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

[Shortround6]

To inject a little reality

another armor diagram for the Bismark.

Quoting the turret face armor thickness (part facing enemy battleships in gun dual) is useless for figuring out resistance to bombs.

The Haruna was extensively upgraded between the wars but started out as a battlecruiser very similar to one that blew up at Jutland.
The Japanese cheated on the treaty restrictions and modified her more than they were supposed to but they were starting with a 27,400 ton ship that was 92ft wide. it had 36 coal fired boilers and 64,000hp. Deck was originally 1 in thick the lengthened her, changed the boilers and turbines added armor and increase the elevation of the guns from 20 degrees to 33 degrees, anti torpedo bulges increased the beam to 108 ft (?), and they added around 4000 tons of armor. this was the first rebuild.
2nd rebuild changed the turbines and boilers again, lengthed the ship, increased the elevation of the main guns to 43 degrees and redid the armor some more
but you still wound up with a 32,200 ship compared to the 35-37,000ton treaty ships and and the 42,000 (or higher) Bismarck.

On a lot of these old rebuilds while deck armor was added most everywhere it was often rather "patchy" with large increases over the magazines/shell handling rooms and bit less over the propulsion and a lot less fore and aft of the citadel (space between A turret and Y turret)

Now when it comes to adding deck armor it gets heavy real quick. If it was 450 ft from the front of the A turret barbette to the back of Y turret barbette and we average 75 ftof width (or allow for openings, like the barbettes and funnels ) just ONE inch of deck armor over that space is about 675 short tons. Adjust as you see fit but adding an uniform layer of 2.5 to 3 inches was probably not happening. There was often an armored box around the steering gear so they wouldn't have to armor the whole stern of the ship.

The Haruna was old, rebuilt twice, had suffered previous bomb damage (including 2 500lb AP bombs), she had also been run aground and repaired. Maybe here crew was first class in July of 1945 when it came to damage control, maybe not.

 

[Shortround6]

We are alos getting a bit ahead of ourselves and ignoring the actual capability of the planes of the time.

This plane was ordered in August 1936 and first deliveries made in July 1937 it is a "-3" model with an 825hp engine and a max bomb load of as single 500lb bomb.
So in 1936-37 is it any wonder that the powers that be in charge of ordering aircraft and weapons thought that torpedoes were the way to go?

things got better with the SBC-4

with a 950hp engine the max bomb size went to 1000lbs. ordered Jan 1938 deliveries went from March of 1939 to April of 1941.
They served along side the Vought Vindicator

Also with an 825hp engine, it started serving in late 1937. the claimed max bomb load was 1500lb but you weren't going very far with such a load.
max take off weight was 7,332 lb and normal was 6,379 lb

also entering service in 1938 was the Northrop BT-1 which equiped a squadron on both the Yorktown and the Enterprise

Once again the P & W 825 hp twin wasp junior was the engine of choice.
Empty weight 4,606 lb loaded weight 7,197 lb claimed max bomb load 1000lbs.
with just under 1600lbs available for crew, guns, ammo, radios, oil and fuel you figure out what the real range was.

this was the plane that turned into the SBD

with a 1000hp engine, Marines got the SBD-1 in late 1940 and the Navy got SBD-2s (with extra fuel capacity) in early 1941.
Armor and self sealing tanks don't show up until the SBD-3 and it is unclear if all had them or if early production was refitted.

Then we are back to the bombs that were available, either general purpose bombs or converted naval shells for AP bombs with extremely small bursters.
Claiming that "they" should have known the dive bomber was a better weapon for ship attack than the torpedo bomber requires an awful lot of hindsight.
The SBD-6 with 450 made went out of production in 1944, it used a 1350hp engine. think of what some other planes could do with 35% more power over the early models.
2700hp Corsair anyone?

 

[KiwiBiggles]

Deck armor on the Bismarck was about 120mm - US dive bombers sunk at least two battleships with bombs alone that had the same thickness of deck armor. So I call bullshit on that claim. Even the mighty Yamato, which far outclassed any ship that sailed in the North Atlantic, did not prove to be immune to bombs per the Trope.

Weather may have been typically bad in the North Atlantic but it wasn't always great in the Tropical Pacific either, ever heard of a Typhoon? (I don't mean the plane) Or read about the weather around New Guinea? Or for that matter Alaska? Or Japan?

Did you actually read what I wrote? I DON'T doubt that SBDs can sink battleships. I just don't think they would be much use in an environment with a generally low cloud base. At dive-bomber release height, there would generally be a couple of thousand feet of clag between the bomber and its target.

 

[michael rauls]

Now you just dipped into my wheelhouse.

Let me be clear (and fair) up front, I agree belt armor on warships was effectively brittle. I want to correct the idea about armor in general being brittle. So I'm not picking on you but I want to explain this a bit more, since even on ships armor was used in different ways and on a different scale.

The best quality steel armor actually was not brittle and in fact was flexible or springy. The metallurgy is complex but briefly the heat treatment process of medium carbon steel transformed harder more brittle steel into slightly less hard but far 'tougher' material, due mainly to flexibility. Toughness or fracture toughness (resistance to fracture) is the desired quality for steel armor, which is flexibility balanced with hardness. Toughness can be measured by something called a 'Charpy impact test' developed in the 19th Century but the processes to create highly flexible spring steel armor go back to the late middle ages.

To make tempered steel, after a steel object with the right carbon content has been forged and shaped to it's ultimate form (like a gun barrel, a helmet or an armor plate) and then quenched, it must be gradually reheated a second time and then quenched again after it has reached a certain temperature range for a specific length of time. This allows a specific type of iron carbon compound (for armor usually between 0.3 and 0.6% carbon) called martensite to diffuse gradually through the pearlite which forms a type of molecular structure now called Bainite. The correct amount of diffusion can be seen by the color of the metal.

View attachment 530085
For armor you want something over in the blue range.

Very hard steel by contrast becomes brittle and will crack when hit with ballistic objects. Iron carbide steel hard enough for industrial drill bits etc. is mostly made up of a carbon / iron compound cementite which is technically a ceramic.

Naval armor tended to be made in large and very thick pieces which is one of the reasons it could crack. To make properly tempered steel it can't be cast or rolled it has to be forged, and the giant plates used for belt armor on battleships etc. were far too big for that. So to make it more resistant it was typically rolled steel that was annealed to create a quasi-tempering effect and then face hardened.

However armor to protect other vital / internal parts of a ship from bomb fragments etc. could be properly tempered, and armored pieces, including the armor used in aircraft was often tempered and sometimes on tanks were tempered too.

The main reason was weight saving. Tempered medium carbon steel of 3mm has the same ballistic protection as non tempered medium carbon steel of 6mm or low carbon steel of 10mm. Which is a big deal for example for ballistic plates in body armor and armor on modern fighting vehicles.

In theory, if you had a big enough Haephestus style giants forge, you could have made 10 cm armor that was as effective as 20cm armor. That would have made battleships a bit more viable. But that is a science fiction type scale.

Verry interesting read. Haven't thought about most of that much since my last metallurgy class about 35 years ago. Wait a minute................. 35 years ........where did that go?

 

[Shortround6]

Most armor steel also had varying amount of alloys, usually nickel and chrome. Vanadium was used in the early years of STS steel.

A lot of older battleships used hardened steel faces on the armor. Case hardening carried to extremes. The steel plates were "baked" in large ovens with hundreds of pounds of charcoal against the "face" of the armor which carburized the surface and made it much harder than the rear which remained softer and prevented cracking.

There was always a race between the armor makers and the projectile makers trying to get hard yet not brittle steel as the hard steel projectile could more easily "cut" the armor if it was softer. however too brittle and the nose of the projectile shattered leaving a blunt stump trying to punch it's way through.
Same with the armor, you didn't want this happening with repeated impacts.

 

[Dan Fahey]

The SDB dive bomber was a helpful tool..but no where a deciding factor. Each plane can take its place in history. 1942 the P39 fought well enough against the Zero in New Guinea. Eventually better planes, logistics and processes were put in place to fight a war in the Pacific where we did not have maps for most of the islands in the Pacific. What was a useful tool were our floating islands called Carriers and their supporting warships that could get war material to the hundreds of land base and chase Japanese Navy.

As for air campaigns...our early combat aircraft were equal to the generation of the Axis powers. In fact through out WW2. The US was a late player in WW2 and I Fact a bit Player when you consider our involvement. We lost a lot of men but the British lost 3 times what we lost..the Europeans and Asians together 100 million.
When our pilots began entering combat much of what we were training in a peace time environment did not work out so well. Hence the judicious use of higher boost levels and fuels to increase HP and learning team work.

Our real impact was our uninterrupted manufacturing ability and consistent quality of our war material and training programs... FWIW the US Army and Navy became the largest Public Education schools in the world. One interesting fact was all our pilots were college educated and were lieutenants. Where Axis / Japan were Sargent level pilots. The US was way behind in public education compared to Japan and Europe.

Revolutionary aircraft that made a leap in the current generation of fighters was the P51 and Jets. Mustang Was the most efficient, competitive performance, cost effective, easy to maintain, versatile, less expensive to build than any fighter. Required no special flight training like a P38 would require. Had any of our other fighters had the range. They had the performance and they would have been right there too.

But what was more important was our logistics, education, system, training people to maintain worn out aircraft. And none of WW2 was fought on our continent. Here German manufacturing is more impressive considering the bombing campaign against their manufacturing facilities.

The really sad thing was that the Axis Dictatorship Leaderships were bent on war...!
They sure got it!

 

[Kevin J]

Might I suggest the humble PBY Catalina as the aircraft that turned the tide in 1941 by finding the Bismarck. So maritime patrol, air sea rescue and night attack at slow speeds and ludicrous ranges. Where would we all have been without this war winner? Have any of you ever looked at List of seaplane carriers by country - Wikipedia

 

[swampyankee]

The SDB dive bomber was a helpful tool..but no where a deciding factor. Each plane can take its place in history. 1942 the P39 fought well enough against the Zero in New Guinea. Eventually better planes, logistics and processes were put in place to fight a war in the Pacific where we did not have maps for most of the islands in the Pacific. What was a useful tool were our floating islands called Carriers and their supporting warships that could get war material to the hundreds of land base and chase Japanese Navy.

As for air campaigns...our early combat aircraft were equal to the generation of the Axis powers. In fact through out WW2. The US was a late player in WW2 and I Fact a bit Player when you consider our involvement. We lost a lot of men but the British lost 3 times what we lost..the Europeans and Asians together 100 million.
When our pilots began entering combat much of what we were training in a peace time environment did not work out so well. Hence the judicious use of higher boost levels and fuels to increase HP and learning team work.

Our real impact was our uninterrupted manufacturing ability and consistent quality of our war material and training programs... FWIW the US Army and Navy became the largest Public Education schools in the world. One interesting fact was all our pilots were college educated and were lieutenants. Where Axis / Japan were Sargent level pilots. The US was way behind in public education compared to Japan and Europe.

Revolutionary aircraft that made a leap in the current generation of fighters was the P51 and Jets. Mustang Was the most efficient, competitive performance, cost effective, easy to maintain, versatile, less expensive to build than any fighter. Required no special flight training like a P38 would require. Had any of our other fighters had the range. They had the performance and they would have been right there too.

But what was more important was our logistics, education, system, training people to maintain worn out aircraft. And none of WW2 was fought on our continent. Here German manufacturing is more impressive considering the bombing campaign against their manufacturing facilities.

The really sad thing was that the Axis Dictatorship Leaderships were bent on war...!
They sure got it!

I know for a fact not all USAAF pilots were college-educated: one of my uncles was a USAAF pilot and a high school dropout.

Also, in 1940, there was not a "US" education system; there was some 12,000 independent local systems varying from very good to just about worthless.

 

[Schweik]

I thought of the PBY it was an extremely useful aircraft. I'm not sure you could credit it with any turning point in the U-boat war or anything though, it was more incremental than that. For the latter I also thought of the B-24.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

We are alos getting a bit ahead of ourselves and ignoring the actual capability of the planes of the time.

View attachment 530147
This plane was ordered in August 1936 and first deliveries made in July 1937 it is a "-3" model with an 825hp engine and a max bomb load of as single 500lb bomb.
So in 1936-37 is it any wonder that the powers that be in charge of ordering aircraft and weapons thought that torpedoes were the way to go?

things got better with the SBC-4
View attachment 530148
with a 950hp engine the max bomb size went to 1000lbs. ordered Jan 1938 deliveries went from March of 1939 to April of 1941.
They served along side the Vought Vindicator
View attachment 530149
Also with an 825hp engine, it started serving in late 1937. the claimed max bomb load was 1500lb but you weren't going very far with such a load.
max take off weight was 7,332 lb and normal was 6,379 lb

also entering service in 1938 was the Northrop BT-1 which equiped a squadron on both the Yorktown and the Enterprise
View attachment 530150
Once again the P & W 825 hp twin wasp junior was the engine of choice.
Empty weight 4,606 lb loaded weight 7,197 lb claimed max bomb load 1000lbs.
with just under 1600lbs available for crew, guns, ammo, radios, oil and fuel you figure out what the real range was.

this was the plane that turned into the SBD
View attachment 530151
with a 1000hp engine, Marines got the SBD-1 in late 1940 and the Navy got SBD-2s (with extra fuel capacity) in early 1941.
Armor and self sealing tanks don't show up until the SBD-3 and it is unclear if all had them or if early production was refitted.

Then we are back to the bombs that were available, either general purpose bombs or converted naval shells for AP bombs with extremely small bursters.
Claiming that "they" should have known the dive bomber was a better weapon for ship attack than the torpedo bomber requires an awful lot of hindsight.
The SBD-6 with 450 made went out of production in 1944, it used a 1350hp engine. think of what some other planes could do with 35% more power over the early models.
2700hp Corsair anyone?

The movie dive bomber was filmed early in 1941 in San Diego. It featured the USS Enterprise. This is what the US Navy looked like at the time the RN was sinking the Bismark.
Dive Bomber - The Internet Movie Plane Database
A beautifully shot movie in technicolor
The SBD is not in sight because it wasn't in front line service at that time. The Lexington was converting to the SBD-2 (not 3) but every other aircraft carrier was equipped with SB2Us.
So we have the mighty USN sinking the Bismark with weapons that aren't available in May 1941 using an aircraft that isn't operational.

 

[Dan Fahey]

I know for a fact not all USAAF pilots were college-educated: one of my uncles was a USAAF pilot and a high school dropout.

Also, in 1940, there was not a "US" education system; there was some 12,000 independent local systems varying from very good to just about worthless.

YEAH most were college educated but those that were agile were given a chance.
That is why the FDR organized a Public School system. Russia and other countries did the same on the 50's and 60's.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

2576 non college graduates served as enlisted pilots in the USAAF during WW2. 18 of them became aces.

1941-1945: World War II Sergeant Pilots > National Museum of the US Air Force™ > Display

 

[Dan Fahey]

2576 non college graduates served as enlisted pilots in the USAAF during WW2. 18 of them became aces.

1941-1945: World War II Sergeant Pilots > National Museum of the US Air Force™ > Display

Good information but we trained many thousands more.
How many became fighter, Transport, Bomber, hack pilots?
You have a breakdown?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good information but we trained many thousands more.
How many became fighter, Transport, Bomber, hack pilots?
You have a breakdown?

No I don't have a breakdown. I was only pointing out that there were a lot of enlisted, non college educated pilots serving. Take the information how you wish.

 

[Shortround6]

There may have been quite a number of pilots who had one or more years of college and had not finished their degree. Many of them went back to college in 1946-47.

Now does one or two years out of four qualify you being college educated?

Friend of mine's father was in this catagory, dropped out of college to enlist in the Marine corp, served in VMF-124 (late war) went back to college after getting out.

Granted that is the Maines and not the USAAC (or USAAF)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There may have been quite a number of pilots who had one or more years of college and had not finished their degree. Many of them went back to college in 1946-47.

Now does one or two years out of four qualify you being college educated?

Friend of mine's father was in this catagory, dropped out of college to enlist in the Marine corp, served in VMF-124 (late war) went back to college after getting out.

Granted that is the Maines and not the USAAC (or USAAF)

If I recall all that was typically required then was 2 years of college. At least that is what the USAF Museum link I provided states.

 

[GrauGeist]

The SDB dive bomber was a helpful tool..but no where a deciding factor.

Never mind the accrued tonnage sunk by the SBD during the Pacific war or the concerted attacks on strategic IJN ships during the Battle of the Coral Sea or the Solomons campaign.

Let's discuss what other aircraft besides the Dauntless delivered fatal blows to the four IJN carriers during the Battle of Midway?

Take you time, we'll wait for your answer.

 

[buffnut453]

Never mind the accrued tonnage sunk by the SBD during the Pacific war or the concerted attacks on strategic IJN ships during the Battle of the Coral Sea or the Solomons campaign.

Let's discuss what other aircraft besides the Dauntless delivered fatal blows to the four IJN carriers during the Battle of Midway?

Take you time, we'll wait for your answer.

And the reason they were able to do it was, in large part, down to sheer dumb luck plus a gutsy decision by McClusky to continue searching for the Japanese fleet when peacetime norms suggested he should turn back to the US carriers. Yes, the SBDs delivered a telling attack against the Japanese carrier force but the timing of that attack relative to the TBD attacks which drew away the Japanese CAP was simply serendipitous. Had the Japanese CAP maintained better discipline (or had it been better controlled), or had the SBDs arrived at a slightly different time, it's likely they would have faced the Japanese CAP and, as capable as the SBD was, I think the conclusion of such an engagement would be inevitably bad for the SBDs.

Yes, the SBD attack turned the tide of the battle which was a tipping point in the Pacific war. However, to say that the SBD did it alone or because of some innate capabilities which the SBD alone possessed exaggerates the reality and, frankly, does a disservice to the other members of the USN, USMC and USAAF teams who all played their part on that day to keep the IJN fleet on its toes, reacting to the changing situation rather than driving the agenda.

 

[Schweik]

No, it doesn't.

Midway wasn't the only engagement in which the SBD played a key role, it's just the most definitive. All the other American aircraft types involved in the battle were used in other battles and the outcomes were similar. Nobody is saying that a machine trumped the individual courage or sacrifice of everyone else involved in the battle. That is just some kind of guilt trip which could basically be used to derail discussion of any aircraft in every battle in the war. Weapons and machines like military aircraft are just tools, levers with which very hard jobs are done. When it comes to things like carrier battles, it's extremely difficult to keep up without very good tools, including the aircraft, the aircraft carriers and everything that went into them.

It's just how good of a lever were these brave men using to move the earth in this particular case. The SBD turned out to be an excellent tool for this particular job. It most certainly was decisive at Midway and that doesn't take away any courage from anybody or dishonor anyone.

There is by the way certainly no guarantee they would have been slaughtered by Zeroes either because they clashed with Zeros many times, including without fighter escort, and sunk ships (including carriers) anyway. Read the thread for details.

 

[Schweik]

If all we had had was TBD's and TBF's and B-17s and B-26's we'd probably be typing Japanese right now...