Wasn't the STUKA the best dive bomber to see service in WWII

[buffnut453]

Strange! Much less advanced A/C like the F4F and the Curtiss Hawk did well against Zeros and Oskars in the PTO and BCI.

Tactics. The IJNAF in particular was known for its pilots seeking individual kills rather than fighting as a cohesive unit. Good section tactics (ie Thach Weave) hugely reduced the Zero's comparative performance advantage over the F4FGoes back to my point in an earlier post about the difference of philosophy between Western and Japanese approaches to fighting. Not so sure the Curtiss Hawk did particularly well, though....

Now...back to the Vengeance

 

[JoeB]

Strange! Much less advanced A/C like the F4F and the Curtiss Hawk did well against Zeros and Oskars in the PTO and BCI.

British Mohawks in 1943 had about a 1:1 real kill ratio v Japanese Army Type 1's (Oscar), but that's not necessarily the same as a Zero. Zeroes had one-sided success v Dutch Hawks in the Dutch East Indies but that's only a small handful of examples. F4F's had around a 1:1 real ratio v actual Zeroes in 1942, and seldom used the Thach Weave until later on (Thach himself used it at Midway, VF-10 used it late in the Guadalcanal campaign, otherwise the Thach Weave was a more a 1943 and later tactic). But who says the Hawk and F4F were *much* less advanced than the Spitfire? French Hawk 75's had a tolerable result against 109's in Phoney War period of 1939-40 (Battle of France less well documented from both sides, AFAIK) and the Spitfire was more often than not bested by the Bf109 in the first 1/2 of WWII.

Maybe part of the problem here is the common general overestimation of the Spitfire, especially mid-Mark Spitfiires, as all around practical fighter combat a/c, good in many cases, the best plane on Allied side early on, but not necessarily '*much* more advanced'. It's often termed 'much' more advanced than Zero, which is just obviously not so. If you're 'much' more advanced you don't have a 1:5+ kill ratio against you over a series of combats, the 'much more 'advancedness' should keep that ratio reasonable even if you suffer some other disadvantages. 1:5+ doesn't mean the Spitfire was a worse plane than the Zero, but rules out calling it 'much' better, and in turn same v planes which managed much better results v the Zero. They might not have been as good overall, but their much greater success comparatively against an important opponent, rules out the modifier 'much', IMO.

In any case I don't see a solid basis on which to assume Bf109's would have badly beaten Zeroes, not to claim it's impossible, I'm not saying that, but not necessarily. And it's a simple fact there are no direct examples to settle it either way.

Joe

 

[davebender]

A-31 Vengeance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first RAF squadrons (No. 82 and 110 received Vengeances in October 1942

It appears to me the A-31 operated only from airfields on land (not CVs). Under those circumstances I would prefer the A-20. It couldn't dive bomb but was otherwise superior to the A-31 in every way. The A-20 was also available earlier and in larger numbers.

Yokosuka D4Y - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The D4Y (Judy) puts all other WWII CV based dive bombers to shame. Max speed of 342 mph makes it a lot faster then the SBD, Ju-87, Vengence, etc. 500kg bomb load is decent for a CV based bomber. Fortunately for us it entered service too late to matter. If it had been operational as a bomber during 1942 I don't think the F4F could catch it.

 

[parsifal]

To explore some of the points raised by Joe in a slightly different light. The Zero appears to have enjoyed a kill-loss ration up to Midway of around 4:1. After Midway until about October 1942, the kill loss ratio was about 2:1. After that it was a more rapid decline.

Whilst the Japanese enjoyed the luxury of elite pilots and the strategic initiative, the battles, even in a tactical sense could be worked to the benefit of the zero. At sea level, where the fighter was intended to fight as a fleet defence fighter, it possessed an unsurpassed climb rate of over 4500 feet per minute. This impressive number dropped away sharply as the altitude increased, such that by about 20000 feet it was decidedly sluggish.

The results speak for themselves. In the initial offensives, the land based zeroes, numbering no more than 200 in total, managed to destroy about 800 (roughly) enemy aircraft. Total enemy losses exceeeded 1500 in this period. Total Japanese combat losses in this period was in the order 250 a/c Whilst it can be argued that this was against aircraft of inferior quality, there is no doubt in my mind that the zero was easily fulfilling its mission.

Now compare that to the efforts by the Me 109s up to the end of 1940. Against the Poles, flying decidely inferior aircraft (but admittedly with very good pilots), the German fighter wings were barely able to achieve loss ratios in excess of 1:1. In the low countries and over France, despite enjoying a vast superiority of numbers, the losses to the Luftwaffe as a whole were exceedingly heavy. Total Lufwaffe combat losses in the six week campaign exceeded 1500 aircraft . Over Britain the Me 109s were a strategic failure, their limited range meant that they could not achive the fundamental mission of air superiority even over southern England. If the Me 109 had even a moderate element of the Zerroes qualities it may have succeeded rather than failed.

With regard to the Zeroes armament, the 60 round drum fed 20 mm cannon were the same as those fitted to German French and British 20mm armed aircraft, and the rate of fire superior to the German cannon. From the Type 2 onward the ammunition supply had increased to 100 rounds per gun.

The Model 99 Type 1 cannon introduced in 1940 had the following characteristics

Specifications
Caliber: 20 mm
Ammunition: 20x72RB
Length: 133 cm (53 in)
Weight: 23 kg (75 lb)
Rate of fire: 520 rounds/min
Muzzle velocity: 600 m/s (1970 ft/s)

The type 2 dropped the ROF to 480 rpm,, but the muzzle velocity shot up to 750 m/s. This was introduced just after Midway. The Types 3 and 4 appear to have been introduced more or less simultaneously, increased the ROF to 670 rpm, and then 740 rpm, with no loss of Muzzle velociity. These were introduced progressively from warly 1943.

By comparison the MG/FF had a ROF of 520 RPM and a Muzzle velocity of 600M/s. This was slightly alrtered later on. The later MG 151/20 had a ROF of 750-800 RPM and a muzzle velocity of 720-800 m/s . Though the performance of the Japanese guns was less than that of the Germans, it was more than adequate to achieve its purpose. It did have dicfficulty in bringing down B-17s, because of the impact fuses being used and because of the limited ammunition supply in the model 21. This was no different to the problems faced by the early 109s...

As defensive fighter, with inferior pilots, the Zero was a poor aircraft. It was built for a purpose which it succeeded in spades. Once that role was completed, it should have been replaced by a more durable point defence aircraft like the 109. That it wasnt led to its poor showing in the latter part of the war

 

[buffnut453]

A-31 Vengeance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first RAF squadrons (No. 82 and 110 received Vengeances in October 1942

It appears to me the A-31 operated only from airfields on land (not CVs). Under those circumstances I would prefer the A-20. It couldn't dive bomb but was otherwise superior to the A-31 in every way. The A-20 was also available earlier and in larger numbers.

Yokosuka D4Y - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The D4Y (Judy) puts all other WWII CV based dive bombers to shame. Max speed of 342 mph makes it a lot faster then the SBD, Ju-87, Vengence, etc. 500kg bomb load is decent for a CV based bomber. Fortunately for us it entered service too late to matter. If it had been operational as a bomber during 1942 I don't think the F4F could catch it.

Sorry, Dave, but you've lost me. This thread is about which was the best dive bomber so (a) whether it operated from a carrier or not is irrelevant (the Stuka didn't...at least not operationally!) and (b) the A-20 was not a dive bomber (I like the Mosquito and believe it was far superior to the Vengeance but it shouldn't be considered for this thread)....then again, most of the recent posts have disappeared down a rabbit-warren discussion of the Me109 vs the Zero.

 

[parsifal]

Kind of agree.....the vengeance had great potential as a design, but was not really given the full opportunity to display itself completely. It seems to me that the allies veered aaway from Divebombing as a ground support weapon, in favour of the fighter bomber. The US sort of discarded the A-24 after no apparent problems, though my knowledge of this aircraft is limited. The commonwealth appeared to draw similar conclusions in the ETO and the Pacific. There was nothing inherently wrong with the Vengeance, but time and again it was withdrawn from its intended role. In the case of the RAAF, most of the Vengeance ewuipped units were re-equipped with Liberator bombers.....perhaps it was the simple expedient of range, payload versatility in the case of the RAAF

 

[Wildcat]

RAAF Vengeance squadron's in New Guinea were doing excellent ground support work, in most raids putting the vast majority of bombs on target. I'm talking infantry foxholes and gun postions or in some cases narrow foot bridges across jungle ravines. Probably the most accurate Allied aircraft to see sustained service in New Guinea.
By all accounts the RAAF (and AIF) were extremely pleased with the work of the Vengeance squadrons but in the end it was General Kenney who ordered the withdrawl of the squadrons out of the theatre, much to the surprise of the Vengeance wing personnell.
No doubt the role of the dive bomber was made obsolete with the appearance of the fighter bomber, in the case of the RAAF, our P-40 squadrons took over in the ground support role. Howeveer, in six months of flying hazardous dive bombing missions over tough jungle and mountains in New Guinea, the RAAF lost three aircraft due to enemy fire - compare that to the P-40 in the same role and I think you'll find the vengeance comes out on top.

 

[riacrato]

To voice my opinion I think the SBD and Ju 87 were pretty close in terms of performance, offensive/defensive armament and accuracy. Though I don't know if the SBD had a good bomb sight. D4Y seems a little weak as far as offensive armament goes, but in reality most Ju 87 missions were flown with 500 kg bombs aswell and the D4Y is has the best chances here to avoid enemy fighters.

I wonder how the Vengeance came up here. So far I read it was rather not that great.

 

[parsifal]

In terms of speed protection, defensive armament even range, it outclassed both the Ju-87 and the SBD. It arrived into an environment where divebombing as a technique outside anti-shipping roles had lost favour, and this doomed it from reaching its full potential operationally

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just dive bombing alone the Stuka is 2nd to no other aircraft, but when compared to others like the Dauntless, it is less suitable for defending itself in air combat. Without air cover it is pretty much a sitting duck to enemy fighters, but lets be honest almost any dive bomber is.

 

[riacrato]

Ju 87 D and following defensive armament is identical to that of the contemporary Dauntless. As a "dogfighter" it may be inferior due to the fixed undercarriage, but then, even with the famous exceptions mentioned, the SBD was also outclassed in that regard by any Japanese fighter. Btw Ju 87s too scored some air-to-air kills (with the fixed cannons) on the eastern front.

EDIT: granted the SBD rear gunner had a very good field of fire.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ju 87 D and following defensive armament is identical to that of the contemporary Dauntless. As a "dogfighter" it may be inferior due to the fixed undercarriage, but then, even with the famous exceptions mentioned, the SBD was also outclassed in that regard by any Japanese fighter. Btw Ju 87s too scored some air-to-air kills (with the fixed cannons) on the eastern front.

EDIT: granted the SBD rear gunner had a very good field of fire.

I am sure if you compared the SBD and the Stuka to one another in air to air combat the SBD would win. The SBD was a much better designed "aircraft" in my opinion, but the Stuka was superbly designed for dive bombing. As I stated, the Stuka was 2nd to no one when it came to dive bombing.

 

[Markus]

But who says the Hawk and F4F were *much* less advanced than the Spitfire? French Hawk 75's had a tolerable result against 109's in Phoney War period of 1939-40 (Battle of France less well documented from both sides, AFAIK)

The Brits tested both planes. While the H-75 A-4 was much more manouverable at high speeds and the pilot had a better view from the cockpit, the Spitfire could break off and enter combat at will due to her higher speed. IIRC this test was done in 1940, after that Spits became even faster, so anti-Zero tactics based on a high speed should have worked well.

Whilst the Japanese enjoyed the luxury of elite pilots and the strategic initiative, the battles, even in a tactical sense could be worked to the benefit of the zero.

Now compare that to the efforts by the Me 109s up to the end of 1940. Against the Poles, flying decidely inferior aircraft (but admittedly with very good pilots), the German fighter wings were barely able to achieve loss ratios in excess of 1:1. In the low countries and over France, despite enjoying a vast superiority of numbers, the losses to the Luftwaffe as a whole were exceedingly heavy.

The French pilots were very good too. Werner Mölders stated the MS 406 had to be taken serious in spite of it´s technical inferiority because of the skill and courage of its pilots.
And the pilots the Japanese faced in the first few month of the war were not particularly skilled, not in Malaya, not in the PI and not in the DEI. The one exception was the AVG who suffered amazingly low losses.

With regard to the Zeroes armament, the 60 round drum fed 20 mm cannon were the same as those fitted to German French and British 20mm armed aircraft, ...

No the guns were different. The German and Japanese ones were based on the MG FF but German guns had a higher muzzle velocity sooner. The French and Brits used the completely different HS 404 gun, it was much heaveir but had a muzzle velocity of 880 m/s and thus a flatter traject like that of a machine gun.


To get back to topic:

IMO the Ju87, SBD, SB2C and Vengeance are not much different in the dive bombing department. The Vengeance´s six machine guns make her an excellent strafer, while the SB2C is both very fast(for a dive bomber) and can be armed with a torpedo. Given the limited space on a carrier such versatility is IMO a huge advantage over single-purpose bombers like the TBF or SBD.
And that bring me to the reason for the dive bombers demise; the rise of the fighter bomber. Within a very short time they went from 50 to 500lb bombs and eventually even P-40´s were armed with 2,000 pounders, while F4U could carry up to 4,000 lb of bombs.

So you have A/C that are almost as good for ground attack as dive bombers and unlike any dive bomber they can defend themselvs.

 

[Njaco]

Ju 87s also scored some air-to-air kills during the BoB as the defensive tactic was to close tight when attacked and provide mutual aid - similar to the B-17 boxes.

 

[buffnut453]

So you have A/C that are almost as good for ground attack as dive bombers and unlike any dive bomber they can defend themselvs.

Entirely agree Markus. I don't subscribe to the Peter C. Smith view that the divebomber was the wonder-weapon of WWII. However, in the context of the thread, which is about the best divebomber of WWII, I still go with the Vengeance. I agree that by 1944 the divebomber concept had pretty much been overtaken (like that of the "light bomber") by strapping bombs onto fighters.

 

[JoeB]

The Brits tested both planes. While the H-75 A-4 was much more manouverable at high speeds and the pilot had a better view from the cockpit, the Spitfire could break off and enter combat at will due to her higher speed. IIRC this test was done in 1940, after that Spits became even faster, so anti-Zero tactics based on a high speed should have worked well.
.

There you go, 'should have', but clearly didn't. The Spit units did attempt to or say they changed tactics, and claimed better results, but had no more actual success according to what the Japanese really lost. Everyone's tests tended to be infused with 'not invented here', 'home field advantage', especially as long as war was still on: morale. The Spit V was a fairly mediocre fighter compared to many of its contemporaries without a great combat record overall, though it did worse than average v Zero; it's not *that* big shock or shouldn't be; especially considering that things like being more delicate and termpermental (or slower) in tropical or primitive field conditions isn't some irrelevant technicality when that's where the plane needs to perform its mission. Likewise the Spit's extremely short range compared to the Zero was a real disadvantage not only in, needless to say, preventing any situation where Spitfires flew 500 miles from Darwin to Timor to escort raids on Japanese bases, but even in combat right around Darwin the Spits were highly constrained by fuel and lost a number of a/c to fuel exhaustion besides those shot down by Zeroes. The more manuevrable plane with good visibility can parry high speed attacks with sharp turns into the attack till the short legged faster plane has to break off for lack of fuel, or sooner or later either the faster plane is drawn into turning fight, or the slower plane gets its own hit and run opportunity (which Japanese Navy fighters actually liked to do, and the Zero wasn't *that* much slower than Spit V in practice in those conditions). That's just as plausible an outcome in theory, and the Zeroes beat the Spitfires badly in reality.

So I still don't see the real evidence either Hawk or F4F were *much* less advanced' than Spitfire. Rather their, F4F particularly, far superior results v Zeroes could also be partly being better adapted to that particular type of opponent, though the Zero was vastly superior to any of the Allied fighters mentioned, in range.

Joe

 

[Markus]

However, in the context of the thread, which is about the best divebomber of WWII, I still go with the Vengeance.

Helldiver II it is for me. Faster than any other dive bomber and much more versatile as she could also carry a fish. That is not particularly important for attacks on land targets but IMO dive bombers were most valuable for attacks on ships.

 

[davebender]

IMO dive bombers were most valuable for attacks on ships

I have my doubts about that statement.

German dive bombers were invaluable for destroying bunkers and artillery emplacements at long range. Without Ju-87 and Ju-88 dive bombers the Wehrmacht would need to build a lot more 17cm Kanone18 long range artillery pieces plus their tracked prime movers.

17cm Kanone18 Long Range Field Artillery.
17 cm Kanone 18 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cromwell]

RAAF Vengeance squadron's in New Guinea were doing excellent ground support work, in most raids putting the vast majority of bombs on target. I'm talking infantry foxholes and gun positions or in some cases narrow foot bridges across jungle ravines. Probably the most accurate Allied aircraft to see sustained service in New Guinea.
By all accounts the RAAF (and AIF) were extremely pleased with the work of the Vengeance squadrons but in the end it was General Kenney who ordered the withdrawal of the squadrons out of the theatre, much to the surprise of the Vengeance wing personnel.


The more I read about WW2, and after, the more I seem to stumble over instances where "It was working well - and then taken away" for no apparent reason (that I can see anyway).

For example, Village Inn radar-assisted rear gun turrets that were working fine but then withdrawn at the end of the war.

Air-crews found it an excellent deterrent as you could open fire at the edges of visual range and beyond, especially at night in bad visibility.

- or the Bouncing-bomb, that was really only used once, which hardly seemed a full comprehensive test of its abilities ?

-or the Tarzon bomb - later used in Korea - which worked and knocked out several bridges.

-or even the Deacon Portee - actually took out a fair number of German tanks and could have been improved quite easily rather than just abandoned as a concept.


Crom-dubya

 

[buffnut453]

The more I read about WW2, and after, the more I seem to stumble over instances where "It was working well - and then taken away" for no apparent reason (that I can see anyway).

Crom,

I tend to agree, although the "disappearing trick" that most confuses me relates to the canopies fitted to RAF fighter aircraft. We learned, through hard experience, that bubble canopies with all-round visibility were the way to go, even though it took until quite late in the war for the low-back Spits to get into service. As soon as the war finishes, what do we do? Go straight back to fighters with solid metal behind the cockpit (with the honourable exceptions of the Vampire FB5 and Meteor F8.). It's like WW2 never existed. Why this happened is quite beyond me, unless it was over-confidence in the ability of missiles (or an inability to build blown canopies that could cope with the stresses of high-speed jet-powered flight). And don't get me started on the canopy for the TSR2, an aircraft which (apart from that feature) I truly admire....yes, I know it wasn't a fighter but providing the nav with a couple of little peepholes is hardly helpful).