SBD vs. JU-87 vs. Aichi D3A

[B-17engineer]

It was obselete because AMericans and British had superior aircraft, Plus in the BoB its losses were so high it had to withdraw, the SBD never withdrew from any battle, and the 254 mph who cares it was still slow enough that american fighters could blast it out of the sky when ever. THe SBd could pull a 9 G turn atleast if a Zero pulled behind it it could turn, If the Zero did that its wings would rip off, My point being the SBD could Turn better defend its self better and never had to be WITHDRAWN from battle.

The tank killing wasn't even dive bombing. I will say that Hans-Ulrich RUdel was the best dive bombing pilot ever: 512 soviets tanks destroyed, Sank the Battleship Marat, 11 fighters shot down, he bailed out 13 times and he destroyed 13 locamotives. All in the Stuka with his 37mm anti-tank gun

I understand both what your saying, I am just supporting that the SBD proved itself and never had be withdrawn, one reason it was superior cause french pilots weren't prepared and there aircraft were just as good as British planes, the British knew they were going to attack and were prepared.

The part of the French planes is reffering to the Stuka.....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It was obselete because AMericans and British had superior aircraft, Plus in the BoB its losses were so high it had to withdraw, the SBD never withdrew from any battle, and the 254 mph who cares it was still slow enough that american fighters could blast it out of the sky when ever. THe SBd could pull a 9 G turn atleast if a Zero pulled behind it it could turn, If the Zero did that its wings would rip off, My point being the SBD could Turn better defend its self better and never had to be WITHDRAWN from battle.

The tank killing wasn't even dive bombing. I will say that Hans-Ulrich RUdel was the best dive bombing pilot ever: 512 soviets tanks destroyed, Sank the Battleship Marat, 11 fighters shot down, he bailed out 13 times and he destroyed 13 locamotives. All in the Stuka with his 37mm anti-tank gun

I understand both what your saying, I am just supporting that the SBD proved itself and never had be withdrawn, one reason it was superior cause french pilots weren't prepared and there aircraft were just as good as British planes, the British knew they were going to attack and were prepared.

The part of the French planes is reffering to the Stuka.....

Oh boy....

Oh and please from now on use the Edit Button instead of making 4 or 5 different posts.

 

[B-17engineer]

Sorry

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No dont be sorry.

I am just trying to figure your posts out. I dont think you are understanding why the Ju 87 had problems. Either that or you are letting national pride cloud your judgment (dont take me wrong I am an American as well).

The Ju 87 was like any other dive bomber. Without air superiority she was going to sustain heavy losses and not be as effective.

The reason the SBD enjoyed better success is because for most of the war in the Pacific the US had air superiority. If the US had not enjoyed such superiority the SBD would have taken heavier losses as well.

I am a firm believer the SBD was a better aircraft overall but the Ju 87 was a better dive bombing platform.

 

[B-17engineer]

Now i understand.....okay yea see.

 

[Nikademus]

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

maybe. The impression i got was that it the plane needed every bit of speed the carrier could generate over the flight deck to produce the needed windflow. It was never attempted in wartime though. Too much work most likely....that and only Enterprise had any of the converted shells in her magazines at the time. The 1000lber's proved advantagious enough vs. Japanese carriers in the end. By the time the Marines were using them they'd have been lugging standard army land bombs of the 500lb HE type.

In the early days though the army had a land version of the SBD.....designated A-24. I don't have much info on their history of ops but what little i have suggested they wern't very successful though this may have had more to do with the rugged conditions in New Guneau than anything else. Also believe they may have been an early conversion so didn't sport armor or self sealers.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In the early days though the army had a land version of the SBD.....designated A-24. I don't have much info on their history of ops but what little i have suggested they wern't very successful though this may have had more to do with the rugged conditions in New Guneau than anything else. Also believe they may have been an early conversion so didn't sport armor or self sealers.

Very true - by the time the A-24 was entering service the AAF was all but out of the dive bombing business in the traditional sense.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Now i understand.....okay yea see.

The key is control of the skies. If you can fly free and roam over your targest you are going to have success.

 

[Njaco]

Comparing the Stuka's total operational life is not very effective either. You must seperate from the B / D model and later models. Early models were for dive-bombing purposes, the latter with the pods for tank-busting. Different operations.

The tank killing wasn't even dive bombing. I will say that Hans-Ulrich RUdel was the best dive bombing pilot ever: 512 soviets tanks destroyed, Sank the Battleship Marat, 11 fighters shot down, he bailed out 13 times and he destroyed 13 locamotives. All in the Stuka with his 37mm anti-tank gun

Most of those stats are for the later models he used as ground attack, not dive-bombing. What was his early scores without the 37 mm gun? When he was only dive-bombing? More accurate for this thread.

 

[B-17engineer]

Yea i know that wasn't dive bombing...........he had a 37mm gun i just was saying.......

 

[proton45]

I would have to agree with the comments in reference to "air superiority"...one could compare HP stats, kill ratio's, years of service or combat losses and draw whatever conclusions one wanted to about which dive bomber was "better"...but the over all success of any bombing campaign has more to do with who controls the sky then which bomber was designed first (oldest) or whatever...

 

[seesul]

SBD

 

[Kurfürst]

I would have to agree with the comments in reference to "air superiority"...one could compare HP stats, kill ratio's, years of service or combat losses and draw whatever conclusions one wanted to about which dive bomber was "better"...but the over all success of any bombing campaign has more to do with who controls the sky then which bomber was designed first (oldest) or whatever...

It`s just so true I will spam the thread with it.... Look at what happened to unescorted B-17/B-24s.. Look how they fared when they were well escorted in contrast.

A better pilot beats a better plane, and better tactics will beat a better pilot..

 

[Velius]

The key is control of the skies. If you can fly free and roam over your targest you are going to have success.

I guess the Val had it's time in the sun only when it was accompanied by zeros to deal with the fighters and provide air supierority. The stuka was much the same way right?

I might be wrong on this one but was the Dauntless able to hold it's own without the aid of fighters?

 

[Thorlifter]

More so, but it still helped to have some cover. Remember, the Val, like most Japanese planes, had no armor or self sealing fuel tanks. It's didn't take too many hits from a .50 cal to turn it into a fireball. The Dauntless could take some punishment and keep flying.

 

[HoHun]

>I might be wrong on this one but was the Dauntless able to hold it's own without the aid of fighters?

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/ju-87-stuka-vulnerability-fighter-attack-11124.html

 

[renrich]

The SBD had some maneuverability, had two forward firing 50 cals and was even used as a CAP against VTs early on but it would not have a good chance unescorted against enemy VFs. However it served and served well during the whole war.

 

[Udet]

It was obselete because AMericans and British had superior aircraft, Plus in the BoB its losses were so high it had to withdraw, the SBD never withdrew from any battle, and the 254 mph who cares it was still slow enough that american fighters could blast it out of the sky when ever. THe SBd could pull a 9 G turn atleast if a Zero pulled behind it it could turn, If the Zero did that its wings would rip off, My point being the SBD could Turn better defend its self better and never had to be WITHDRAWN from battle.

The tank killing wasn't even dive bombing. I will say that Hans-Ulrich RUdel was the best dive bombing pilot ever: 512 soviets tanks destroyed, Sank the Battleship Marat, 11 fighters shot down, he bailed out 13 times and he destroyed 13 locamotives. All in the Stuka with his 37mm anti-tank gun

I understand both what your saying, I am just supporting that the SBD proved itself and never had be withdrawn, one reason it was superior cause french pilots weren't prepared and there aircraft were just as good as British planes, the British knew they were going to attack and were prepared.

The part of the French planes is reffering to the Stuka.....

This is utter non-sense.

The Americans and British "had superior aircraft"? How come? To what type of superior aircraft you´d be referring to?

Fighters perhaps? Non-sense again. The Stuka was not designed to engage in air-to-air combat, something i think you should know.

If referring to dive bombers, which i believe should be the point here, name a British dive bomber that proved superior to the Stuka, or that could outmatch the Stuka´s battle record.

Battle of Britain, oh well, the Bf 109 E-3 and E-4 were clearly superior to the Hurricane and perhaps slightly superior to the Spitfire Mk. I; there you have the fighter designed to engage the British fighters that would intercept the Stukas.

Good you mentioned Rudel there; the fact he had to bale out 13 or more times due to enemy fighter action or AA fire and lived to tell the story could certainly help you comprehending a bit further how safe the Stuka could be. You can not go on challenging your "luck" factor forever without paying the consequences.

You assertion the Dauntless was never withdrawn from service means virtually nothing for concluding which plane was the best.

Sure the Dauntless made a fine dive bomber, but given the circumstances surrounding the deployment of both models, i´d see any definitive superiority of any of the 2 planes marginal.

 

[MAV_406]

the SBD could hold its own in a dog fight. the stuka was easy meat and the val was extreamly easy to ingnite and explode. in my opion being able to make an attack is the most important part of any strike fighter. no point having a great dive if you cant get there.

 

[Njaco]

A better pilot beats a better plane, and better tactics will beat a better pilot..

True, true, true, true!!!

I guess the Val had it's time in the sun only when it was accompanied by zeros to deal with the fighters and provide air supierority. The stuka was much the same way right?

Being covered by fighters does not mean air superiority. In the BoB, the Stukas had cover, sometimes twice their number but they did not have command of the air over England. There was at times an equal number of RAF against the Luftwaffe and although the fighters tangled, the RAF still got to the bombers.

One other thing: Command of the air over England sometimes forced German bombers to turn back before even reaching the target. Not something much seen later by the Allies when they took it to Germany.