Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
I may not be happy with with your choice but that's a sound argument and one I couldn't argue against. Makes sense to me.Well a difficult comparison as the Ju-87 was a short-range land-based bomber and the other two are carrier-based.
However the question was: which was the most successful? Not which was best. Nor did it ask for the most successful by role, a fine distinction to be sure, however the Ju-87 was successful in ground-attack and the SBD contributed a lot in the scout role. So, I'll answer most successful overall by an aircraft designed as a single-engine dive bomber.
Ultimately, the Ju-87 could not operate with as much freedom once effective fighters were about, and especially over ground targets. That it operated for as long as it did in as many roles as it did - even anti-shipping may mean it is the most effective - but was it the most successful?
So, that leaves the two carrier-based dive-bombers. The D3A was successful while the A6Ms could clear the skies. The SBDs were successful when the A6Ms could not - or did not. From a quality point of view, the D3As had great pilots - at least in the early years and the bang per plane would (in my opinion) shade the SBD slightly. The SBDs really contributed in the scout role. As the A-24 the SBD was ... well, lacking is a kind way of putting it.
In the end while success is about achievement that achievement is relative.
The SBDs claim to success is the battle of Midway, the results speak for themselves. Yet by no stretch of the imagination can we say that the SBD did anything outstanding or even above average on that day. Superior intelligence, fleet tactics, enemy error, dumb luck, the sacrifice of earlier attack waves, a host of other factors NEEDED to be there to give them a chance at glory. Midway is the only event that keeps the SBD in the running, otherwise it's a just good enough aircraft, solid, reliable and able to built in numbers and with sufficient expendable pilots.
So for those reasons, I decided not to give full weight to their achievements at that battle. If they had scouted the enemy fleet, flown in, dodged or fought off fighter cover, braved the ship-board AA fire (such as it was) and achieved the same results, then for that single action alone it would be a slam dunk. Please note, I'm not saying it didn't take guts to attack when the previous waves had been nearly wiped out, it did.
The Ju-87 is my pick for #1.
Without the D3A the IJN still had the B5N and the G3M. The D3A helped but wasn't critical. With the arrival of D4Y and the sinking of most of the carriers in any case, it doesn't contribute much after 1942. Even so, I'd rank this aircraft #2.
The SBD may have delivered the final blow at Midway, but it didn't do the heavy lifting. Nor was it critical to the the success of the US fleet carriers and surface forces. Nonetheless, it contributed a lot - rank #3.
The blitzkeig would not have succeeded without the tactical effect of the Ju-87. Further, it's success in the Mediterranean and Russian theatres kept it as a viable an important tool throughout the war. 1939-1945
The SBD did far more than that. At the battle of Coral Sea, the SBDs fought their way through to sink the Shoho and severely damaged the Shokaku (which would have been with Kido Butai at Midway, otherwise) AND acted as interim CAP defending the Lexington and Yorktown.The SBD may have delivered the final blow at Midway, but it didn't do the heavy lifting. Nor was it critical to the the success of the US fleet carriers and surface forces.
If they had scouted the enemy fleet
When McClusky could not find the Japanese carriers where he expected them, and with his air group's fuel running dangerously low, he began a box search and on the second leg spotted the Japanese destroyer Arashi steaming north at flank speed. The Arashi had stayed behind to attack the submarine USS Nautilus, which had been harassing the Japanese fleet. Surmising that the Arashi must be following the main fleet, McClusky ordered a change in course in the same direction as Arashi. This led him directly to the enemy carriers."
If this isn't "scouting" I don't know what else is!
A Midway Catalina did spot the Japanese carriers (Specifically one flown by Ens. Jewell Reid) but did not give an accurate location. Later a pair of Catalinas (Flight 58) found a portion of the Japanese fleet but was forced to evade and again their radio transmission (Which was heard by Admiral Fletcher) was lacking in specific information. Later they transmitted the location of 2 carriers in which Fletcher ordered Admiral Spruance to pursue. This led up to the launching of aircraft from US Carriers on "scouting missions."As I remember it, it was a Catalina from a land base (Midway) that spotted the carriers. Following several waves of attacks by land-based planes, and then Devastator torpedo bombers, the Dauntless arrived.
Refer back to my first response?Not where he expected them, was he lost? Nobody else had a problem. 'Surmising' - a fancy word for guessing, especially since the Arashi might or might not have been attached to the main fleet, and might or might not have been going 'to' a mission rather than returning 'from' a mission - wouldn't 'lucky guess' be a better term? However, given the circumstances it was a better choice than just blindly flying around.
Your opinion - McClusky was sent out to do a mission. He did not have good information on where his target should be so he used his own initiative and was successful.So, no, fully armed and formed up for an attack - I don't think they were 'scouting'. I think they were desperate.
Who's getting defensive???? You made a statement and by definition was wrong. The Midway victory involved a lot of luck and timing. Please curtail the semantics.Look, don't get so defensive. No disrespect to McClusky, he made the right call, it was a guess but not a wild one, and it paid off. The pressure must have been intense. Sometimes you need a little luck. (If he'd been flying a "Val" he would have had another 200km of fuel left - food for thought)
I'm going with GrauGeist on this one!Something to take into consideration when comparing range between the various types.
The D3A1 and D3A2 are both listed as having a range of 840 miles and 915 miles respectively. That certainly sounds impressive, but that is not their combat radius.
The SBD-3's max. range was 1,400 miles.
It's scouting radius was 325 miles with a 550 pound bomb, it's combat radius with a 1,000 bomb was 250 miles. The two listed radius figures are not absolutes, as they allow a "reserve" for additional mileage in the event that recovery is not immediate.
Another point to consider, is how many aircraft the SBD cost the Japanese. It is credited with 148 aerial victories which can be debated as with any type (fighter or otherwise) but what is often overlooked, is how many fighters, torpedo bombers and dive bombers the SBD destroyed.
During the course of the war, the Dauntless sank 6 carriers and severely damaged almost as many, which meant that either those carrier's compliments were lost during the sinking or had to ditch for lack of a destination. That is a substantial number of aircraft (and aircrew) when totaled up.
In the case of the off-course SBD elements at Midway, they were able to find Kido Butai by using their scouting training (just like the Enterprise's scouts found and surprised Zuiho during the Battle of Guadacanal) however, several elements of Wildcats at Midway (who also were also off course) had to turn back, leaving only 6 F4Fs to defend the torpedo bombers.
No one's being defensive, just putting facts on the table.
The Ju87 and D3A both were valuable assets and performed above and beyond the expectations of their original design, but the SBD through it's accomplishments is almost in a league of it's own.
It is a good argument but it also points out the trials of trying to use planes in many theaters.
The A-24 had two strikes against it when used by the Army in New Guinea. One was trying to carry a good bomb load over the Owen Stanley mountains. Something the Val rarely did and the JU 87 never had to contend with such a mountain range between base and targets.
The other was range. The SBD/A-24 could carry a decent bomb load or it could carry fuel. It really couldn't do both. The Japanese didn't even try with with Val and the Ju-87 may have had a few problems, at least until the Ju 87D with the more powerful engine.
The A-24 couldn't carry a heavy enough bomb load far enough to justify the space and ground crew it took up on the land bases. Again not sure the JU 87 would have done much better, single 550lb over long range?
Regarding the Ju-87 I read that it could engage in a MUCH steeper dive than most other dive bombers. IIRC, the Ju-87 could dive almost vertically, while most aircraft of the class could only manage a much shallower dive. Is that true? Could other dive bombers go almost vertical? And what were the advantages of a steeper dive?
The following from wikipedia:All DBs could dive vertically, but most, including the JU87 didn't because a vertical dive causes a lot of targeting issues if the target is moving, or there is any wind. A dive of 60-80 degrees was more common. Some DBs such as the SB2C were overweight and consequently their dive brakes were not sufficient to prevent excessive speed build up and so they would normally dive, level off and then commence their final dive.
Is this false then?wikipedia said:Eric "Winkle" Brown RN, a British test pilot and Commanding Officer of No. 1426 Flight RAF (the captured enemy aircraft Flight), tested the Ju 87 at RAE Farnborough. He said of the Stuka, "I had flown a lot of dive-bombers and it's the only one that you can dive truly vertically. Sometimes with the dive-bombers ... maximum dive is usually in the order of 60 degrees ... When flying the Stuka, because it's all automatic, you are really flying vertically ... The Stuka was in a class of its own."
Ju 87R-1 (1000 HP engine), in 1939-early 1940: 1100 lb bomb + two drop tanks; in second half of 1940 and on: 2200 lb bomb + two drop tanks.