SBD Question

Nikademus · May 5, 2010

JoeB said:
They carried only 250kg in the attack on Hermes according to the 'kodochosho' of the 5 carriers, and I also don't know of any case of them being used v US carriers, by divebombers, at least in 1942. But they were used against other targets fairly regularly. For example, the 2nd (later 582nd) Air Group's Type 99's in missions in New Guinea in 1942, usually v Allied airfields, usually dropped either250 plus pair of 60's, or just the pair of 60's, according to their mission reports.

The 60kg was used against Allied ships, but usually by Land Attack Planes or Carrier Attack Planes bombing horizontally, when lacking torpedoes, and/or loaded out for possible land targets, then diverted to ship targets; or by floatplanes. For example in the Dutch East Indies USS Langley and Marblehead suffered apparent 60kg hits in different attacks by Land Attack Planes: the attackers were dropping a mix of 60 and 250kg. Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes (Kates) also went after ships with 60kg bombs at times, for example Ryujo's attack on seaplane tender William B. Preston at Davao Gulf PI first day of the war.

Joe

Thx. This syncs with what i'd dug up vis-a-vis land vs sea targets and the D3A. Taking the additional time to arm carrier bombers with the bomblets vs. naval targets didn't seem sensible. (Despite some quoting CV magazine stockpiles) However land targets made more sense for the weapon and justified their presence in magazines.

Nikademus · May 5, 2010

timshatz said:
True, it was not terrible. But it did not go through the advances that the USN went through in giving DC a much higher level of importance than the IJN.

Your examples are instructive in that they are both early war (circa 1942) examples of damage control not to it's highest level (agree completely on the Lexington while the Wasp was a light frame carrier that went down to as many torpedoes as most other carriers would, in some cases even less).

By 1944-45, DC was very advanced in the USN. Two examples suffice to illistrate the point. The USS Franklin and the USS Laffey. Both were critically damaged yet did not sink due to the work of the DC.

Yes, the advancement in DC procedures and techniques in the USN from early war to late war are where the IJN was left in the dust. The Franklin episode is instructive in that it both showcases the advancement of USN damage control, and the difficulty in saving a carrier from a firey death in situations where said carrier is hit in a state of high vulnerability. The ship was ultimately saved by a whisker and a superlative effort by the crew....but the ship never saw active service in WWII again and apparantly it was not considered suitible for postwar upgrading as a result of the severe damage. Princeton was not so lucky. Sometimes fate is fickle.

Laffey's story is one for the ages.

timshatz · May 6, 2010

JoeB said:
They carried only 250kg in the attack on Hermes according to the 'kodochosho' of the 5 carriers, and I also don't know of any case of them being used v US carriers, by divebombers, at least in 1942. But they were used against other targets fairly regularly. For example, the 2nd (later 582nd) Air Group's Type 99's in missions in New Guinea in 1942, usually v Allied airfields, usually dropped either250 plus pair of 60's, or just the pair of 60's, according to their mission reports.

The 60kg was used against Allied ships, but usually by Land Attack Planes or Carrier Attack Planes bombing horizontally, when lacking torpedoes, and/or loaded out for possible land targets, then diverted to ship targets; or by floatplanes. For example in the Dutch East Indies USS Langley and Marblehead suffered apparent 60kg hits in different attacks by Land Attack Planes: the attackers were dropping a mix of 60 and 250kg. Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes (Kates) also went after ships with 60kg bombs at times, for example Ryujo's attack on seaplane tender William B. Preston at Davao Gulf PI first day of the war.

Joe

Looks like it's my bad with the bomb weights. The 550lb looks like the prefered weight of the Val, not the 550Kg (approx.) bomb. That might've been the land bomb the Japanese Navy used against land targets. Both were used at Midway although I think the heavier bomb was limited to Kates and not available for the Vals.

Memory ain't what it used to be.

Again, my bad on that.

syscom3 · May 6, 2010

timshatz said:
Looks like it's my bad with the bomb weights. The 550lb looks like the prefered weight of the Val, not the 550Kg (approx.) bomb. That might've been the land bomb the Japanese Navy used against land targets. Both were used at Midway although I think the heavier bomb was limited to Kates and not available for the Vals.

Memory ain't what it used to be.

Again, my bad on that.

I believe that the biggest shortcoming to the Val was its low payload. I have always read that it could only carry a 500 pounder and not the thousand pounders the Dauntlass used.

timshatz · May 6, 2010

As long as we're talking about the SBD, I have a question that's bothered me for a while.

If the F4F could do the Beam Defense Manuver (Thatch Weave) and protect themselves from Zeroes, why couldn't the Dauntless? It had heavy enough forward firing guns and the tail gunner would be a bonus.

It just seems to be a good fit but I never read about any of the dive bomber pilots trying it. Mostly, they seemed to stay in formation or, if caught single, run for the clouds or get low and fast.

Nikademus · May 6, 2010

It could, and I believe at least one SBD element did an impromtu version of it for a brief period. Thach's weave however was not a standard tactic at the time in 42 however. Believe it was added officially in late war training.

It would not be a practical maneuver however on approach to the target. Formations that expect to attack together and/or get to their assigned targets in a coherent manner would be hard pressed if multiple bomber elements are breaking off into wide weaving maneuvers at the sight of enemy fighters. It has more practicality after attacking the target though fuel considerations have to be taken into account as do the forward firepower of the bomber in question. The weave was good for the F4F because it's firepower and ruggedness.

Markus · May 6, 2010

timshatz said:
Looks like it's my bad with the bomb weights. The 550lb looks like the prefered weight of the Val, not the 550Kg (approx.) bomb. That might've been the land bomb the Japanese Navy used against land targets. Both were used at Midway although I think the heavier bomb was limited to Kates and not available for the Vals.

Memory ain't what it used to be.

Again, my bad on that.

The Val could not carry a 500 kilo/1,100lb bomb! If the IJN dropped such bombs on Midway island they had to have been carried by Kate torpedo bombers.

renrich said:
Thanks, Joe, I seemed to remember in "Shattered Sword" that the Vals were armed with bombs slightly heavier than 500 pounds but could not check because the book was a library book and long since checked in. Anyway the 500 or so pound bombs were pretty effective. The 18 Vals from Hiryu, according to Lundstrom carried either 242 KG or 250 KG bombs and they damaged Yorktown severly with them.

I would not call the damade severe. It took them what, 30 minutes to extinguish the fires, patch the holes in the deack and make enough speed to resume flight ops. Thus the second group of japanese planes thought she was a different carrier as she was obviously undamaged.

timshatz · May 6, 2010

Nikademus said:
It could, and I believe at least one SBD element did an impromtu version of it for a brief period. Thach's weave however was not a standard tactic at the time in 42 however. Believe it was added officially in late war training.

It would not be a practical maneuver however on approach to the target. Formations that expect to attack together and/or get to their assigned targets in a coherent manner would be hard pressed if multiple bomber elements are breaking off into wide weaving maneuvers at the sight of enemy fighters. It has more practicality after attacking the target though fuel considerations have to be taken into account as do the forward firepower of the bomber in question. The weave was good for the F4F because it's firepower and ruggedness.

Nic, didn't think of it in terms of heading towards the target, more along the lines of a post drop run for home or a couple of scouts getting jumped. I could see it happening then. The fron .50s of the SBD would provide good firepower against an unarmored fighter or dive bomber.

Heading into the target, I agree, it is formation flying/safety in numbers. Plus, attacking in a group is the DB standard, harder for a manuvering ship to dodge multiple bombs.

Propellorhead · Jul 10, 2010

The weave manouvere used by Wildcats was because they could not cover their tails except by working in pairs. The SBD with aft gunners did not suffer that problem and much like formations of B-17s had more strength from maintaining formation and concentrating firepower.

renrich · Jul 18, 2010

Actually, dive bombers like the SBD could not cover the area directly behind the tail either horizontally or below because the guns would not bear or the bullets would impact it's own tail. In formation the rear gunners would try to keep fighters off the other bomber's tails. Sometimes the pilot of a dive bomber being attacked from the rear would weave to give the gunner a shot. Tim, the twin fifties in the cowling of a SBD were pretty good firepower against any foe. Most Ki43s had only two fifties in the nose that were not as powerful as the 50 BMG and they shot down a lot of armored EAs, including Hurricanes, P40s, Beaufighters, Hudsons, Blenheims, Spitfires, P47s, P51s, etc.

SBD Question

More options

Nikademus

Senior Airman

Nikademus

Senior Airman

timshatz

Chief Master Sergeant

syscom3

Pacific Historian

timshatz

Chief Master Sergeant

Nikademus

Senior Airman

Markus

Banned

timshatz

Chief Master Sergeant

Propellorhead

Airman 1st Class

renrich

Chief Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads