Which was the best 1942-era dive bomber?

Which was the best 1942-era dive bomber?

  • Aichi D3A Val

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Douglas SBD Dauntless

    Votes: 20 46.5%

  • Junkers Ju 87 Stuka

    Votes: 14 32.6%

  • Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik

    Votes: 7 16.3%

  • Blackburn Skua

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • Total voters
    43

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

When a Dauntless entered it's steep dive and deployed it's massive dive flaps, you can be sure that they weren't silent with that wind rushing through them.

Not as demoralizing as the wail of a Jericho Trumpet like the Stuka's, but the SBD was far from being "sneaky".
 
1000+ HP radial screaming in a dive is loud enough. Besides, that's really least important factor. I think that in this area it matters more which one can cause a larger explosion (aka payload) and deliver it with greater accuracy to the target.

To be fair any of those dive bombers is good and each of them scored unusual results. Though I stand by D4Y1, it reached 298 knots in level flight (552 km/h) which was a speed record for that kind of aircraft in IJN at given time. It later on it evolved into D4Y2 and D4Y3 pushing the aircraft to speeds 580 km/h. Shame no Judy is in flyable condition anymore.
 
While ALL dive bombers are loud, the dauntless is a better aircraft.1, After allied air supiority Stukas were not very effective.2 The A 36 was reported to have a louder scream.3Late in the war dauntless bombers were always being escorted Stukas almost never had fighters protection because Allied bombers were hitting airfields and Allied fighters shooting the German fighters down.
 
Have to disagree about the Dauntless being "better" for several reasons: it would dive at near vertical, attaining a good amount of speed, which would make noise not only from it's frontal area of the radial engine, but it's enormous dive flaps displacing the rushing air.

The A-36 would not have made much more noise than the early marks of the P-51, it's braking fences on the top and bottom of the wings not being very large in area.
 
Simply rubbish, the Stuka performed very well in its role in the Battle of Britain when it could be protected by LW fighters, however in war there are cockups and if ever the Stukas were caught without protection they were wiped out The Germans noticed that on any days combat where 4 groups of Stukas were involved 1 got decimated that is why it was stood down.
 
Did summer break for schools start this week in US or what ?

3Late in the war dauntless bombers were always being escorted Stukas almost never had fighters protection because Allied bombers were hitting airfields and Allied fighters shooting the German fighters down.
Click to expand...
Which adds exactly what to the discussion or review of the aircraft itself ? No fault of Ju-87 that it not always had escort.
 
Its also not true that the stuka was always dead meat if caught without escort. On eastern front, and in the west, in those situations where an integrated air defence system was not present, stukas more than held their own with tolerable losses and a high mission success rate.

The dauntless was a great aircraft, but these comparisons are just sheer nonsense to be blunt. Dauntlesses in the pacific were never faced by such heavy and thick air defences as opposed Stuka operations in the west, or even the eastern front. forty fighters was a big deal in the Pacific, whereas in the ETO it was the norm to be faced with 100+ defenders at times. early in the war, less often the case, later in the war much more the norm. it is a safe claim to say the SBD was never asked to face opposition like that
 
Okay, let's try and sort out the Dauntless vs. Stuka issue by quantifying their strengths in the following ways

I. Performance
  1. Dive Angle: The Stuka was designed for dive angles as steep as 90-degrees and could execute automatic pull-outs; the Dauntless seemed to be limited for practical purposes to around 70-degress (if I'm not mistaken), and required a manual pull-out.
  2. Maneuverability: The Dauntless was said to be quite maneuverable, with responsive controls. I don't know how the Stuka compared, though I wouldn't be all that shocked if it flew decently
  3. Range with & without Payload: The range of the SBD-3 and -5 have to be factored in as if they were operated in land-operations, not carrier-based operations due to differences in the amount of time spent warming up waiting for takeoff, and loitering around waiting to land. Sure, the Dauntless wasn't operated this way, but if it was to be compared to the Stuka, both have to be operated under land-based requirements.
II. Payload:
  1. Typical Payload
  2. Maximum Payload
 
  1. Dive Angle: The Stuka was designed for dive angles as steep as 90-degrees and could execute automatic pull-outs; the Dauntless seemed to be limited for practical purposes to around 70-degress (if I'm not mistaken), and required a manual pull-out.
Click to expand...
Japanese executed their dives at 60 degree angle and achieved 83 % accuracy in early 1942 battles in D3A. It does not necessarily mean steeper the better.
 
My favorite is the SBD. The Dauntless contributed significantly to the Four Carrier battles victories in 1942. At Midway it was the only Naval plane to score hits.

There were Four strategic victories in the Four Carrier battles in 1942. With a lesser plane events might have gone differently.
 
Are there any Post Cold war accounts of the Sturmovik? How effective really was it. The Soviets certainly did build a ton of them.
 
pinehilljoe said:
Are there any Post Cold war accounts of the Sturmovik? How effective really was it. The Soviets certainly did build a ton of them.
Click to expand...
Some remained in service with nations like Bulgaria and Hungary after the war, but the IL-10 ( the IL-2's successor) saw more post war action, like in Korea and during the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
 
I ment in the past 10 years. The Soviet press was so closed, you have search to find first hand accounts,
 
pinehilljoe said:
I ment in the past 10 years. The Soviet press was so closed, you have search to find first hand accounts,
Click to expand...
Ahh...gotcha.
There's several good books based on pilot's memoires.
Check out "Red Star against the Swastika" by Vasily B. Emelianenko. This book is Mr. Emelianenko's memoirs of his time flying the IL-2 on the eastern front. By the way, for his service, he was awarded the "Hero of the Soviet Union".

You can also look for "Red Sky, Black Death" by Anna Timofeyeva-Yegorova. This is her own biography about her experiences with the IL-2 on the eastern front and she also was awarded the "Hero of the Soviet Union".

And then there's the Osprey book titled "IL-2 Shturmovik Guards Units of World War 2" by Oleg Rastrenin, which has a great deal of interviews with IL-2 pilots as well as crew members in it. I personally haven't read this book, but I have heard many good reviews of it.

There was also a good article earlier this year by RT (Russian Times) about the reunion with the IL-2 and it's veteran pilots. While RT is usually a slanted political mouthpiece on current affairs, they certainly are qualified to cover the veteran's reunion and did a good job. You can see it here: WWII pilots revisit their planes, share wartime stories in touching video
 
As a generalisation, the VVS found the Il-2 just right for the task. In the west we would put them on a par with the Fairey battle or the TBD.

They were heavily armoured but with some vulnerable spots. Cheap to build, poor engine life, easy to fly. just what a soviet pilot with maybe 10 hours of flying time and a very limited life expectancy should be given
 

Surely that's because in the absence of an integrated air defence system the Ju 87s were much less likely to get caught in the first place?

Even with an integrated system the Ju 87s could be effective. In the early stages of the BoB they carried out attacks, sometimes unescorted, particularly on south coast ports and Channel shipping, and were gone by the time the RAF turned up.

Of course if they did get caught by the RAF they were very vulnerable. They also had a tendency to burst into flames when hit making them in the words of one RAF pilot 'my favourite target'. They were most vulnerable after they had attacked, as the sought to reform and make their escape.

I think this applies to any dive bomber, I'm not sure that any of the others mentioned in this thread would have done any better than the Ju 87 in the same situation.

The Ju 87 was withdrawn from the BoB following the August losses, but it had as much to do with changing Luftwaffe tactics as it did with any perceived shortcomings of the aircraft itself.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
_PabloSniper_
Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
924
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register