The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Schweik said:
The actual context of Gallands quote is a bit more subtle than even you guys are acknowledging. He likes the 109 better overall sure, but the argument he's having with Goering has to do with the different combat roles each plane is good for or unsuited for. Bf 109s are great for hit and run attacks, for attacks in general - fast, good climb rate, well armed. But when escorting or engaging with bomber escorts - when you have to fight in other words and can't pick the ideal moment or ambush, a Spitfire is actually better.

Gallands main point is that he wants to choose his tactics (and do hit and run), Goering is insisting on a close escort because he is worried his bombers will take too many casualties in a looser escort. They are both right. What Galland really does need is another aircraft which can stay and fight on a more even basis. Something more suited for escort in general. But the Germans never developed anything really like that, maybe the Bf 110 was supposed to fit that role but of course it was a failure as a day fighter.

The Fw 190 was more capable of staying in a fight with Spitfires but it was doing hit and run attacks and probably wasn't a perfect escort either due to range and altitude capabilities.
Click to expand...
Resp:
Agreed. But I think Galland had a lot of respect on how the RAF used the Spitfire (and Hurricane) against them. I believe he had great respect for the pilots who flew them. I suppose some will think I am reading this into what Galland said, and you would be correct.
 
Shortround6 said:
I am afraid some of your data is incorrect.



You seem to have quoted the specs from wikipedia for the SBD-5 which didn't start showing up until 1943?

there are 3 (2?) things of importance here:

1. they changed the engine from 1000hp for take-off to 1200hp for take-off.
2. they changed the take-off weight. SBD-5 per wiki was.
The manual (1942) for the SBD-3 lists a max take-off weight of
9031lbs with a 1000lb bomb/100 gals fuel in combat condition (self sealing tanks and armor)
Empty weights with armor and SS tanks was within 20lbs so I am not going to worry about it.

This makes rather a hash out of the 2200lb bomb load (achieved by carrying a 1600lb AP bomb and two 300lb class under wing stores?)

3, I am not sure when they added the underwing bomb racks.

Now as to regards to range, 100 gallons is certainly NOT going to get you 1000 miles even with no bomb let alone a 1000lb bomb. (plane burned around 37 gallons of fuel per hour at 50% power/ lean condition).

The Manual calls for 140 gallons with a 500lb bomb at a somewhat lower weight than the 1000lb/100 gallon load and for scouting up to 260 gallons could be carried with no bomb(all internal) so yes. the SBD could certainly fly 1100 miles if not further in scout mode. They may have flown the planes with bombs a bit overloaded (added 20-40 gallons of fuel ?) , I don't know.

Manual for the SBD-3 is available from this thread. upload pilots handbook for sbd-3 dauntless


Information on some of the others may also be hard to come by.
Click to expand...


I did quote Wikipedia ranges for all the aircraft, which as I said were comparable - but I have books on the SBD and we could delve deeper into it. My point still stands. SBD was basically equivalent to the D3A (and vastly superior to the German, Italian, Russian or British single engined bombers) in combat range. But the SBD was armored, armed with HMG and had protected fuel systems.

If you read my post I did not assert the 2200 lb bomb load as typical for naval strikes, from reading through a mission history recently for naval strikes it was typically a single 500 or 1000 lb bomb, sometimes two small wing bombs if it was at shorter range. 1,000 lb was most typical for anti-shipping strikes. If they had to hit a very far away target they might carry a smaller (500 lb bomb load). The heavier (2,200 lb) bomb load would be against ground targets at close range, like when the Cactus Air Force planes were hitting targets less than a mile away on Guadalcanal.
 
Last edited:
Schweik said:
Are you saying I'm taking it out of context, misquoting or falsely interpreting it? For the record I was not agreeing with Navalwarriors interpretation that Galland was suggesting the Spitfire was better in general. I am asserting that he believed (like many other Luftwaffe pilots and experten) that the Bf 109 was not particularly well-suited for escort / bomber defense duties or to a lesser extent for sustained dogfighting with enemy bomber escorts.

It was very good at hit and run and that is what they liked to do with it, but that imposed certain Tactical and Operational limitations.

Unlike Galland I do think the Spitfire very generally speaking was a better fighter, depending on the subtypes being compared, than the Bf 109. But that is my opinion I don't claim any German pilot felt that way.
Click to expand...

No I am saying you are pretty much correct. Galland was upset about how things were being used and done.

Calm down Nancy...
 
Navalwarrior said:
Resp:
Agreed. But I think Galland had a lot of respect on how the RAF used the Spitfire (and Hurricane) against them. I believe he had great respect for the pilots who flew them. I suppose some will think I am reading this into what Galland said, and you would be correct.
Click to expand...

Of course Galland did. I think all pilots felt the same about their adversary's, but that still doesn't change the context of hos words, and how they are misused.
 
Schweik said:
This has been mentioned a few times before, but I am not sure I agree.

The SBD may not have stood out in any obvious specific merits by which WW2 aircraft are typically rated - it didn't fly 400 mph like the Mosquito and it didn't carry 10,000 lbs of bombs like the Lancaster, didn't carry 8 x .50 cals like the P-47 or 4 x 20mm cannon like the Fw 190, and it didn't fly 2,550 miles like a Wellington. But for it's era, it was close enough to excellence in many different measurable criteria and others which are harder to define that I would say it was actually an excellent design with intrinsic qualities that made it a war winner.

The primary characteristics needed by a bomber are bomb accuracy, bomb load, and Survivability. Of secondary but still significant value were versatility, lethality, and viability.

Bomb accuracy means how likely are bombs to hit the target.
Bomb load is obvious, how many bombs and of what size can be carried to the target.
Survivability means the intrinsic qualities of the aircraft the contribute to it's survival as a machine and the survival of it's aircrew.

Secondary traits - versatility meaning how adaptable was it to various intended and unforseen missions besides the original design specs.; lethality meaning how much damage did it cause to enemy aircrew and ground targets aside from the effects of dropping ordinance, and viability meaning how often was the aircraft actually working and available for combat. Could it operate in difficult conditions, was it subject to chronic maintenance problems, was it hard or easy to repair.

A lot of people emphasize bomb load over all other traits in a bomber but I think it's actually the least important for most missions, beyond a certain critical point. For a naval bomber like a Dauntless there is a minimum weapon size needed to damage a large warship, i.e. by the time the Dauntless was in action roughly a 500 or 1,000 lb armor piercing bomb. But beyond that minimum, accuracy was far more important. Dropping 10,000 lbs of bombs in the ocean is basically useless at damaging a ship (unless you get a near miss). The mentality of a bomber as a 'bomb truck' is really what cost us the War in Vietnam. During WW II, bombers were notoriously inaccurate. It was not at all unusual for medium and high altitude level bombers to bomb the wrong city. Bombing at night made it even worse.

Tactical bombers required accuracy more than anything. Relatively small ordnance could knock out a tank or gun position, but inaccuracy could mean killing your own troops at worst, and having no effect at all at best. More than one battle in WW2 saw bombers causing massive casualties among their own troops.

In naval combat the Strategic and Tactical are combined. The target, a ship, is tactical, but the results (i.e. sinking Carriers, Transports, or Battleships) are potentially Strategic.

So a single day's action can be decisive. This means accuracy and bomb load are more important than all other factors for a given action. In this respect the Japanese D3A and B5N bombers were equivalent to the SBD. Both were lethal ship killers. For comparison here are all the single engined bombers I can think of from the early part of the war:

D3A1 - range 800 miles, speed 242 mph, guns 2 x 7.7mm and 1 x 1.7mm defensive, bomb load 1 x 551 lb and 2 x 132 lb bombs. Dive bomber = Yes
B5N2 - range 1,200 miles, speed 235 mph, guns 1 x 7.7mm defensive, bomb load 1 x 1760 lb torpedo
SBD3 - range 1,115 miles, speed 255 mph, guns 2 x 12.7mm (offensive), 1 x 7.62mm (later 2 x) defensive, bombs 2,250 (usually one 1,000 lb AP bomb). Dive bomber = Yes
JU-87B - range 311 miles, speed 242 mph, guns 2 x 7.92 (offensive), 1 x 7.92 (defensive), bombs 550 lbs bomb plus 4 x 110 lb bombs. Dive bomber = Yes
TBD Devastator - range 435 miles, speed 206 mph, guns 1 x 7.62 or 12.7mm mg (offensive), 1 x 7.62 mph, bombs 1,000 or 1 x torpedo
TBF Avenger - range 1,000 miles, speed 275 mph, guns 1 x 7.62 (offensive), 1 x 12.7 and 1 x 7.62 (defensive), 1 x 2,000 lb torpedo
Swordfish I - range 522 miles, speed 143 mph, guns 1 x 7.7mm (offensive), 1 x 7.7mm (defensive), 1 x 1,670 lb torpedo
Albacore - range 930 miles, speed 161 mph, guns 1 x 7.7mm (offensive), 1 or 2 x 7.7mm (defensive), 1 x 1,670 lb torpedo
Skua Mk II - range 760 miles, speed 225 mph, guns 4 x 7.7mm (offensive), 1 x 7.7mm (defensive), 1 x 500 lb AP bomb
SU-2 - range 685 miles, speed 300 mph, guns 4 x 7.62mm (offensive), 2 x 7.62mm (defensive), 1,320 lbs of bombs.
Fairy Battle - range 1,000 miles, speed 257 mph, guns 1 x 7.7mm (offensive), 1 x 7.7mm (defensive), 1,000 lbs of bombs

If you compare the SBD with it's contemporary single engined bombers, it's not the top in all categories (the SU 2 and TBF are faster, theoretically, and the B5N has longer range) but near the top in all of them. Plus armor, ruggedness / heavy construction, dive bombing ability and relatively heavy offensive armament make it stand out.

Naval war was a combination of attrition and Strategic warfare. Carrier duels could be decisive with Capital ships sinking in one day, meaning victory or defeat for the fleet. Here is where accuracy matters. For naval combat there were basically just two types of ship killers - dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Level bombers were essentially useless so that leaves out most of the planes above. Whereas maybe 1 out of 10 sorties from a D3A or SBD might get a hit, and perhaps 1 out of 6 from a B5N, with the torpedo hits also doing much more damage, for a level-bomber the rate of success was more like 1 out of 100. Additionally, in part because of problems with US torpedoes, in the early years of the war US Torpedo bombers were all but useless so they are pretty much out of the running too.

So this leaves the D3A, B5N, SBD, Swordfish and Ju 87 as the top (potential) naval bombers of the war.

Next factor is range - the Ju 87 never operated from carriers and had a limited range of 311 miles. That puts it out of the running even in any theoretical carrier duel. Swordfish were used and with success but their range was a very limited 522 miles. The Albacore is a bit better on range at 930 miles but still painfully slow and defenseless. In a carrier duel against the Japanese ala Midway or Coral Sea the Royal Navy would be in serious trouble on the basis of range alone, not even taking into consideration their vulnerability issues. For that matter torpedo bombers were statistically just more vulnerable than dive bombers. Dive bombers seemed to be harder to hit by flak, than the low and slow-flying torpedo carriers, and their high maneuverability and structural strength meant that they could maneuver well against fighters.

So we are left with the D3A, B5N and SBD as the best carrier bombers in the world in 1941 or 1942. All three have good range, good bomb load, but the SBD manages this with armor, self sealing fuel tanks, and a pair of .50 cal machine guns. The B5N in particular was very vulnerable to destruction as a big, slow torpedo carrier.

And carrier duels were not always decisive on the first encounter. It turned out that a steady pressure was also important to maintain. Even in a carrier duel, it might take several strikes before the outcome was decided, and here is where I think the SBD really stood out. The Japanese naval bombers, D3A and B5N in the beginning of the war, were excellent in terms of range and lethality, but bad in terms of survivability. In two days of action in the Solomons for example (24-25 Aug 1942) the IJN lost 70 aircraft, including almost all of their bombers, while damaging the CV Enterprise, whereas the US lost 20 (mostly fighters) and sunk the CVL Ryūjō. In a single strike on Aug 24 the Japanese lost 24 out of 37 aircraft. By comparison the US Navy lost 6 out of 31 Dauntlesses that attacked without fighter escort (due to the long range) when they sunk the Ryūjō. This emphasizes an important fact: The SBD had a remarkably low loss rate for an active bomber.

Carriers didn't always duel each other of course, they were also needed to attack land bases - taking islands was a major point of Pacific naval warfare after all. The SBD could be used in this way - (as could the TBF which was less helpful in Carrier vs. Carrier action) but the Japanese naval bombers were basically too fragile. In theory you could try to use something like a Swordish, Skua, or Fairey Battle this way but I would predict prohibitive casualties. This emphasizes both survivabiliy and versatility.

SBD's were also useful for scouting, ASW and sea rescue (the spotting part obviously not for picking up crews). They could be (and were) used for tactical CAS as well as Operational and Strategic Naval strikes. It was even useful in air to air combat. It was in a disadvantage against a Zero but was more than a match for a D3A or B5N, or say E-13 or F1M scout planes... with it's heavier guns, armor and self sealing tanks. Even against Zeros they sometimes scored kills (see Swede Vejtasa).

Finally in general serviceability and maintenance issues, the SBD excelled. It was highly available, even in the wretched conditions on Henderson Field. The best aircraft in the world is useless if it is a "hangar queen".


So TL : DR I would say the humble SBD was unusual. To fly 1,000 miles with a 1,000 lb bomb load and armed with heavy machine guns, armor and self sealing tanks - even if you could only manage 250 mph, and make it back again, was a rare trait especially for a naval / carrier bomber. As a true dive bomber it had accuracy an order of magnitude better than almost all other types of bombers except torpedo carriers, and it was far more survivable than the latter which meant it could be counted on to deliver more strikes. If you could manage 10 strikes with 10% accuracy that is better than 3 strikes with 15% accuracy.

So yeah, I think it stood out due to it's intrinsic qualities. I would argue that if for example the Royal Navy had large numbers of SBD's (I know I know - production difficulties would have made that very hard to achieve) the Bismarck would have been sunk much more quickly and maybe before it wacked the Hood!

I'll argue the points about the Yak-1 and Il2 some other time, this was long enough already.
Click to expand...

I like most of what you said, but you still need a torpedo bomber to disable the Bismarck and battleships to destroy it. Bombs from an SBD would simply have bounced off it. You omit the fact that both the Swordfish and Albacore could both dive bomb, the Swordfish being the better torpedo bomber. The Albacore was used in the Sahara as a bomber and I don't recall them enduring the same crippling losses as the Battle even though it was 100 mph slower.
 
Dauntlesses seem to have been able to sink quite a few heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers (some converted battleships). I know it was a tough boat but I'm not sure I buy that the Bismarck was immune to bombs, or that a 1000 lb armor piercing bomb is going to "bounce off" off of a battleship. I'm sure it would be harder to sink with bombs than torpedoes, every large ship was, but I think you'd still be better off with SBD's than Swordfish due to range and speed.

Maybe that's another thread idea: Could you sink the Bismarck with bombs?

As for dive bombing, I had read that the Swordfish and Albacore were designed to dive bomb and did so in tests, but didn't know quite what to make of that. How 'real' is that capability? Did they ever sink any ships that way?

I read the Wiki on the Albacore and it sounds like it didn't actually hit let alone sink many (if any) enemy ships with either torpedoes or bombs, do you know of any?

The Swordfish certainly did some damage at Taranto and did eventually jam the rudder of the Bismarck, other than that it seems like they were mostly used against submarines. I'd hate to see one trying to contend with an A6M or a Ki-43!

S
 
proteccion6.gif


The bombs will not bounce off, but getting them into the ship where vital systems are located is quite different. The 50mm deck might not stop even a 500lb bomb but it will trigger the fuse and the 20/30mm deck below may catch most of the splinters. A 1000lb bomb might not make it through the main deck armor (main deck being the 80mm deck right over the turbine rooms, not the top deck the crew would walk on outside.

Quite a bit of damage could be done by 250=500lb GP bombs but not flooding or sinking the ship without a huge number of hits.
 
Schweik said:
Dauntlesses seem to have been able to sink quite a few heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers (some converted battleships). I know it was a tough boat but I'm not sure I buy that the Bismarck was immune to bombs, or that a 1000 lb armor piercing bomb is going to "bounce off" off of a battleship. I'm sure it would be harder to sink with bombs than torpedoes, every large ship was, but I think you'd still be better off with SBD's than Swordfish due to range and speed.

Maybe that's another thread idea: Could you sink the Bismarck with bombs?

As for dive bombing, I had read that the Swordfish and Albacore were designed to dive bomb and did so in tests, but didn't know quite what to make of that. How 'real' is that capability? Did they ever sink any ships that way?

I read the Wiki on the Albacore and it sounds like it didn't actually hit let alone sink many (if any) enemy ships with either torpedoes or bombs, do you know of any?

The Swordfish certainly did some damage at Taranto and did eventually jam the rudder of the Bismarck, other than that it seems like they were mostly used against submarines. I'd hate to see one trying to contend with an A6M or a Ki-43!

S
Click to expand...

IIRC, the Albacore:-

1. Could detect surface vessels with radar. Had a good range.
2. Was a lousy torpedo bomber. They missed the Tirpitz.
3. Okay for night attacks on invasion barges in 1940.
4. Used for close support including dive bombing in Operation Torch.
5. Did good work in the Western Desert at night in bombing raids.
 
Shortround6 said:
View attachment 529753

The bombs will not bounce off, but getting them into the ship where vital systems are located is quite different. The 50mm deck might not stop even a 500lb bomb but it will trigger the fuse and the 20/30mm deck below may catch most of the splinters. A 1000lb bomb might not make it through the main deck armor (main deck being the 80mm deck right over the turbine rooms, not the top deck the crew would walk on outside.

Quite a bit of damage could be done by 250=500lb GP bombs but not flooding or sinking the ship without a huge number of hits.
Click to expand...

I think this is the source of confusion. There is a big difference between this

B-25_01.jpg


and this*

bomb3.jpg


An armor piercing bomb coming down nose first and have an armored shell. They did punch through the armored decks of many ships and by simply detonating immediately destroyed turrets. Quite often just a few AP bomb hits were enough to sink fairly heavy warships. Consider for example the HMS Dorsetshire heavy cruiser sunk by D3A 'Val" dive bombers in the Indian Ocean. It was hit with eight 250 and 550 lb bombs and sank ten minutes later.

Like I said, a 1,000 AP bomb as carried by the SBD while not quite as formidable as a torpedo, can wreak a great deal of havoc. An unlike a torpedo doesn't have to contend with the main armor of a battleship ( the belts). The dive bomber will also hit with far more precision than any level bombs.

*I know that's from a video game it's the most accurate image I could google.

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

NTGray
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
10
Views
496
eagledad
E
Holtzauge
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
13K
EwenS
E
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
10K
GregP
GregP
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Back