrop El Segundo and Northrop Hawthorne) and, when Northrop El Seguindo, CA became Douglas in 1937, "Northrop Corporation" continued as Northrop Corporation in Hawthorne, CA. The original Avion Corporation became part of United Aircraft and Transport in 1929 as Northrop AIrcraft Corporation (Gamma and Delta airplanes). Later it became part of Boeing.

I remember reading several times over the years that the SBD's had the lowest combat loss ratio of all USN carrier based aircraft during the war. Comments?

Depends on what you mean by combat loss ratio. Kill to loss? Loss per sortie? Loss per 1,000 sorties?

Many people want things to look better than they are, so they do things like tout kill-to-loss for air-to-air only.

The F6F Hellcat was the best there at 19.1 : 1 kills per air-to-air loss. Some people say it is the FM, but the FM is a Wildcat. If you count all USN/USMC Wildcats, the air-to-air kill-to-loss ratio is 6.9 : 1.The Dauntless is 1.7 : 1.

However, if you count losses to AAA, Operational losses (ran out of fuel, engine failure, etc), the overall kill-to-loss ratio for the Hellcat is 4.4 : 1 (1,163 total combat losses against 5,163 combat victories) and it is the best. The F4U comes in at 2.8 : 1, the Wildcat at 3.3 : 1, and the SBD comes in at 0.4 : 1 or 2.5 combat losses per victory (341 combat losses against 138 total combat victories).

See my table below. Note the USAAF data is for the ETO only. The USN / USMC data is for the entire war. Also note you can find many different answers for the number of victories attributed to various aircraft. There is a completely different total at: Warbirds and Airshows- WWII US Aircraft Victories. But, this website doesn't give you his source for the rather complete-looking table ... just shows the table.

At least my table below has sources shown even if it is not exactly complete.




Note: USAAC breaks out air and ground victories, but not air, A/A, and operational losses. US Navy data breaks out air, A/A, and operational losses, but not air and ground victories. To be fair, all combat losses are shown, all combat victories are shown including air and ground, and all combat sorties for US-made types shown. Excludes heavy and very heavy bombers.

Note: Many sources claim the F6F has a 19 : 1 kill ratio. The F6F had 270 combat losses to enemy aircraft, 553 to A/A, and 340 operational losses in combat. It shot down 1,445 bombers and 3,718 fighters for a total of 5,163 victories including both air and ground kills. If you divide 5,163 by 270 losses to enemy aircraft you get a ratio of 19 : 1, but the 5,163 includes ground kills and the 270 ignores A/A and combat operational losses. The numbers above include all combat kills and losses since the USAAC and US Navy do not break out their numbers in the same manner. This way, we compare apples to apples and get a fair ranking among US-made aircraft shown above. If more data surfaces, it will be added and compiled.

V1710 said:

I remember reading several times over the years that the SBD's had the lowest combat loss ratio of all USN carrier based aircraft during the war. Comments?

Click to expand...

Take a look in the 'Navy stats' doc posted here. SBD have had a very low combat loss ratio per that.

My data came from that source, Tomo. Table 1.

Add up combat losses for Navy carrier-based and Navy.Marine land-based and you get my numbers above.

48+56+4+1 = 109 combat losses.
31 + 75 + 22 + 10 = 138 combat victories ... they just don't break out air and ground victories.

eagledad said:

Hello

Feel free to check this link:

Warbirds and Airshows- WWII US Aircraft Victories

or view attachmrnt

Eagledad

added attachment

Click to expand...

Hmmm...that's the matrix that I compiled as secretary of the American Fighter Aces Assn, based on the late-great Frank Olynyk's volumes.

Thanks!

R Leonard said:

Depends how you want to count . . .

Peruse Frank Olynyk's USN Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft In Air-To-Air Combat, World War 2 (1982) and using fingers and toes, you can come up with numbers for USN SBD pilots and radio gunners:
Pilots – 54.0 credit / 8.0 probable / 4.0 damaged
Gunners – 41.5 credit / 5.0 probable / 13.0 damaged
Total – 95.5 credits / 13.0 probable / 17.0 damaged
Remembering, of course, that these are only for the USN and does not include the USMC.

If you look at BuAer's Naval Aviation Combat Statistics – World War 2 (1947) you can get gross totals which, unfortunately, do not provide either separation of probables/damaged nor a pilot/gunner breakdown, BUT do include gross totals for the USMC.

The BuAer gross total for the USN comes to 116.0 credits, obviously somewhat more that what Olynyk reports as credits and IMO probably has something to do with juggling/counting probables and damaged in BuAer's 1947 accounting as opposed to Olynyk's more painstaking 1970's review of the reports.

BuAer's Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, as noted, also provides us with the gross credit total for USMC SBD's, reported as 22.

Other reader's results may vary.

BuAer reports the total SBD's lost to enemy aircraft as 79; that's 43 USN carrier based, 12 USN land based, and 24 USMC land based.

Lastly, to another question, using Olynky you can find that USN SBD pilots and gunners were credited with a total of 56 A6M series shootdowns. Pilots were credited with 25, radio/gunners with 31. Probables totaled 4, 2 each pilots and gunners and damaged totaled 14, 2 for pilots, 12 for gunners.

SBD's shot down by A6M's?? Not a clue, but I'd suspect for the 79 reported as shot down by Japanese aircraft, the A6M was probably the culprit for the majority.

R

Click to expand...

As usual, Rich is Da Man.
The NavAv Combat Stats compilation was on line at one point but IIRC it was only partial. My well (well) thumbed printout from the 1980s does show 138 aerial victories for SBDs, which of course is muchly-hugely exaggerated. It's still around here. Somewhere.

The most-cited example of course remains Swede Vejtasa's epic solo encounter at Coral Sea. I knew him tolerably well and was honored to deliver his elegy. As I recall, Swede never said "I shot down three Zeros." My sense was that the squadron diarist/ACIO/etc rendered that interpretation. Also IIRCing, John Lundstrom concluded that one of Swede's opponents splashed on the way home.

Sidebar:
In the mid 70s my father and I with a couple of friends restored the only Dauntless at the time to flying condition. It was an A-24B restored as an SBD-5. I got maybe 8 hours in it, and Dad was right (of course) when he said, "It flies like a big SNJ." Light on the controls, which were well harmonized. I was oafishly proud when I could tell Ed Heinemann something he didn't know: the 318 holes in the dive and landing flaps were exactly the diameter of a tennis ball. (How I came by that esoterica is another story.). The a/c now is displayed in AAF colors at Wright-Patterson.

Barrett said:

Hmmm...that's the matrix that I compiled as secretary of the American Fighter Aces Assn, based on the late-great Frank Olynyk's volumes.

Click to expand...

Would be nice if that fact (source) was shown on the webpage. Thanks for setting the record straight, Barrett. I always figured the data were good, but never did know.

Frank was at a loss as to the source of the Warbirds and Airshows stats as well?

P-39 top ten aces

See post #12 and Frank's response #14.

I believe that baldly saying the Navy totals include aircraft destroyed on the ground is not only somewhat jumping to a conclusion, but is simply wrong. Just because the AAF presents a separate count for destroyed on the ground by own type does not mean that the USN is rolling same into their by type totals.

If you go table 1 of the BuAer combat statistics document "Consolidated Summary of Navy and Marine Carrier and Land-Based Air Operations and Results for Entire War" you can, by backing out the identified USMC numbers, arrive at a total for USN shootdown credits; just, and only, counting shootdowns of identified enemy VTB and VF this comes to comes to around 7060 (2172 and 4888, respectively).

If you look at Frank Olynyk's USN Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft In Air-To-Air Combat, World War, where you can find each credit listed, date, time range, pilot, squadron, enemy type, credit type (shot down, probable shoot down, & damaged), and location; adding up them all up, some 8613 entries, you get totals of 7202, 771, and 829.5. Note he only lists air-to-air action results.

So Olynyk came out with 142 MORE shootdown credits than the than BuAer USN count . . . probably because the BuAir accounting in Table 1 of the combat statistics report only counts enemy fighters (VF) and bombers (VTB).

If you are diligent with the BuAer statistics you can find counts of other types besides fighters and bombers, these found in BuAer Table 27 "Japanese Aircraft Destroyed In Aerial Combat By All Naval And Marine Aircraft" specifically in the "Totals by Major Types" portion of the table where we find, and again, as noted, including USMC results.

5962 Single Engine VF
1500 Single Engine VTB
342 Float Plane
1267 2 Engine Combat
69 Flying Boat
80 Transport
29 Trainer
9249 TOTAL

Somewhere in the totals from 2 Engine Combat on down there are, no doubt, embedded the 142 additional USN credits which Olynyk presents. For example, going through Olynyk's presentation and count up just the identified transports and trainers we get the pretty close to same result as in table 27, transports come to 83 and trainers come to 21 . . . a possible 104 of the 142 discrepancy between the two presentations. The rest, or any further, are probably identification or classification errors in the base source Aircraft Action Reports of both these presentations.

And, lastly, BuAer's Table 25, covering results for the entire war, does include a separate column "ENEMY AIRCRAFT DESTROYED ON GROUND " showing destroyed on the ground, a total, including from the USMC of 6,243 and pointedly is shown separate from the VF and VTB "ENEMY AIRCRAFT DESTROYED IN COMBAT".

Note that the BuAer report specifically says:
"ENEMY AIRCRAFT DESTROYED ON GROUND In the case of carrier operation, these figures represent the number of non-airborne enemy aircraft reported by the task force commander as destroyed on ground or water, or on enemy carriers. These figures were normally based largely on photographic assessment, and only planes visibly burned out or obviously unrepairable were included unless there was other positive evidence to warrant their classification as destroyed. Assessment was on a field-by-field basis, eliminating duplication of squadron claims. For small-scale early operations, where no report was available from the task force commander, an estimate was made by OP-23-V-3, based on all available squadron and ship action reports, eliminating duplication of claims. For land-based operations, in view of the small volume involved, the claims in action reports were used."

". . . eliminating duplication of claims . . ."

So, no, the BuAer counts for enemy aircraft destroyed in combat do not appear to have enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground rolled into the total destroyed for air combat, not to mention that the USN did not consider aircraft shot up on the ground as "victories," they were simply targets.

Thanks GregP, it would appear to be loss per sortie.

Here is a great picture of SBD's under construction at Douglas El Segundo. Look for the two BTD prototypes as well:

I never would have spotted them if you hadn't mentioned the BTDs. Great shot!

Juha3 said:

Hello Tomo
Donald Nijboer's SBD Vs A6M Osprey Duel 115 gives good basic info on the subject. Not time to look through it but in the end notes that based on Lundstrom, Sawruk and Frank the actual number of Zeros shot down by SBD crews was between 5 and 9 in the first year of the war.

Click to expand...

Which is pretty impressive actually. But I believe the importance of the SBD as a second tier / emergency fighter was much more in the attacks against planes like E-13, F1M, G3M and G4M, H6K and the like.

In crunching the numbers for (so far almost) all the USN naval air battles in 1942, I was also struck by the effectiveness of the SBD 'Scout bombers' as dive bombers - a pair of SBDs would often locate an enemy task force, radio the location (yay) and then attack on their own, and score hits. They hit at least two IJN carriers in attacks like this in late 1942 alone.

The air to air victories by SBDs were I think mostly from these scout (VS) units, which were removed in 1943 in favor of more fighters. The scout units got much more air to air combat and gunnery training, and were specialized for the scout role. Probably an understandable decision to replace these with more fighters, but the specific role seems to have had some merit.

GregP said:

Depends on what you mean by combat loss ratio. Kill to loss? Loss per sortie? Loss per 1,000 sorties?

Many people want things to look better than they are, so they do things like tout kill-to-loss for air-to-air only.

The F6F Hellcat was the best there at 19.1 : 1 kills per air-to-air loss. Some people say it is the FM, but the FM is a Wildcat. If you count all USN/USMC Wildcats, the air-to-air kill-to-loss ratio is 6.9 : 1.The Dauntless is 1.7 : 1.

However, if you count losses to AAA, Operational losses (ran out of fuel, engine failure, etc), the overall kill-to-loss ratio for the Hellcat is 4.4 : 1 (1,163 total combat losses against 5,163 combat victories) and it is the best. The F4U comes in at 2.8 : 1, the Wildcat at 3.3 : 1, and the SBD comes in at 0.4 : 1 or 2.5 combat losses per victory (341 combat losses against 138 total combat victories).

See my table below. Note the USAAF data is for the ETO only. The USN / USMC data is for the entire war. Also note you can find many different answers for the number of victories attributed to various aircraft. There is a completely different total at: Warbirds and Airshows- WWII US Aircraft Victories. But, this website doesn't give you his source for the rather complete-looking table ... just shows the table.

At least my table below has sources shown even if it is not exactly complete.

View attachment 708971


Note: USAAC breaks out air and ground victories, but not air, A/A, and operational losses. US Navy data breaks out air, A/A, and operational losses, but not air and ground victories. To be fair, all combat losses are shown, all combat victories are shown including air and ground, and all combat sorties for US-made types shown. Excludes heavy and very heavy bombers.

Note: Many sources claim the F6F has a 19 : 1 kill ratio. The F6F had 270 combat losses to enemy aircraft, 553 to A/A, and 340 operational losses in combat. It shot down 1,445 bombers and 3,718 fighters for a total of 5,163 victories including both air and ground kills. If you divide 5,163 by 270 losses to enemy aircraft you get a ratio of 19 : 1, but the 5,163 includes ground kills and the 270 ignores A/A and combat operational losses. The numbers above include all combat kills and losses since the USAAC and US Navy do not break out their numbers in the same manner. This way, we compare apples to apples and get a fair ranking among US-made aircraft shown above. If more data surfaces, it will be added and compiled.

Click to expand...

These numbers are way off sorry to say

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Which is pretty impressive actually. But I believe the importance of the SBD as a second tier / emergency fighter was much more in the attacks against planes like E-13, F1M, G3M and G4M, H6K and the like.

Click to expand...

Now with the aid of Hindsight about 1/2 of the planes on that list were obsolete, out of production and being phased out during 1942. The US did not know this but since in at least two cases the replacements were in service very near the beginning of the year and hand writing was on the wall.

G3M and G4M for instance and the H6K and H8K for another.

The E-13 lasted quite a bit longer, well into 1943 if not 1944?
The F1M also lasted quite a while but since it was short ranged it didn't often go out to play with aircraft carriers.

Both of the these planes actually present a bit of challenge for the SBD. They are a bit slower, max speed about 230mph for both so adjust for altitude.
However both have much lower wing loading than the SBD (and I am using the weight of a scout with 150 US gallons of fuel) and both will climb about as well as the SBD to 15-16,000ft.
SBD may climb a bit better at low altitude in low supercharger gear.
Not saying the SBD cannot win. It Will depend on circumstances and pilot skill. The SBD has got an edge but not a big one and if you are trying to shoot down snoopers you may want a bigger edge.

SBDs also have a problem playing ersatz CAP. At least the early ones only carried 180 rounds per gun. Granted the Synchronized guns are kind of low fire rate but that is not enough for very many intercepts or attempts.
As 1942 progressed the Japanese aircraft that the SBD had an advantage over as an interceptor declined as a percentage of the likely targets. Carriers needed CAP aircraft that could engage a wider variety of targets, not just select ones.