Which was the more successful single engine dive bomber, the SBD, the JU-87 or D3A?

[fastmongrel]

Don't forget the Ju87 also sank ships plenty of Royal Navy and Soviet navy vessels at the bottom of the sea because of the Stuka. The Ju87 also did something that the Japanese never did they put an armoured deck carrier out of action.

 

[Admiral Beez]

@ SaparotRob Also, if you're interested in dive bombers, read up on the Blackburn Skua.

Skua is the best known dive bomber in British service, but IMO the best performing is the Vultee Vengeance.

Someone on this forum wrote that the Ju87 spent most of its wartime career not dive-bombing at all but instead attacked at treetop level or in a shallow dive.

If that's our measure, I choose Typhoon or Sturmovik.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well there might be only one man that flew all three and Eric Brown ranked them:

1. Ju 87
2. Val
3. Dauntless

According to this site, Brown also flew the Vultee Vengeance, Curtiss Helldiver and Vought SB2U Vindicator.

 

[cherry blossom]

The D4Y may have damaged U.S. warships both in conventional attacks and as Kamikaze, but they didn't sink any.

The D3A, on the otherhand, contributed to the sinking of the Lexington, Yorktown and Hornet plus the long list of ships Darren posted earlier.

The Indianapolis was sunk by two torpedoes from Commander Hashimoto's submarine, I-58.

USS Princeton was sunk by a D4Y.

 

[fastmongrel]

Skua is the best known dive bomber in British service, but IMO the best performing is the Vultee Venge

So it should be better it was about five years younger and had twice the power.

I would go with the Ju87 for the simple reason Stuka Stuka Stuka Stuka Stuka Stuka

 

[SaparotRob]

Don't forget the Ju87 also sank ships plenty of Royal Navy and Soviet navy vessels at the bottom of the sea because of the Stuka. The Ju87 also did something that the Japanese never did they put an armoured deck carrier out of action.

Which ship was that? That is an impressive feat.

 

[GrauGeist]

Which ship was that? That is an impressive feat.

German and Italian Stukas thrashed HMS Illustrious near Malta, 10 January 1941.

 

[fastmongrel]

Some pictures of the damage

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

 

[fubar57]

War damage reports for U.S. ships...Summary of War Damage to U. S. Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers and Destroyers 17 October, 1941 to 7 December, 1942
War Damage Reports

 

[fastmongrel]

Illustrious was hit by 8 bombs ranging from 550 pounds to 2200 pounds. There were at least 10 near misses at sea and in Valetta docks all the near misses caused damage to the plating and framing. At one point they were worried the stern would fall off.

 

[RCAFson]

I think one would have to divide combat sorties by damage inflicted but we also have to consider whether or not they had a target rich environment.

 

[RCAFson]

In the case of the SBD, it is the only dive-bomber that has a plus kill ratio in aerial engagements.
.

I looked carefully at that claim and in 1942 at least, the SBD did not not have a plus kill ratio as most of it's air to air kills claims were not verified by IJN/A records.

 

[DarrenW]

I think one would have to divide combat sorties by damage inflicted but we also have to consider whether or not they had a target rich environment.

According to Naval Aviation Combat Statistics - World War II (page 102), the SBD performed a total of 49,792 action sorties during the war, dropping 22,942 tons of bombs on both land and sea targets. What's most interesting to me is that 88% of these sorties flown were from land bases, and only 7% of all sorties flown were against enemy shipping with 1,321 tons of bombs dropped on these targets. When comparing these particular expenditures to the 300,000 tons of Japanese shipping sunk by it during the war (which keep in mind includes six carriers), the SBD looks to have been an amazingly accurate dive bomber to say the least.

 

[DarrenW]

I looked carefully at that claim and in 1942 at least, the SBD did not not have a plus kill ratio as most of it's air to air kills claims were not verified by IJN/A records.

Depends on whether we're discussing claims awarded to its crews during the war, or those that were scrutinized by historians years later.

 

[SaparotRob]

War damage reports for U.S. ships...Summary of War Damage to U. S. Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers and Destroyers 17 October, 1941 to 7 December, 1942
War Damage Reports

A very interesting link. I'm going to be looking at it a bit more thoroughly later.

 

[PAT303]

This is another one of those threads that compare planes designed for different roles, the Stuka was a land based dive/ground attack aircraft, the SBD a dive/recon aircraft, the Val a dive bomber, trying to find out which was the best is not going to work because the roles aren't interchangeable.

 

[fubar57]

Some pictures of the damage

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

Found this diagram

 

[fubar57]

Details of the hits are quite lengthy. If anyone wants them, I'll enlarge the photo and add abbreviated details there

 

[Admiral Beez]

This is another one of those threads that compare planes designed for different roles, the Stuka was a land based dive/ground attack aircraft, the SBD a dive/recon aircraft, the Val a dive bomber, trying to find out which was the best is not going to work because the roles aren't interchangeable.

Japan aside, their originating countries saw at least potential interchangeability.

The USN's SBD became the USAAF's A-24 Banshee.
The Luftwaffe's Stuka became the RLM's Ju 87C.

And the Stuka in its Luftwaffe role was often playing a maritime strike role, same as the SBD and Val, or the FAA's land based Skuas that sank the cruiser Konigsberg. Both the SBD and Val operated from land bases in addition to carriers.

 

[PAT303]

Both the SBD and Val operated from land bases in addition to carriers.

How is the Val or SBD going to fair over Russia with a couple of 3.7cm cannons under their wings?

The Luftwaffe's Stuka became the RLM's Ju 87C

What carrier did the Ju87C fly from?.

All three were designed to perform different roles.