It's a a lot more nuanced than Brown states.
Which was the more successful single engine dive bomber, the SBD, the JU-87 or D3A?
- Thread starter SaparotRob
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It's a a lot more nuanced than Brown states.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Ju87 was one of the few dive-bombers that could dive effectively at a near 90° angle (against a static target). It's dive-brakes were well designed and held it at a constant speed through it's dive procedure plus it's dive autopilot allowed for successful recovery from the high-Gs caused by such a steep angle.
The SBD also had exceptional dive flaps (which were the length of each wing's trailing edge) that held it steady in it's preferred 70° dive angle.
The SBD also had exceptional dive flaps (which were the length of each wing's trailing edge) that held it steady in it's preferred 70° dive angle.
I have Jumo 211A TO HP as 1080HP. However, my sources state that most B-1s had the 211Da and the R-1 was developed from the B-1.
R-1 was developed from B-1. The Jumo 211D was installed on the B-2 and R-2.
There was indeed the Jumo 211A that developed 1200 PS for take off (the 211A-2 ; pg. 85 of the manual), hower the Ju 87R-1 was still capable to fly with 1000 kg + two drop tanks on 1000 PS for take off provided by the 211A-1.
Attachments
Shortround6
Major General
JU 87 operated in somewhat more target rich environments.
Japanese supply lines weren't usually in reach of US carriers until late in the war (and much of the shipping already sunk).
Just like the Val sank very few cargo/supply ships. Not that it couldn't. they just weren't in range for it to attack.
Japanese supply lines weren't usually in reach of US carriers until late in the war (and much of the shipping already sunk).
Just like the Val sank very few cargo/supply ships. Not that it couldn't. they just weren't in range for it to attack.
Admiral Beez
Major
It would have made for a formidable Kamikaze if it made it past the CAPs.
Admiral Beez
Major
Did any Stuka ever make it past the CAPs?
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,857
- Feb 27, 2020
Trying to pick the most successful is a tricky question, as It has been noticed previously.
Is tricky in the definition of successful (ships sunked? Tanks destroyed? Strongholds blasted?) and is tricky in comparing planes with one common duty and other different duties and enviroment (the D3A had the same enviroment than the SBD but lacked the scout duty).
All this said, I think we all can agree in giving the D3A the third place do to the dated design, lack of improvement, smaller bombload, most deficent defensive armament and lack of armour and SSFT.
So the contest is the between the Ju 87 and the SBD (perhaps the A-24 would be a better comparison).
The Ju 87 is surely an older model, with its fixed landing gear and tail struts but by 1942 the Ju 87 model was already the D, with a more powerful engine (1.400 hp), a bigger fuel capacity than the B modelo (900 l, nearly double) and able to carry one 300 l fuel tank under each wing. This fuel tankage perhaps won't be enough to equal D3A or SBD combat radius but won't be shortlegged either.
The Ju 87D was capable of toting 1.000 kg bombs (2.200 lbs) and 1.800 kg (nearly 4.000 lbs) and had an automatic pullout sistem.
Sure the SBD was the most aerial combat capable of the two but it was used mainly in conditions of its side air superiority, so didn't have to run the gaunlet of fierce aerial opposition that both the Ju 87 and the D3A had to endure as the war went on. How would had fared the SBD against an integrated defense sistem with radar directed fighters in sufficent numbers? Maybe a little better but I doubt It would manage to get much better results or much less combat losses than the Ju 87.
The rear defensive armament was nearly the same in both of them, belt feed twin MG (7'62m – 0.3 in for the SBD, 7'92 mm – 0.312 in aprox).
The forward facing guns were better in the SBD, two 12'70 mm – 0.50 in HMG in the fuselage, against two wing mounted 7,92 mm – 0.312 in MG in the Ju 87 (20 mm cannons didn't arrived till 1943).
So in 1942 we got one with bigger bombload, an automatic pullout sistem, capable of vertical diving but older and more sitting duck against one with better combat radius, sightly better defensive armament, better aerial combat capacity but with an inferior diving angle.
Don't have any data comparison about diving characteristics but neither have read anything wrong about any of them, so can assume nearly identical. Also lack info comparing the armour of them but think both were pretty tough birds, so we can give them the same value in punishment management.
Bonus for the Ju 87, glider towing capable, able of some kind of self deployment.
Bonus for the SBD, shorter TO and landing and scout capacity.
Which I chose?
As a pure dive bomber, the Ju 87 by a narrow margin.
Is tricky in the definition of successful (ships sunked? Tanks destroyed? Strongholds blasted?) and is tricky in comparing planes with one common duty and other different duties and enviroment (the D3A had the same enviroment than the SBD but lacked the scout duty).
All this said, I think we all can agree in giving the D3A the third place do to the dated design, lack of improvement, smaller bombload, most deficent defensive armament and lack of armour and SSFT.
So the contest is the between the Ju 87 and the SBD (perhaps the A-24 would be a better comparison).
The Ju 87 is surely an older model, with its fixed landing gear and tail struts but by 1942 the Ju 87 model was already the D, with a more powerful engine (1.400 hp), a bigger fuel capacity than the B modelo (900 l, nearly double) and able to carry one 300 l fuel tank under each wing. This fuel tankage perhaps won't be enough to equal D3A or SBD combat radius but won't be shortlegged either.
The Ju 87D was capable of toting 1.000 kg bombs (2.200 lbs) and 1.800 kg (nearly 4.000 lbs) and had an automatic pullout sistem.
Sure the SBD was the most aerial combat capable of the two but it was used mainly in conditions of its side air superiority, so didn't have to run the gaunlet of fierce aerial opposition that both the Ju 87 and the D3A had to endure as the war went on. How would had fared the SBD against an integrated defense sistem with radar directed fighters in sufficent numbers? Maybe a little better but I doubt It would manage to get much better results or much less combat losses than the Ju 87.
The rear defensive armament was nearly the same in both of them, belt feed twin MG (7'62m – 0.3 in for the SBD, 7'92 mm – 0.312 in aprox).
The forward facing guns were better in the SBD, two 12'70 mm – 0.50 in HMG in the fuselage, against two wing mounted 7,92 mm – 0.312 in MG in the Ju 87 (20 mm cannons didn't arrived till 1943).
So in 1942 we got one with bigger bombload, an automatic pullout sistem, capable of vertical diving but older and more sitting duck against one with better combat radius, sightly better defensive armament, better aerial combat capacity but with an inferior diving angle.
Don't have any data comparison about diving characteristics but neither have read anything wrong about any of them, so can assume nearly identical. Also lack info comparing the armour of them but think both were pretty tough birds, so we can give them the same value in punishment management.
Bonus for the Ju 87, glider towing capable, able of some kind of self deployment.
Bonus for the SBD, shorter TO and landing and scout capacity.
Which I chose?
As a pure dive bomber, the Ju 87 by a narrow margin.
Admiral Beez
Major
If that's a measure, the Blackburn Roc has the most powerful defensive armament of all dive bombers.
One can do good scouting with Ju 87, or any 2-seater.
If it was carrying same bomb load as the SBD, you can bet it will use short TO strips. After all, it was also modded into a carrier-borne dive bomber. Load-carrying capacity of Ju 87 was unparalleled by either SBD or Val already in 1940.
So basically, capability-wise, it boils down to whether you need a carrier-borne dive bomber or not. If not - Ju 87. If yes - SBD.
Besides earlier mentioned HMS Illustrious, Ju 87s badly damaged at least two other RN's armoured deck fleet carriers.
HMS Formidable two 500 kg (1100 lb) hits and several near misses, seven months out of action
HMS Indomitable two 500 kg (1100 lb) hits plus three near misses, 6 months out of action
against Jap carriers two 500 kg hits might have been fatal.
HMS Formidable two 500 kg (1100 lb) hits and several near misses, seven months out of action
HMS Indomitable two 500 kg (1100 lb) hits plus three near misses, 6 months out of action
against Jap carriers two 500 kg hits might have been fatal.
Admiral Beez
Major
Was the Loire-Nieuport LN.401 the "worst" carrier-borne dive bomber of them all?
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,857
- Feb 27, 2020
In the Skua case I 'm afraid it was not enough. Two 12'7 mm-0.50 in HMG are better than four 7'7mm-0.303 in MG for forward defense and two 7'62mm-0.30 in beltfeed MG are better than one 7'7mm-0.303 in drum feed MG.
Not to mention the Skua speed deficit.
The Skua had 4 x .303BMGs with 600rpg for ~30 secs firing time @1200rpm/gun. The SBD had 2 x .5in BMGs with 180RPG and ~20 secs firing time due to the need for synchronizing gear to fire through the props. There's no doubt that the Skua shot down more aircraft, including many TE Luftwaffe bombers in 1940 than the SBD did in 1942. Under 10K ft the Skua, as fighter, was ~10mph slower than the SBD.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,030
- Jun 25, 2013
Wasn't there a Brewster dive bomber?
In any case, it seemed more to be inadequately developed, as opposed to intrinsically bad. It's also pretty inarguable that its crews, from Aeronavale's AB2 and AB4 fought bravely.
Shortround6
Major General
I would add that the high loss rate of the Units equipped with those aircraft do not bode well for any ideas that the British could have had much success using Skuas or other low performing dive bombers for close support during the Battle for France.
