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

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

RCAFson said:
Its easy to do and I have a hard time trying to count her aircraft complement, even with the action reports online.
Click to expand...

Finding any hard facts on the FAA isn't easy. The first allied fighter ace of WW2 was a naval man William Lucy flying Skuas in the Norway campaign. I can't even find where he was born or where his grave is.

I could probably find out what a German or US ace ate for breakfast the day he claimed his 5th victory.
 
DarrenW said:
From the accounts I've read the attacking aircraft used low lying cloud cover to conceal their presence and dived straight down on the ships, making early detection nearly impossible. By the way, the Bunker Hill was attacked by two bomb-carrying Kamikaze Zeros, not a D4Y. It is widely presumed a 'Judy' attacked the Franklin that day but accounts differ on this (some believe it could also have been a D3A). And although extensively damaged, both ships survived these attacks and were successfully rebuilt. Unlike other ships in their class however, neither were to see active service again.
Click to expand...
You got that right.
BTW I've got to do more research before I post. I could have sworn that two Judy's each took out a CV. It must be all that independent research in psychoactive substances back in college.
 
SaparotRob said:
You got that right.
BTW I've got to do more research before I post. I could have sworn that two Judy's each took out a CV. It must be all that independent research in psychoactive substances back in college.
Click to expand...

It's ok to post from memory sometimes but it's best to have your sources handy just in case.... :)
 
1ab.jpg
 
Clayton Magnet said:
An impressive feat, considering the Skua could almost be outrun by the ship or sailboat it was attacking
Click to expand...


?? The Skua was nearly fast as the SBD, JU87, or D3A-1.


The peak of the air fighting in Norway was 27 and 28 April 1940 when Skuas shot down 7 x He111 bombers with their front guns, all kills being verified by Luftwaffe records and/or subsequently captured Luftwaffe aircrew. See Fledgling Eagles for more details.

During the Norway campaign, from 17 April to 10 June 1940, mainly carrier based, Skuas shot down 23 Luftwaffe aircraft via their front guns: 17 x He111, 2 x Ju88, 2 x Do18, 1 x Do26 and 1 x He115 according to Fledgling Eagles, which correlated Skua kill claims with Luftwaffe losses and action reports.
 
Last edited:
RCAFson said:
?? The Skua was nearly fast as the SBD, JU87, or D3A-1.
Click to expand...

Ideally you want to do better than 'nearly as fast' as your quarry when attempting to intercept, I would say. Very impressive showing, considering.

All of the (enemy) competition had two-speed engines, so above 10,000 feet thinks look pretty bleak for the Skua.
 
Greyman said:
Ideally you want to do better than 'nearly as fast' as your quarry when attempting to intercept, I would say. Very impressive showing, considering.

All of the (enemy) competition had two-speed engines, so above 10,000 feet thinks look pretty bleak for the Skua.
Click to expand...

Fortunately most early war naval-air combat took place at lower altitudes:

"I have done no fighting above 14,000 feet. It's been as close as 25 feet off the water. The average, I would say is in the neighbourhood of 8,000. I don't say that won't change, however, but I believe that the majority of it for some time to come will be below 20 000 feet." (Jimmy Thach interview 26 August 1942)

The other factor is that level or shallow glide bombing strike aircraft typically have to approach low and slow to optimize their hit probability
 
One interesting difference is that whilst the Ju-87 came to drop 1,000 kg bombs and the SBD dropped 1,000 bombs, the D3A never carried anything heavier than 250 kg. I am not sure why. It may simply have been the IJN's focus on out ranging the enemy. Possibly, the extra weight might have made a controlled dive more difficult but the power and lift was available especially for the D3A2. The IJN may have thought that 250 kg was enough for a cruiser and that 500 kg would not sink a battleship (but they may have been wrong Attacks on Kure and the Inland Sea (July 1945) - Wikipedia). However, a 500 kg bomb would have been useful in attacks on the Yorktown Class Carriers. I cannot claim that it would necessarily have made a difference but the Ju-87 could penetrate Illustrious's hangar through 75 mm of armour and a Yorktown had 45 lb for the deck (just over an inch) and 60 lb for the 4th Deck (1.5 in.). I doubt if hit 2 on Enterprise Santa Cruz - Battle Damage would have been disastrous had it been a 500 kg bomb as the forward aviation tank is further aft https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...town-class_carrier_technical_drawing_1953.jpg but it would have taken longer to repair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
NTGray
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
10
Views
566
eagledad
E
Holtzauge
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
M
The Zero's Maneuverability
18 19 20
Replies
391
Views
22K
Ivan1GFP
I
Back