What is the best of these four Dive Bombers?

[renrich]

The puzzle to me is that by accounts the A36 was a more than competent dive bomber with the great attribute of being able to turn into a potent fighter after delivering it's bomb. It used a Allison engine which should not have been in short supply. Why was not the A36 continually produced and deployed thoughout the whole war?

 

[buffnut453]

Because the USAAF wasn't particularly interested in dive bombers of any flavour.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Not to be overly picky, but there was no other "pure" VF-3 section - that is where both pilots were actually from VF-3 as opposed to one or the other or both coming from VF-42 - from which Thach could have possibly drawn a beam defense trained section.

In Thach's first division, he and his wingman Dibb were familiar with the tactic. I believe his third section, Cheek and Sheedy were familiar though to a lesser degree, Cheek was checked out for sure, but Sheedy had not long been in VF-3 so how much practice he may have had is problematical. I'd note in their action (Cheek and Sheedy, that is) they were operating as an unsupported section and did not themselves employ the beam defense when attacked. Thach's second section, Macomber and Bassett, were both from VF-42 and had not been exposed to, much less practiced in, the beam defense concept.

Those who flew fighters of Yorktown at Midway, Thach included, were very clear in that there was no familiarization, even on paper, with his beam defense on the trip out. The VF-42 pilots, in particular, had absolutely no training or any other familiarization with the beam defense.

There was only one other section in the whole squadron - third section of third division - which even had a section leader from VF-3 (Barnes with VF-42's Tootle as wing). Thach, himself, was the only VF-3 division leader; the other three division leaders were from VF-42. Of the 12 sections within the squadron's four divisions, 9 had section leaders from VF-42.

Thus, 33% of the VF-3 pilots flying in the battle were VF-3 and 67% VF-42. 75% of Division leaders and 75% of section leaders were VF-42. But, despite the preponderance of VF-42 pilots, generally, and specifically in leadership positions (not surprising as VF-42 was the most combat experienced VF squadron in the fleet) the squadron was VF-3 and commanded by Thach.

Also, what happened in terms of the make up of TBD escort was that Thach wanted to augment his 1st Division with an additional section from one of the other three . . . it was the Buckmaster, Arnold, Armstrong, and Pedersen planning group who scotched that idea, not Fletcher.

Regards

R

R. Thanks much for the clarification, and especially for the detailed description of the VF division and section organization. I recalled, from Lundstrom's FJF bio, that someone in authority had scotched the plan for 8 VF escorts and thought it was FJF. It seems to me that Lundstrom's text is a bit misleading in this regard. Page 250:

"Fletcher reluctantly determined about 0825 not to commit his entire strike....and also reduced Thach's fighter escort from eight to six Wildcats. ... Thach was livid at the change. His experimental defense tactics ... required multiples of four planes." Lundstrom continues: "Racing up to air plot...Thach was all set to argue with Arnold until he learned the orders came from above...."

However prior to these statements, Lundstrom has made clear that FJF deferred most aviation issues to his fine staff, as you point out: Arnold, Pederson, Buckmaster and Armstrong. So, your account makes more sense to me and Lundstrom's wording may be simply an abreviation for the actual chain of consultation and resolution once the decision was made (presumably by FJF) to withhold a portion of the Yorktown's airwing, pending discovery of the remaining IJN carriers.

From Lundstrom's text, I got the impression that Thach was frustrated (or as stated: livid) at the change and assumed from the wording it was because he hoped to employ the weave. In First Team IIRC, Lundstrom reports that Thach hadn't really had time to effectively brief, let alone train, the VF-42 contingent on the Beam defense tactic so if he did indeed intend to use it with another section, his options appear from your organizational table to have been fairly limited! I still find it extraordinary that Dibb with only modest experience in the tactic picked it up so fast under the pressure of combat.

I always have to be mindful in reading any history that, to some extent, the historian may be providing his interpretation of facts that may have been related to him or her by someone who (ideally) experienced them. In this case, I would guess, based on Lundstrom's First Team acknowledgements section that all his work in this field has benefited enormously from his contact with your dad. To whom, along with so many of his generation, we all owe a debt of gratitude.

 

[tomo pauk]

The puzzle to me is that by accounts the A36 was a more than competent dive bomber with the great attribute of being able to turn into a potent fighter after delivering it's bomb. It used a Allison engine which should not have been in short supply. Why was not the A36 continually produced and deployed thoughout the whole war?

I'd venture to say that USAAF was, as the war advanced, was more keen to make themselves an independent arm of the military (to be on level with Navy and Army themselves), and the NAA production of fighters was much more along those lines than the NAA production of Army-support (=tactical) bombers.

 

[davebender]

What accounts?

I've read plenty of first hand accounts where Vals, SBDs and Ju-87s placed bombs on target with great accuracy. If you have similiar historical data for the A-36 then please post it. I have yet to read a single account of an A-36 hitting a bridge, ship or bunker with a 500+ lb bomb.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What accounts?

I've read plenty of first hand accounts where Vals, SBDs and Ju-87s placed bombs on target with great accuracy. If you have similiar historical data for the A-36 then please post it. I have yet to read a single account of an A-36 hitting a bridge, ship or bunker with a 500+ lb bomb.

Nonsense

The A-36 was well liked by it's pilots. I've met at least 2 pilots who flew them and they seemed to to like them and they seemed to be an effective weapon.

http://www.charlies-web.com/WWII_med/A-36 Article.html

"The effectiveness of the A-36 as a ground attack aircraft was demonstrated on 5 June 1944. In a well planned attack on the large, well defended rail depot and ammo dump at Orte, Italy, Lieutenant Ross C. Watson lead a flight of four A-36s through a heavy overcast on the approach to the target. Watson's A-36s scored several hits under intense anti-aircraft fire while Lt. Watson's aircraft was hit and damaged by ground fire. Under continuing heavy ground fire. Lt. Watson pressed home his attack and destroyed the ammo dump before making an emergency landing at an advanced Allied airfield"

Gruenhagen, Robert W. Mustang: The Story of the P-51 Mustang Page 63 (from wiki)

 

[cimmex]

Did the A-36 had a dive bomb sight?
regards
cimmex

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Did the A-36 had a dive bomb sight?
regards
mini

No it didn'thave a "dedicated" dive bomb sight, it didn't need one.

 

[davebender]

Several hits with what type weapon?

 

[oldcrowcv63]

http://www.charlies-web.com/WWII_med/A-36 Article.html

Thanks J, This short article has some pretty interesting information on the A-36 as a dive bomber. Glad I read it now and wish I'd read it earlier in this thread...

One thing about the Val: I recall reading (Lundstrom) that on a number of occasions a few Vals in an attack would dump their loads and engage defending fighters Mano a Mano, while their companions would attempt to press the attack home. This apparently was USAAF reaction to defending fighters. Drop and run or drop and fight-air-to-air).

I don't recall reading whether SBDs ever dropped a weapon to engage fighters or retreat, They seemed to get through to the target under most situations. I don't know much about the operational employment history of the Ju-87 and how it faired in the face of determined fighter opposition. I conclude the Val possessed enough manuverability to pose a threat to a careless fighter and the SBD was just plain tough to shoot down. Its twin fifties and twin 30s evidently able to keep any opposition at bay and possessing as it did, plenty of armor to survive when it couldn't keep defending fighters at bay.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Several hits with what type weapon?

The common A-36A load out I would assume either 2 500 or 2 250 pound bombs

 

[davebender]

That's just the problem.

We don't need to make such assumptions for the Val, SBD and Ju-87. Historical accounts by people like Rudel tell us exactly what type bombs were dropped on certain targets. Why don't we have similiar historical combat accounts for the A-36?

 

[oldcrowcv63]

That's just the problem. We don't need to make such assumptions for the Val, SBD and Ju-87. Historical accounts by people like Rudel tell us exactly what type bombs were dropped on certain targets. Why don't we have similiar historical combat accounts for the A-36?

I expect they were just too few in number and applied in theaters where they couldn't make a game changing contribution that would bring them acclaim.

Here is a book devoted to their activity:

A-36; North American A-36; Dive Bombers the Apache;

Also, descriptions of the combat in the MTO can be found here at the website previously posted by FlyboyJ:

http://www.charlies-web.com/WWII_med/index.html

From:

North American A-36A Apache (Mustang)

"The A-36 was a successful aircraft. The type flew over 23,000 combat missions, dropping 8,000 tons of bombs, and claiming 84 enemy aircraft in aerial combat. Only 177 A-36s were lost to enemy action, a loss ration of under 1%, very impressive for a ground attack aircraft. This is particularly impressive when one remembers that the P-51 later earned a reputation for being vulnerable to ground fire in Korea."

 

[oldcrowcv63]

From:

North American A-36 Mustang

"The first A-36A flew on September 21, 1942. Deliveries of the A-36A were completed by the following March. The A-36A equipped the 27th and 86th Fighter Bomber Groups based in Sicily and in Italy. They initially were painted in olive-drab and light-gray finish and were painted with yellow wing bands and yellow circles around the national insignia. Both of these Groups arrived in North Africa in April of 1943 just after the end of the Tunisian campaign. They saw their first action during aerial attacks on the island of Pantelleria, with the first sortie being flown on June 6, 1943. The A-36A was involved in the taking of Monte Cassino, and participated in the sinking of the Italian liner Conte di Savoia.

The only other A-36 user was the 311th Fighter Bomber Group, based in India. It saw extensive use in the China-Burma-India theatre.

Several sources list the A-36 as not being particularly effective during combat. It seems that this is not strictly correct. Although losses during low-level attacks were rather high, the A-36 was actually a good dive bomber and it was a stable and effective ground strafer. The engine was very quiet, and it was often possible for an A-36 to get nearly on top of an enemy before he realized that an attack was imminent. Dive bombing was usually initiated from an altitude of 10,000 feet to 12,000 feet, with bombing speed held to around 300 mph by the dive brakes. The bombs were dropped at an altitude of 3000 feet, and pullout was at approximately 1500 feet. The A-36 was fairly rugged and easy to maintain in the field. The A-36 could consistently stay within 20 feet of the deck and could easily maneuver around trees, buildings, and other obstacles while strafing. The A-36A was able to take a considerable amount of battle damage and still return to base. Nevertheless, a total of 177 A-36As were lost in action.

The A-36s did not see very much air-to-air combat, since it was optimized for low-altitude operations and lost its effectiveness above 10,000 feet altitude. It was generally believed that the A-36 was no match for the Messerschmitt Bf 109 at high altitudes, and that it was therefore best for A-36 pilots to avoid such encounters if at all possible. If air-to-air combat was unavoidable, it was thought best to force the battle down to altitudes below 8000 feet, where maximum advantage could be taken of the A-36A's excellent low-altitude performance. Although it was not a fighter, the A-36 claimed 101 enemy aircraft destroyed in air-to-air combat. One of the pilots of the 27th Fighter Bomber Group, Lt Michael T. Russo, became the only ace in the Allison-engined Mustang, although several other of his colleagues did score victories as well."

A more detailed description of dive bombing with an A-36 is found at:

http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/a36.html

The four aircraft listed in the poll were all employed to especially good effect as naval dive bombers. While the A-36 evidently enjoyed some success in that role, it was apparently one ship not a target that brought the aircraft or the mission a lot of notoriety.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That's just the problem.

We don't need to make such assumptions for the Val, SBD and Ju-87. Historical accounts by people like Rudel tell us exactly what type bombs were dropped on certain targets. Why don't we have similiar historical combat accounts for the A-36?

We do, see above...

Nice info Old Crow, beat me to the punch.

The USAAF was loosing interest in dive bombing by the time the A-36 came on scene, it think that fact was pretty obvious. The A-36 compared to any of the above is like comparing a sun dial to real clock. It's evident that the A-36 had a very good if not better combat record within it's short career and I'm sure Rudel would have enjoyed flying one.

 

[davebender]

Japanese Aichi D3A and D4A dive-bombers (D Llewellyn James)

D3A was produced in only relatively small numbers - 478 of the D3A1 and 816 of the more streamlined D3A2.

478 is 22 fewer then the number of A-36 dive bombers produced.

The D3A2 entered service during the fall of 1942. The 478 D3A1 Val dive bombers fought in battles like Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea and Midway. I've never seen anyone suggest the 478 D3A1 dive bombers were just too few in number to make a significant impact in these battles.

I'd be surprised if the Luftwaffe had more then 400 operational Ju-87s at any time prior to 1941. I've never seen anyone suggest Ju-87s were just too few in number to make a significant impact during 1939 and 1940.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

...too few in number and applied in theaters where they couldn't make a game changing contribution that would bring them acclaim.

Recognition or notoriety may come from the contribution an aircraft makes in a critical battle (Spifire and Hurricane in the BoB) or through the bulk numbers employed perhaps like the P-40 whose contribution or success was probably less than would be indicated by the numbers employed. The A-36 might have been deployed in action at critical points, or it might have achieved some greater recognition by shear weight of numbers. A-36 numbers were as you point out, similar to the Val.

But with far fewer Vals than the total produced applied at historic moments. Consider the number of Vals compared to the time frame and disposition. The actual amount particpating in the critical battles of the Pacific wasn't even close to the full 478 D3A1 Vals produced. There were probably less than about 120 present at Pearl Harbor, roughly three dozen at Coral Sea, about six dozen at Midway and perhaps about five dozen in the Indian Ocean. Compare the small Val numbers employed to the toll in significant hits on high value targets and its clear that it isn't so much the relative production numbers and quality of the dive bomber that is important in assessing its worth as the opportunity to do vital damage. The Stuka, Val and Dauntless all had opportunities that the A-36 did not enjoy. They certainly made good use of those moments. I expect that given an equally critical moment, the A-36 would have aquitted itself with equal or greater success as a dive bomber.

 

[renrich]

SBD2s had twin 30s in the engine cowling. Later models had the twin fifties. The Val was a formidable dogfighter because it could really turn. The smart pilot did not get in a tail chase with it. The A36 was to the AAF as the Corsair was to the USN and Marines.

 

[tomo pauk]

IIRC there was a statement that a well flown SB2C was able to out-turn the P-47, simply proving the point that a fighter (tailored for high speed) should never enter the turning fight with a plane designed to fly well at low speed. I have no doubt that Val, SBD or SB2C would've out-turned P-51, -47 and Tempest. But maybe not Zero or Oscar, or some good biplane?

 

[Readie]

A question.
Was the Avenger used as a dive bomber?
John