SBD vs. JU-87 vs. Aichi D3A (1 Viewer)

[Balsa]

Really interesting comparative analysis. I had no idea the JU-87 D model could pack a 4,000 lb bomb load. That's amazing actually. My least favorite of the three is the Dauntless, but the reality is that, if you held a gun to my head, well I'd be forced to choose the Dauntless because it seems most likely of the three to afford the best chance of coming back home. Didn't all the Dauntless models though just have twin 30 caliber machine guns in the nose and for the tail gunner?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Which is 1000kg.

1600 lb is 725 kg, not 1000 kg.

From my recent reading of the air war on the Eastern front, the standard bomb load for the Ju-87B/D was either a single 500 kg (1100 lb) bomb, a single 250 kg (550 lb) bomb or one 250 kg bomb and four 50 kg (110 lb) bombs. Also popular were cluster munitions containers on the wing mounts. Less common loads were two 250 kg bombs or four or even eight 50 kg bombs. The Ju-87B was limited to a maximum load of 700 kg (1540 kg), the pre wing extension Ju-87Ds were limited to a maximum of 1100 kg (2440 lb).

Less common load-outs for the later, strengthened Ju-87D included a single 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bomb, a 1000 kg bombs and two 50 kb bombs, two 500 kg bombs or a single 500 kg bomb and two 250 kg bombs.

The 1000 kg bombs were generally reserved for large static targets, such as bunkers or ships.

If you go by the manual, the later Ju-87D-5 could carry a single PD1400, SC1800 or PD1800 bomb, although I've never read a first hand account of their use. The actual weight of the two larger bombs varied a little due to some changes through the war, but were between about 1740 kg and 1820 kg.

From the second hand reports that I've read on forums and suchlike, there seems to be considerable doubt over whether the 1400-1800 kg bombs were ever used in combat. I've seen opinions that the D-5 would have been required to delete the rear gunner and all his equipment, take out some of the armour protection and remove the forward firing guns to get the larger bombs off the ground.

 

[pattle]

Pattle, my Dad qualified in SBDs before he went off to F6Fs. The SBDs had firepower but that was principally to enable them to get the heck out of there, once they made their bomb run. They mixed it up with the fighters, some, and took care their share of those, too, but they knew better than to go looking for it, let me just put it that way.

Yes I agree with all you wrote, the point I was making was that the Dauntless was more survivable than the Stuka when challenged by fighters. When I wrote that the Dauntless may have been useful to the Fleet Air Arm early war I was thinking it would have been preferable only to the Blackburn Skua which had the additional role of fighter.

 

[pattle]

I was just trying to state the obvious when you post that dive-bombers were rubbish when against fighters. The only ground target protection aircraft I remember were factory defense units in Occupied Europe during the war and the Me 163s of JG 400. Other than that, fighters were to protect bombers. And just to set things straight, bombers were actually developed to be a match against tri-engined recon planes.......

To be honest I don't know what you are going on about here. You are saying that fighters were to protect bombers, well yes but what do you think they were protecting the bombers from if not enemy fighters? You then go on to mention that the only ground protection aircraft you know of were the few factory defence units, the ground was generally protected by patroling fighters and also by fighters scrambled to intercept bombers that had been spotted by ground based observers and later radar. Early war fighters such as the Hurricane and Spitfire had only a relatively short range because they were designed to protect against attacking enemy bombers and not to escort friendly bombers. Who developed bombers to be a match only against tri-motored recon planes and why would they do this?

 

[Shortround6]

In the mid to late 1930s aircraft designers had a choice. Make a single engine bomber (dive or otherwise) or make a single engine fighter. With 750-1000hp available from a single engine ONE plane could NOT do both jobs. The "bomber" needed a big wing to get the bomb load and fuel of the ground (or deck) using the same engine as the fighter. In the case of Navy planes (restricted in the number of types a carrier could embark) some planes had to do double duty. Dive bombers were often used as scout aircraft which required a second crewman, both for actual search (using the MK I eyeball) and to operate the radio. This further reduced performance from a fighter.
Later aircraft got not only much more powerful engines but better radios which allowed the "fighter" to carry a worthwhile bomb load (or drop tanks) and perform some of the scout function.
Very few people were under the illusion that pre-war or early war dive bombers could actually defend themselves without fighter escort and "fight" their way to the target.

 

[VBF-13]

Yes I agree with all you wrote, the point I was making was that the Dauntless was more survivable than the Stuka when challenged by fighters. When I wrote that the Dauntless may have been useful to the Fleet Air Arm early war I was thinking it would have been preferable only to the Blackburn Skua which had the additional role of fighter.

Oh. Then on just what you said, here, Pattle, the SBDs were at least designed to be "survivable." That's why they were armed with guns from head to toe.

 

[VBF-13]

In regards to Midway no SBD bomb penetrated past lower hanger deck. Consequently none of the four IJN CVs were in danger of sinking even though the hanger deck fires were impressive. Theoretically all four IJN CVs could have eventually started one or more engines and crept to port.

Dave, I guarantee, you hit that carrier with just so much as a 500-pound bomb 1/3rd in from the bow and you open up that central elevator shaft and send that big boy out of there looking like a wet dog that got kicked out of the house for chewing on a shoe.

 

[Tante Ju]

If you go by the manual, the later Ju-87D-5 could carry a single PD1400, SC1800 or PD1800 bomb, although I've never read a first hand account of their use. The actual weight of the two larger bombs varied a little due to some changes through the war, but were between about 1740 kg and 1820 kg.

From the second hand reports that I've read on forums and suchlike, there seems to be considerable doubt over whether the 1400-1800 kg bombs were ever used in combat.

Literally sh*tloads of SC 1800 were dropped by the Luftwaffe - those goes rather against "forum opinions". It would seem rather doubtful that only the Ju 87D, which was *the* pinpoint delivery tool, would be the exception of dropping them. Of course for most targets (tanks, troops, earthwork bunkers, RR stations etc.), 3 x 500 kg or 1x500+2x250 would be sufficient/better choice. 1000 and above were to be used only against "hard" targets, like steel bridges.

I've seen opinions that the D-5 would have been required to delete the rear gunner and all his equipment, take out some of the armour protection and remove the forward firing guns to get the larger bombs off the ground.

They did not (the B series AFAIK had to make some sacrifices to load the 1000 kg bomb), though they took in less fuel in the extreme bomb cases.

 

[pattle]

Very few people were under the illusion that pre-war or early war dive bombers could actually defend themselves without fighter escort and "fight" their way to the target.[/QUOTE]

I know this applies more to larger level bombers than dive bombers but the dominant school of thought before the war was that "the bomber would always get through". This phrase was first coined in about 1934 by Stanley Baldwin (British PM) who believed that an adequate defence against bombers was not possible, Baldwin formed this belief because the fighters of that time were generally slower than bombers and so would not of had the time to rise into the air to join battle with the bombers before their arrival. The RAF still had only just enough time in 1940 during the Battle of Britain to get it's fighters airborne in time to meet an attack, and by this time they had much faster fighters and more time to get them airborne thanks to radar. So I don't think the Germans really stopped to consider especially after Spain, Poland and France the possibility of running into strong organised fighter opposition and when they did the game was over for the slow cumbersome Stuka.
The Dauntless on the other hand had a much brighter future post 1940 and unlike the Stuka was able to survive in it's intended role as a dive bomber.

 

[Shortround6]

There is a big difference between Naval operations and land (operating over land) operations.

There were also some big differences in both aircraft and tactics.

There was also the matter of a few people paying attention to what was actually going on rather than spouting platitudes.

The "land" air forces had 2 or 3 types of bombers. Fast twins which were supposed to be fast enough to present difficulties in intercepting. Slow twins (heavy bombers until the 4 engine ones came along) that operated at night and without radar were difficult to intercept. And some small or slow day bombers in some air forces.
The Naval bombers were small, single engine machines that were NOT faster than the Naval fighters, let alone land based fighters. Naval (carrier) bombers could pretty much only operate by day (1930s) both in regards to finding their targets (moving ships vs a city) and landing back on their own carrier. Naval bombers were also going after something of a point target ( a fleet vs city) that had it's own defending fighters that did NOT have to defend a wide area. You want to bomb the defending carriers/ battle ships/ cruisers you came to them, there was no other city, factory, air field 20-40 miles away that could also be the target and had to be defended and so spread out the defending aircraft. You could saturate a defense but Naval battles were intended to be somewhat climatic.
IF you suffered high losses BUT inflicted great damage in one or two attacks the the battle/campaign was over. Trading a few dozen aircraft for several ships is a good trade. BUT you only had those one or two chances to inflict the damage, there was NO going back in a few days to follow up. In land "air" combat there were few high value targets like warships and a much lower loss rate was needed for a sustained campaign. But in a sustained campaign there were also many targets instead of just a few closely grouped ones ( essentially just one target) so feints and dodges could throw the defender off.

If people had been paying attention in China the idea of long range un-escorted bomber attacks had been shown to be a bad one before 1939, even against the pre (well pre) AFG Chinese Air Force.

 

[pattle]

Yes I appreciate the big difference between carrier and land based operations and this adds to my belief that the Dauntless was superior to the Stuka as it was designed with the restrictions placed on it for carrier operations. If you look at the navalised version of the Stuka produced for use on the German Zeppelin carrier then you will notice it did not match the Dauntless in speed, handling or range, if the two fleets had ever had met then it looks to me as though the American fleet could have attacked the German fleet before its Stukas were able to hit back. The Dauntlesses would of course of had to of coped with the Zeppelins Me109's if detected but again I feel they would have been more survivable than the Stukas would have been in the same situation.
Also one of the differences between American and German policy was that the Americans did not keep on trying to update outdated designs as the Germans did with a number of their aircraft and nor did the Americans generally attach themselves to fruitless concepts. If the Stuka was an American land based plane then I believe the Americans would have got rid of it sharpish because they understood that against ground targets dive bombing was a fundamentally flawed concept .

 

[stug3]

against ground targets dive bombing was a fundamentally flawed concept .

Dive Bombing was much more accurate than high altitude bombing, so it was more efficient against smaller targets such as ships, bridges, vehicle /or troop concentrations, etc.

 

[pattle]

Dive Bombing was much more accurate than high altitude bombing, so it was more efficient against smaller targets such as ships, bridges, vehicle /or troop concentrations, etc.

Yes but it was also incredibly dangerous and that was it's fatal flaw.

 

[davebender]

Risk vs reward.

Sacrifice a few inexpensive yet accurate dive bombers with two crew members each and the target gets destroyed. Or you could send hundreds of expensive yet inaccurate heavy bombers with 8 or more crew members each and they will probably fail to hit the target.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Literally sh*tloads of SC 1800 were dropped by the Luftwaffe - those goes rather against "forum opinions". It would seem rather doubtful that only the Ju 87D, which was *the* pinpoint delivery tool, would be the exception of dropping them.

You can provide a first hand account then?

 

[pattle]

Risk vs reward.

Sacrifice a few inexpensive yet accurate dive bombers with two crew members each and the target gets destroyed. Or you could send hundreds of expensive yet inaccurate heavy bombers with 8 or more crew members each and they will probably fail to hit the target.

Or replace the dive bomber with something like a rocket firing Hawker Typhoon and hopefully get both the pilot and aircraft back safe and sound.

 

[stug3]

Yes but it was also incredibly dangerous and that was it's fatal flaw.

I wouldnt describe it as a "fatal flaw". Of course it was extremely dangerous but relatively efficient. If given a choice, I think Id rather take my chances in a 2 seater than a medium or heavy. If I could have anything, Id take an A-36.

 

[davebender]

Would take a pretty big rocket to do as much damage as a 1,000kg bomb...

 

[Shortround6]

Dive bombing's effectiveness rather depends on the target. Trading 3-6 aircraft and crew for even a light cruiser makes sense. Trading 3-6 planes for a Bridge that enemy troops are pouring across makes sense. Trading 3-6 planes for a small bridge as part of general plan to disrupt enemy transport does not make as much sense. Loosing several dozen dive bombers trying to take out a factory may be an even worse deal, assuming the dive bombers could even reach the factory with worthwhile bombs (500lb bombs are borderline or too small). Or using large twin engine dive bombers. Cost starts to go up, how much more did a Ju 88 cost than a Ju 87? how much more was the HE 177? Putting He 177s with in range of 20-40mm guns doesn't sound like a good plan for a general bombing campaign.
Dive bombers can not dive bomb at night. They can be defeated by smoke generators, if they cannot see the target their accuracy is no better than the level bombers and diving into a smoke bank when they cannot see the ground is crossing into stupid land. Barrage balloons also cut into dive bomber effectiveness. If you KNOW that your enemy is going to be using predominately dive bombers you can plan the defense accordingly.
Rockets cannot destroy bridges or really take out factories. They can mess up but not sink large ships. They have applications but are not a cure all weapon.

 

[davebender]

Not much if any after economy of scale kicked in. By 1942 Ju-88 cost dropped to about RM 150,000. Amazingly cheap for an aircraft of that size and capability. Goering made some mistakes but he hit a home run when setting up large scale Ju-88 production during 1938.