SBD vs. JU-87 vs. Aichi D3A

[Velius]

Regarding their role as a dive bomber- which would emerge as the champion?

- SBD Dauntless
- Ju-87 Stuka
- Aichi D3A Val

I'll admit that I don't know much about dive bombers, but to what I know all were quite effective. What are ya'lls opinion?

Thanks8)

 

[Lucky13]

My heart is with the Dauntless....

 

[ToughOmbre]

The SBD was an effective dive bomber right up until the end of the war, even after it was "replaced" by the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. Can't say that about the Ju-87 Stuka and the Aichi D3A Val.

Dauntless easy.

TO

 

[Nikademus]

My all around pick would be the Dauntless as mentioned in the Why Ju-87 built? thread. It was a fast, reasonably agile plane and durable. (it was used initially as an anti-torpedo bomber fighter by the USN as a secondary role and didn't do badly at the role though the practice was ceased because it made them vulnerable to marauding fighters.)

The Stuka would appear to hold the crown for best platform on which to conduct an accurate dive bombing attack while i've heard that the D3A had similar properties and was quite a nimble plane as well. Having no armor or self sealers though, it was also vulnerable to increasingly well armed fighters so falls behind the Dauntless as my all -round pick. The Stuka is often cited as being the most vulnerable to enemy fighters.

 

[Njaco]

Not knowing too much about the others I would make a vote for the Stuka. Once its role as a divebomber was made a moot point without air superiority, it was adapted to another role - tank busting - which it did with good results. It created a whole new type of bomber which can still be seen in the A-10 today.

Control of the air was what made alot of these planes successful or not.

 

[V-1710]

SBD. The fact that the Dauntless had the lowest combat air loss ratio of any U.S. Navy carrier aircraft is remarkable, particularly considering the SBD was a dive bomber. The Dauntless contributed more to the victory at Midway than any other aircraft involved, and could be a nasty surprise to the unsuspecting Zero pilot. The Stuka and D3A were only effective if there were no opposing fighters in the area.

 

[lesofprimus]

Dauntless, hands down.... Try and pull 9 G's in a Stuka..... HA!

Oh and for the record, check out the Official Dive Bomber Thread here..... Its for Carrier born aircraft..

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/greatest-carrier-born-dive-bomber-ww-ii-7615.html

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Aircraft wise I have to go with the SBD for reasons stated above.

As a platform for dive bombing however I go with the Stuka.

SBD. The fact that the Dauntless had the lowest combat air loss ratio of any U.S. Navy carrier aircraft is remarkable, particularly considering the SBD was a dive bomber. The Dauntless contributed more to the victory at Midway than any other aircraft involved, and could be a nasty surprise to the unsuspecting Zero pilot. The Stuka and D3A were only effective if there were no opposing fighters in the area.

While everything you say above is true, without the US having air superiority in the Pacific the Dauntless would not have been effective either. Just like all dive bombers.

 

[B-17engineer]

I believe that a SBD would come out victorious just due to its durability. The Stuka was slow and the SBD would probably turn it and the Val forget it.......actually if u got into a turning fight u were doomed. But it was so lightly armoured and a squirt from the SBD's guns it was doomed

My overall opion the SBD would win.......If u saw Swede a SBD pilot on dogfights you could probably see for urself

 

[Glider]

I would also go for the SBD for its durability. All three proved themselves as accurate dive bombers but the Ju87 and Val did suffer heavy losses in their original role as dive bombers.
So the SBD has the vote

 

[Kurfürst]

The Stuka is often cited as being the most vulnerable to enemy fighters.

Hardly the case - the Stukas are probably the best armored of all three, with a good defensive gun suite - a twin MG81 is a nasty thing with 3200 rounds/min...

Looking at the specs, the Ju 87D seems to be a clear winner of the three; it has the same speed as the Dauntless, it`s heavily armored, the D-5 is heavily armed and also the Dora carries a heaviest bombload of all three, bombs as big as 1800 kg can be carried. As naval bombers for the Pacific, the other two generally has the advantage of range, though I am not sure how this would play out with a variation of ordonance - droptanks/bombs.

The Val was a nice dive bomber when the war started, but the lack of development simply made it fall behind against newer types of dive bombers.

 

[Thorlifter]

My heart says Dauntless, but if I had to pick just one, I'd go with the Stuka for it's versatility.

 

[Nikademus]

Hardly the case - the Stukas are probably the best armored of all three, with a good defensive gun suite - a twin MG81 is a nasty thing with 3200 rounds/min...

Looking at the specs, the Ju 87D seems to be a clear winner of the three; it has the same speed as the Dauntless, it`s heavily armored, the D-5 is heavily armed and also the Dora carries a heaviest bombload of all three, bombs as big as 1800 kg can be carried. As naval bombers for the Pacific, the other two generally has the advantage of range, though I am not sure how this would play out with a variation of ordonance - droptanks/bombs.

The Val was a nice dive bomber when the war started, but the lack of development simply made it fall behind against newer types of dive bombers.

I had read that the Ju-87D received additional armor to assist it in it's ground support role. This didn't appear to increase the plane's survivability vs. fighter planes much judging by what i've read. Certainly so if equipped with the anti-tank gun packs which impacted it's preformance increasing it's vulnerability.

That said, I am a fan of the big bombload the Stuka can lug around and it does have claim to being the best platform for a dive bombing attack. I'll confess that I do wonder how much the Stuka's vulnerability is due to the combat environment as well as it's flight characteristics. Would an SBD group fair any better operating over land? Certainly it too would need escort. Facing cannon armed opponent's from the Luftwaffe would certainly increase it's vulnerability as well. Tough call. I'm still of the mind that defensively the Dauntless was more survivable....but i'm willing to be convinced.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The SBD was operated on land by a few Marine units. I'm wondering if they exceeded the 1,200 pound bomb load when land based?

 

[Nikademus]

It could just lug a converted 1400lb AP bomb off of a carrier if the rear gunner was left behind and the plane operated at a reduced radius.

 

[V-1710]

Ever seen a Dauntless in person? They are not very large.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It could just lug a converted 1400lb AP bomb off of a carrier if the rear gunner was left behind and the plane operated at a reduced radius.

So factory that into a 3000' strip at sea level - I bet you could get airborne with another 500 pounds.

 

[B-17engineer]

I see what you are saying but, the Stuka was accurate but very obselete after France, Britain, NOrway, and the Spanish CIvil war it was effecrive. WHat i am saying though is that the SBD although it was becoming obselete could still get the job done. Were as the Val and Stuka were already obselete by 1942 and the just weren't good enough.

 

[Kurfürst]

There`s absolutely nothing supporting the Stuka being especially vulnerable as a dive bomber. It shared the defiences of all dive bombers - namely, a relatively small plane with limited defensive armament, and more importantly, the difficulty of maintaining a mutual defensive fomation with each other the escorting fighters immidiately after the dive attack was made. In short, the formation broke up after the dive bombing, and in this period the dive bombers were vulnerable to fighter attacks. But such weakness is equally true for any other dive bomber. For a dive bomber, the Stuka was solid - as fast as the best, rugged, well armored and armed. It continued to operate successfully until the Allied air superiority was such that even fighters found it difficult to operate in the daylight.

Other than that, there`s nothing to support it had some 'special vulnerability'. The claim is largely based on British propaganda stemming from the BoB, but even that is just that - propaganda.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I see what you are saying but, the Stuka was accurate but very obselete after France, Britain, NOrway, and the Spanish CIvil war it was effecrive. WHat i am saying though is that the SBD although it was becoming obselete could still get the job done. Were as the Val and Stuka were already obselete by 1942 and the just weren't good enough.

How was it obsolete after the BoB? It was far from obsolete and even became and extremely effective tank killer throughout the war.

The Stuka was not obsolete, however like all dive bombers it required aerial supremacy to be 100 percent effective.

You also say the Stuka was too slow.

The Ju-87D had a top speed of approx. 408 kmh (254 mph).

The SBD Dauntless had a stop speed of approx. 410 kmh (255 mph)

Not much of a difference there is it.