Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
So factory that into a 3000' strip at sea level - I bet you could get airborne with another 500 pounds.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.
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.