SBD vs. JU-87 vs. Aichi D3A

[Shortround6]

Economy of scale only works so much, Once you are in large scale production you don't get two engines for the price of one (especially the SAME engine) or an empty equipped airplane of about 2 1/2 times the weight for the same price.
The Germans built around 2150 of the early series Ju 87 (pre D) by the end of Oct 1941.
Depending on when production of "R" started one factory may have averaged 70-80 planes per month. While not the equal of some other programs this is not small scale production.

 

[Civettone]

Dave. this has been told to you before. The price tag of German weapons mean very little as the RM was kept at an artificial level.
The cost of the Ju 88 can only be measured by number of man hours and by amount of raw materials. Given the fact that it was in mass production, it is only natural than the expenses dropped.
And Goering regretted ordering the Ju 88. And rightly so. As a bomber it was no better than the Do 17 or He 111 it was designed to replace, as the higher loss rates in the BoB indicate.

Also as a dive bomber it was nowhere near the Ju 87. Finnish operational experience showed that the Ju 87 could only withstand a 45 degree angle, while the Stuka was close to vertical ...

Kris

 

[pattle]

Shortround I agree with what you are saying about weighing up the cost of losses to the value of a target but I also think this throws up a difficult moral question for the planners of raids against high value targets, particularly British and American planners. I can also see that the US Navy was probably in a position where it was forced to continue with the use of dive bombers through lack of a suitable alternative, where as the Fleet Arm fighting a different kind of war mostly against the Germans did not need such planes as it was not fighting a carrier war.
Ultimately though both the RAF or USAAF decided against dive bombers. For high value, high risk targets that needed a large bomb delivered with great accuracy the RAF developed the Upkeep, Tallboy and Grandslam bombs which destroyed targets that dive bombers could have done little or no damage to, for smaller pin point targets the Mosquito was used. The USAAF moved more in the direction of guided weapons as did the Germans, I know that guided weapons weren't perfected in the war but they were at least seen as the future.

 

[Denniss]

According to load plans the Ju 87B could carry the 1t bomb with full load of 370kg fuel (+ the rear gunner with gun an ammo) at ~5t weight. The Ju 87R could do this even with two drop tanks and ~915 kg fuel at max overload with 5.55 t.
I have no overload plans for the D-1, max load in standard condition was 1t with 580kg fuel at 5.74 t or 500kg with two drop tanks and 1020kg fuel at 5.75 t.
The D-5 caried carry an 1.4t bomb on max internal fuel (580kg) at 6.3t or an 1.8t bomb with reduced internal fuel of ~355kg at 6.47t. With drop tanks and 1015kg fuel the bombload was limited to a 1t bomb at 6.42t weight.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I am a bit puzzled by this thread... Dive bombing remained a significant deiivery option for modern aircraft through the Vietnam war. A-4, A-7 and A-6 aircraft and crew were all practiced in the technique.

WRT to the SBD Vs Ju-87 at Midway, it's not the bomb size but the endurance that's important in this comparison. The SBD had to perform an extensive target search, deliver its ordnance and find its home plate. Missions exceeding 4 hours on June 6 were common. Launch at ~7:30 AM and return at ~11:30 AM. was the profile. I am assuming the Ju-87 would be hard-put to carry a 1000 kg bomb for that kind of mission profile. Also, if I recall, the SBD-5 could accommodate a 1,600 lb. ordnance load but not the SBD-3 used at Midway, which typically (as was stated earlier) carried a ~500 kg bomb. I believe max payload was ~1,200 lbs for the -3.

The following website tabulating the circumstances of Modern era ejections from the A-6 has ~6 separate references to dive bombing performed by the A-6 which may appear a bit less dramatic than those performed during WW2 in that the dive angle was less severe, but is still regarded in the modern vernacular as dive bombing (raising the oft posed question of what exactly consititutes a dive bomber and a dive bombing attack; a topic that has been covered in some detail in this forum.)

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_type/a6_prowler.htm

http://info.publicintelligence.net/PACNORWEST_TRCM.pdf

NAS Whidbey Instruction dated 12 July 2010, page 8-5, assigns a priority 4 to aircraft performing high pattern dive bombing attacks. at the Boardman Oregon weapons range. I am assuming the instruction is still in effect with its recent date and dive bombing in the modern sense remains an option for attack type aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

I think the definition of dive bombing changed. Pre WW II and early WW II it was a steep dive, at least over 45 degrees an closer to 60-80 degrees, some planes could manage 90 degrees. The speed of the dive was controlled to give time to aim. A plane diving at 400 mph is loosing 600ft per second so 10 seconds is a 6000 ft dive at 90 degrees. This is both the strength and weakness of the dive bombing attack. The step but slow dive allows time for course correction and accuracy (jets may use the help of bombing computers that more accurately measure aircraft speed, angle, and distance to target to release bombs?) but gives a predictable fight path and pull out within range of small, fast firing AA guns after giving them a number of seconds warning.

The Jets may have "dived" at a shallower angle, under 45 degrees? One A-6 accident says it was practicing "dive bombing" at a 40 degree angle which in WW II would have been described as "glide bombing".

I believe you are correct about the bomb loads on the SBD.

I think both were good planes but did rather different jobs, both may have been "dive bombers" but I don't think one could really substitute for the other.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I saw one instance of a 50 degree angle mentioned. And unless my memory is deceiving me modern attacks were made initially inverted, entering from a split-S but then the dive angle was moderated to a ~50 or so degree angle. Of course the A-6 was designed with speed breaks (fuselage originally which were subsequently permanently disabled and replaced with wing tip mounts, however, whatever their original intended purpose (dive bombing?), my recollection is that these were used primarily (or perhaps only) during approach and landing. I thought that dive bombing might have been computer aided at the higher speeds of modern a/c but my old Vietnam-era shipmate B/N says Dive bombing, unlike other techniques, was done pretty much manually so your (SR6) summary seems quite accurate. He also recalls dives being performed at angles in excess of 45 degrees but not exceeding ~55 degrees although he also says he wasn't watching the dive angle with other concerns on his mind so that figure is an estimate.

Last March Rich Leonard did his usual thorough treatment of the topic:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/what-best-these-four-dive-bombers-31953-6.html

I believe Rich's dad was active in the design and introduction of the A-6 and he may have some relevant info on the original design purpose of the A-6 speed brakes.

 

[Shortround6]

A lot of jets have speed brakes and a lot of them carry bombs, doesn't mean they are dive bombers.

Not all Pre WW II dive bombers had dive brakes.

These had enough drag that they didn't need dive brakes

 

[oldcrowcv63]

A lot of jets have speed brakes and a lot of them carry bombs, doesn't mean they are dive bombers.

Yes, I am guilty of A-6 chauvinism... With few exceptions, I barely recognize the existence of other aircraft let alone their physical attributes.

But, I do like those biplane photos you posted...

 

[GregP]

Hey Shortround,

I believe that is an F-15E Strike Eagle fight-bomber in your pic, isn't it?

That said, all the F-15's had basically the same speed brake from the first prototype onward.

The old F-14 had speed brakes, too, and we called the F-14D (the only one with the engines it was designed for) the "bombcat."

Nice pics.

 

[Shortround6]

Not sure on the ID of the F-15, just googled Jet speed brake

All but the earliest jet fighters had some sort of speed brake because they don't have a prop. Chop the throttle on a prop and the plane slows down. Prop acts as a speed brake. Chop the throttle on jet and they just keep coasting, harder to formation fly I am told/read.

 

[altsym]

Hans-Ulrich Rudel got a maneuvering kill (though some speculate that the rear gunner got the kill) against the Hero of the Soviet Union, '26' victory ace, Lev Shestakov. That's pretty good in my book.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Of course there is the famous episode of IJN Ace Saburo Sakai approaching what he thought were a division of Wildcats and found to his dismay they were actually a formation SBDs (I"ve also heard TBFs) that tightened their formation and focused all rearward guns on his aircraft, wrecking (but astonishingly not destroying or killing) both pilot and plane.

But perhaps more akin to Rudel's experience are the A6M claims submitted by Swede Vejtasa flying an SDB on anti-torpedo plane patrol at Coral Sea when he battled multiple Zekes and survived evidently either killing two or at least damaging them.

 

[pattle]

Of course there is the famous episode of IJN Ace Saburo Sakai approaching what he thought were a division of Wildcats and found to his dismay they were actually a formation SBDs (I"ve also heard TBFs) that tightened their formation and focused all rearward guns on his aircraft, wrecking (but astonishingly not destroying or killing) both pilot and plane.

But perhaps more akin to Rudel's experience are the A6M claims submitted by Swede Vejtasa flying an SDB on anti-torpedo plane patrol at Coral Sea when he battled multiple Zekes and survived evidently either killing two or at least damaging them.

Things like this did crop up, I have heard an account of a Avro Anson shooting down multiple Me 109's over the English Channel in 1940.

 

[nuuumannn]

I believe that is an F-15E Strike Eagle fight-bomber in your pic, isn't it?

Yep, F-15E Strike Eagle of the 48th FW based at RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk. You can tell by the 'LN' tail codes.

Things like this did crop up, I have heard an account of a Avro Anson shooting down multiple Me 109's over the English Channel in 1940

This is probably 500 Sqn Coastal Command Anson I flown by Plt Off P. Peters over Dunkirk on 1 June 1940, which was engaged by a number of Bf 109s. Peters' gunner LAC Pepper shot one down, with Peters despatching a second with his forward firing .303, a third Bf 109 was damaged.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Hans-Ulrich Rudel got a maneuvering kill (though some speculate that the rear gunner got the kill) against the Hero of the Soviet Union, '26' victory ace, Lev Shestakov. That's pretty good in my book.

WW II ACE STORIES

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I think both were good planes but did rather different jobs, both may have been "dive bombers" but I don't think one could really substitute for the other.

I think you are spot on with this observation. Another way to think about the comparison is to consider whether the three arms operating these aircraft would have traded theirs for one of the others. I would expect not, although a bit being envious of a counterpart's capability would be normal and not suggest a willingness to trade. For example. I am sure the USN envied the VAL's range and maneuverability but would never have considered giving up its SBD. For its part, I suspect IJN fliers would have preferred having the excess endurance so vital in naval warfare. Both navy's seemed to be satisfied with the 250 to 500 kg ordnance for their purposes while the Ju-87's ability to strike heavily fortified points (or armoured deck carriers) with a large bomb was suited to the war it fought. As RAFSon, Parsifal and others have correctly admonished in the past, a navy typically procures aircraft suited to its perceived needs. To compare them without such context seems a bit unfair.

 

[stug3]

 

[stug3]

Ju 87 early production C prototype D IHFH WNr 4928

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

Of course there is the famous episode of IJN Ace Saburo Sakai approaching what he thought were a division of Wildcats and found to his dismay they were actually a formation SBDs (I"ve also heard TBFs) that tightened their formation and focused all rearward guns on his aircraft, wrecking (but astonishingly not destroying or killing) both pilot and plane.

But perhaps more akin to Rudel's experience are the A6M claims submitted by Swede Vejtasa flying an SDB on anti-torpedo plane patrol at Coral Sea when he battled multiple Zekes and survived evidently either killing two or at least damaging them.

I heard the story about Sakai. It blinded him in one eye, didn't it? Also, wasn't that over Guadelcanal? I heard he came up behind the formation of SBDs as they were returning to their carrier, thinking they were Wildcats, like you said. One of the rear seat gunners shot him, and one of the bullets hit him in the eye.