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

Have to disagree a bit. If the SBDs had been intercepted at Midway would they have had a tougher time of it? Of course, always tougher to be intercepted than not but the SBD was able to fight its way through fighter screens in a way other bombers/ torpedo bombers didn't have the same success doing.
Yes there was some luck involved with Midway as there is with almost all successful military engagements but to say the SBD possessed no inherent qualities that made it so successful, not just at Midway but multiple engagements.........well that would have to be quite a bit of luck.
 
Schweik said:
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...
Click to expand...

A totally ridiculous statement. The war might have gone on longer and been more costly but the Japanese had 0.0 chance of winning the war unless the US simply quit. The US could out build tha Japanese by over a factor of 10 to 1.


Schweik said:
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.
Click to expand...




A lot of this depends on how good or numerous the Japanese CAP is. Four Zeros (or eight) against several squadrons of any dive bomber could not shoot them all down.

people here are getting into the black and white type argument.
Only the SBD could have sunk four Japanese carriers, no other dive bomber would have sunk any.
Only the SBD could fight it's way through defending fighters. no other dive bomber would have a chance.

Except in the case at Midway the dive bombers didn't fight their way through the Japanese CAP or at least not much of one. Out of position, few planes and those that were there were short on ammo. If you are playing air to air games you are not dive bombing. The SBDs air to air capabilities may have kept losses low after the bombs were dropped and the planes were getting out of the area.

There is absolutely no question that the SBDs were there, that they did the job or that it was a major turing point in the war.

my post #76 back on page 4


Now let us imagine that instead of all those squadrons of Dauntless you had the same number of Vought SB2U (or an updated version) aircraft attacking from the same positions with the Japanese aircraft and ships in their same positions and conditions.
What difference was there in the Dauntless that would enable it to score such a success while while the Vindicator would have failed?

The Vindicator may well have suffered higher losses to AA fire and/or higher losses to the Japanese fighters once they pulled out of their dives but what would have prevented the Vindicator from getting pretty much the same number of hits?

Now there may have been other attributes (range/endurance or cruising speed/altitude) that would have prevented the Vindicators from being in the right place at the right time but that is a somewhat different discussion.
 
Dan Fahey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Public schools, at least in New England, predated the Revolutionary War. Boston Latin was founded in 1635
 
Maybe so but it does nothing to settle the argument and the statement also puts forward the idea the the SBD was the only dive bomber that existed at the time (at least in the US service) which is equally as ridiculous.
Had Douglas failed to turn the Northrop BT-1 into an acceptable carrier plane in 1938/39 (the BT-1 being rather dangerous to fly off carriers) then the US had 3 years or more to develop another dive bomber, Vought did build 1 prototype Vindicator with a P & W R-1830 instead of the 825hp R-1535. The SB2C was initially ordered in 1939 but Curtiss made a hash of it.
The Avenger development started months later and yet 6 were in service by Midway. Had the SBD not existed in 1938/39 the US would have come up with something to fill the dive bomber role.
 
The US Navy was very interested in dive bombing, when the transition from biplanes to monoplanes happened the Navy had 3 different monoplane dive bombers while still buying Curtiss biplane dive bombers, The Brewster monoplane wasn't very good and 30 were built, the Northrop BT-1 had some severe problems but as Douglas was turned into a seperate company the design was reworked and saved. The Vindicator also dates from this time. The navy tried to jump the next stage of development and wanted big engines, much larger bomb load, longer range and inclosed bombays. This lead to the Curtiss SB2C, the Vultee Vengeance and Brewster Bermuda (and perhaps a few others on paper). The Navy may not have selected some of those for even prototype construction but the designs were there to sell to the French and British when they came shopping.
The reworked SBD allowed the navy time to sort out the SB2C and wrights ability to build ever more powerful versions of the R-1820 allowed for the newer models to have increased capabilities with very little weight penalties.
Please note that many of these later versions had next to no interchangeable parts with older models or even sometimes with other new models (the 1350hp engine was totally different than the 1200hp engine and the 1200hp engine was totally different than the 1100hp engine (not used in the SBD ) which was different than the 1000hp engine. it was NOT a case of pour 100/130 into the fuel tanks and screw with the boost control.
Had the SBD not been there in 1939/40 to fill the gap perhaps some other non 1600-1700hp non bomb bay plane would have been built to tide them over.
 
Last edited:
Resp:
There is a very good article in Flight Journal, Dec 2018, "Which Way Did They Go?" and also refers to Robert Mrazek's book 'A Dawn Like Thunder.' In the article, carrier Hornet's planes played no part in the success of the attack of the Japanese Fleet heading for Midway. However, the initial focus of the Japanese on Midway, did take forces away from the US Fleet, if for only a brief period. While I don't believe that the Torpedo and TBDS drew all of Japan's air cover down from altitude, I do believe it helped the SBD Bomber squadrons to catch the enemy off guard . . . enough to get into position for a proper attack.
Also, once an SBD entered a dive I believe the light A6M would have had a hard time closing the distance. Just my two cents.
 
Last edited:

No doubt the SDB had its place...
Never would have got near the Carriers without a fighter escort.
Or could escort bombers at 30000 ft.
Or possess the flexibility of the B25 in New Guinea
Or the P40 which flew in every theater of war.
Potentially shooting down as many planes as the mustang if we were to gather Russian records.
SDB was a bit Player and played a narrow but useful role.

The closest plane that made a difference was the Mustang..
Escorting bombers into Germany where the thirsty P47 couldn't.
P38 Which was not sorted out until the L model.
Both twice as expensive to build and maintain.

Mustang was used successfully in Korea...and later conflicts.
Think the last one was retired in 1984 much longer than the Corsair.
The Corsair another highly valued prop fighter.
The Mustang and Corsair were the two most valued US planes after WW2.

What happened to the SDB?
Not buying your argument!
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
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.
Click to expand...

What I take out of it that the more sophisticated jobs were taken by educated people.
People who can triangulate position, make maps which many were non existent.
The army and navy struggled to get people trained to make and assemble things.
The ramp up was daunting.

Except for the few natural or near geniuses found that could be brought up to speed.
College educated got the more sophisticated jobs..like flying planes!

I know part of this story well..
My grandfather Joseph Fahey was the scientist that selected Los Alamos for the Manhattan project.
 

And no where does it actually require a college education to be a great pilot.
 
The SDBs did not have a fighter escort at Midway( at least not with them when it counted) and not only got near the Japanese carriers but seem to have annihilated them. They were also successful on other ocassions with minimal or no fighter escort in a way other bombers didn't seem to be able to pull off.
As a matter of fact they were somewhat successful acting in the fighter role themselves( CAP) on several occasions.
 
What fighter escort?
Do you even know what happened at Midway?
Apparently not, because the majority of the IJN CAP was drawn down and tearing into VT-3 when VB-6, VS-3 and VB-3 arrived. Most of the Wildcats NEVER even made it to the battle!
All 10 of VF-8's Wildcats got lost, ran out of fuel and had to ditch. VF-6 lost contact with VT-6, ran low on fuel and turned back to the Enterprise. Matter of fact, the only F4Fs that made contact with IJN elements, were from from Midway's compliment.
The Dauntlesses drove home the attack on the Japanese carriers, did so alone.

During the Battle of Coral Sea, the SBDs not only clawed their way through savage Japanese defenses to deliver lethal bows, but they also battled against Japanese attackers in defense of the US fleet as fighters with considerable success.

The Battle of Midway is and was the turning point of the Pacific war. The Imperial Japanese Navy could not afford the loss of 4 Fleet carriers and the loss of the front-line pilots and aircraft lost that day. From that point onward, Japan was on the defensive for the duration of the war.

Now, this was in 1942...so where were the Mustang s and Corsairs you were going on about?
Why didn't the Mustangs and Corsairs help at the Battle of Midway?

Oh...because they weren't there.

It doesn't matter if the P-40 was all over the world, or the Bf109 and Spitfire fought in the Arab-Israeli war ten years later or the A6M was still fighting in Asia during the 1950's - it was the SBD, in 1942, that made the difference during a pivotal battle in the Pacific war in 1942.

Not the Stuka, not the B-29, not whatever other random aircraft you want to toss out there.

It was the Douglas Dauntless that made the difference that day
 
SBDs were critical to the victory at midway and coral sea, and played very significant roles at Eastern Solomons and Santa cruz. At the two latter battles some of the centre stage accolades need to be placed at the feet of the F4F.

What I baulk at is the claim that midway was the battle that turned the tide in the war. It was a very important battle, an incredible victory, but the cold analysis just doesn't support the claim that it single handedly turned things around. The Japanese did not alter their operational plans very much right after Midway. They did admittedly cancel the Midway operation, but their plans to capture Moresby, to advance to Noumea and Fiji to isolate Australia remained very much at the forefront. It would take the more important defeats at Guadacanal and all the hard fighting around and over that island to force the Japanese into altering what they intended to do. The other element to the allies wresting the initiative was what happened in the Owen Stanleys. Midway was part of the equation, but it was not THE cause of the change in fortune in the Pacific.

Think of it this way.....if Midway was the only victory in 1942, the US would still have not been able to turn the Pacific War around in 1942. Looking even further afield, the Midway battle in the context of the whole war was small potatoes really in a TO that was a strategic blind alley in the first place. Even though it might be politically unpalatable, a full scale retreat by the US from the entire Pacific would not have altered things much. Japan was in a no win situation no matter what she did, and no matter how good her war machine was


I just cant see how midway can be seen as the turning point battle of the war.
 
Considering that the Imperial Japanese Navy lost 4 of their Fleet Carriers at Midway out of 6 that were present - the two other carriers were light carriers, held in reserve. This was 4 of the 6 fleet carriers that the IJN possessed at the time - add to that the experienced pilots and aircraft that the IJN were hard-pressed to replace.

The two remaining fleet carriers, Shokaku and Zuikaku both would be sunk 2 years later during the Battle of Philippine Sea without any real contribution during that battle.

So in the end, the loss at Midway was a tremendous setback for their force projection and they hobbled along with light carriers from that point onward.

Now when I say "turning point" of the Pacific War, I am not tossing that out there on my own accord, I am simply going by the word of historians, both civil and military, who have made that determination long before I was even born.
 

Yes just that day..
Ignoring all the other battles, individual efforts, other major campaigns that also made the day..
War is a battle of attrition. It is simple...who can sustain the most resources into battle.

One of the major reasons Japan failured was because their army and navy leadership were at odds with each other.
Germany had a siimilar problem
The US had a similar issue with our army and navy until FDR forced them to work together.

Also it is hard to get facts about fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.
Most of the books up until the last 20 years how we shot down all their planes.
Our history ignores our losses and overstates how many we shot down.

Midway is the same...our win...bravado..!
A lot of people were killed on both sides...there is no romance in that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
10
Views
556
eagledad
E
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
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register