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

[GrauGeist]

Which carrier should the Skua have sunk but didn't?

Which carriers did the Stuka operate from?

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's true that the Skua downed a number of Luftwaffe aircraft, but how many were Skua versus Bf109 or Fw190 confrontations?

No more than any other dive bomber shot down single seat, high performance fighters. How many Spitfires did the Stuka shoot down? Some by chance of one crossing the gunsights I imagine, but not many.

It's too bad that the Skua was withdrawn from service in 1941 just when things were getting exciting for the FAA. Two dozen Skuas joining the twenty-odd Swordfish at Taranto would have been impactful, though dive bombing at night would be a first and require a pathfinder to find and market targets. Next, Matapan, Skuas attack V.Veneto from above whilst the TSRs strike with torpedos. Throughout the Mediterranean the Skua would have been useful in anti shipping missions. My vote is to keep the Skuas until the "fast" bomber role can be passed to the Fulmar.

Which carrier should the Skua have sunk but didn't?

Which carriers did the Stuka operate from?

I've never understood the utility of these sort of rebuttals. Is it to shut down the other guy, to demonstrate one's own superior argument? It just seems meanspirited to me.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Which carrier should the Skua have sunk but didn't?

If given the opportunity the Skua could have sunk carriers. Put four squadrons of Skuas at Ceylon in March 1942 and Nagumo is in deep trouble as the Kido Butai did not operate a CAP as it closed on Ceylon. Nagumo's carriers will be matchsticks to any dive bomber.

 

[GrauGeist]

If given the opportunity the Skua could have sunk carriers. Put four squadrons of Skuas at Ceylon in March 1942 and Nagumo is in deep trouble as the Kido Butai did not operate a CAP as it closed on Ceylon. Nagumo's carriers will be matchsticks to any dive bomber.

Granted the Skua sank several notable ships like Konigsburg (although the attack on U-30 should not be spoken of) and they did well intercepting bombers and flying boats, but their attack on Scharnhorst revealed that they were not able to defend themselves well enough against the Bf109.

It would seem to me, if we're looking for a decent native dive-bomber, then perhaps examine the Fulmar a bit closer.
While it carried a comparable bombload (in weight), it was faster and better armed.
Granted, like most dive-bombers, the Fulmar suffered losses against Japanese, Italian and German fighters but it's long range made it ideal as a scout and path-finder - which would put it a similar role to the USN's Scouting-Bomber.

 

[Greyman]

I've never understood the utility of these sort of rebuttals. Is it to shut down the other guy, to demonstrate one's own superior argument? It just seems meanspirited to me.

I mean to say the circumstances in which the Skua and Dauntless operated are so vastly different that using number of carriers sunk as a metric in determining their worth is pointless.

 

[RCAFson]

It's true that the Skua downed a number of Luftwaffe aircraft, but how many were Skua versus Bf109 or Fw190 confrontations?

And last time I checked, this thread was about Dive-Bombers, not which one had better guns or paint jobs or whatever.

How many Aircraft Carriers did the Skua sink? How many Cruisers? Destroyers?

Oh wait, it shot down a bunch of German bombers...brilliant.

We were discussing front gun efficacy, which was one aspect of DBs

Granted the Skua sank several notable ships like Konigsburg (although the attack on U-30 should not be spoken of) and they did well intercepting bombers and flying boats, but their attack on Scharnhorst revealed that they were not able to defend themselves well enough against the Bf109.

It would seem to me, if we're looking for a decent native dive-bomber, then perhaps examine the Fulmar a bit closer.
While it carried a comparable bombload (in weight), it was faster and better armed.
Granted, like most dive-bombers, the Fulmar suffered losses against Japanese, Italian and German fighters but it's long range made it ideal as a scout and path-finder - which would put it a similar role to the USN's Scouting-Bomber.

Which dive-bomber could defend itself against BF109s and FW190s?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I suggest we exclude the opportunities for success that define each contending aircraft, and instead look at their potential for success. Which single-engined dive bomber:

1. Carried the heaviest bomb load?
2. Had the fastest speed (cruise, top and dive)?
3. Had best ability to hit its target? Dive angle, visibility, bombsight, etc.
4. Had the the greatest survivability against AA and fighters?
5. Was available when needed? No point in including the Yokosuka D3Y or Fairey Spearfish, for example.

I would add on top of these five the longest range or endurance, but this is more a naval DB than general DB requirement.

I like the Vultee Vengeance. One of the few DB with an internal weapons bay, 275 mph top speed, four forward .303 mgs, plus two in the back, 1,500 lb. bomb load (2 x internal 500 lb, 2 x 250 lb under wings), 1,400 mi range. First RAF squadrons commence ops in Oct 1942. What's not to like?

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Which dive-bomber could defend itself against BF109s and FW190s?

A-36.

 

[Shortround6]

Something to consider for the dive bomber as a weapon system, even more important than guns, is the bombs/bombload.
Unfortunately for the Skua the British 500lb bombs were not exactly awe inspiring in the early part of the war.
Standard bomb for the Skua was a 500lb SAP bomb with about 90lbs of TNT.

IF the release mechanism could be adjusted for the 500lb GP bomb the HE content went to about 145lbs HE but perhaps not as good as TNT.
Some American or German GP bombs held about 50% explosives.

Later British 500lb MC bombs went about 50% explosive weight but the are not available in the first few years.

A Dauntless that hit a Japanese ship with a 1000lb bomb may have hit it with 500lbs of HE.

 

[Shortround6]

A-36.

Not while carrying bombs
Mission kill.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not while carrying bombs
Mission kill.

Carrying the bomb(s) was not required per the question:

...
Which dive-bomber could defend itself against BF109s and FW190s?

 

[Bataan Jerry]

In regards to the many interesting comments and opinions on dive bombers, I think the one critical feature that has not been mentioned is SURVIVABILITY. A plane has to give its crew a reasonable chance to reach it's target, attack and return, or every sortie potentially becomes a depressing suicide mission.

In that case the self-sealing tanks and armor of the SBD appeared to give it an advantage over the others, surely the Val. No better illustration can be given then at Midway, June 4th, when Hiryu's counterstrike of eighteen Vals took off in search of the American carriers after three of it's sister ships were in flames. The Vals were the most experienced of the Kudo Butai, and escorted by six Zeros. On the way, they encountered a flight of six SBDs straggling back and the Zero's impulsively left the Vals and tangled with the now emptied American dive bombers.

The Zeros destroyed no SBDs and in the process had two of their own so badly damaged they were forced to break off and return. The remaining four Zeros were too far behind and when Yorktown's CAP of eight Wildcats were vectored to the now unescorted Vals, the Wildcats savaged the flight, shooting down nine of the vulnerable Japanese dive bombers and scattering the rest. Admirably, the remaining determined Vals continued on and seven ultimately made it through to drop their bombs, but this might be considered as weight of numbers.

When considering six SBDs were attacked by six of the cream of the Japanese fighter force and suffered no losses while damaging two Zeros, and eight Wildcats destroyed nine of eighteen VALS during that early stage of the war, when experience and training were hugely on the side of the Rising Sun, the tough American dive bomber surely demonstrated it superiority in the Pacific.

In Europe, the Stuka was withdrawn from combat in areas once German air superiority was not maintained.

In conclusion, one may conjecture or opine ad nauseum about the various aspects of an aircraft, but even before anything else is considered, the Number One issue that must be considered is -- can it bring its crew back?

 

[Bataan Jerry]

It's a bad idea to dive-bomb an armored warship in general, especially if you are the only airplane in the sky at the time, but many were successfully attacked by dive bombers.

Carrying the bomb(s) was not required per the question:

The article itself illustrates the Japanese's devastating Indian Ocean dive bombing attack on two experienced british cruisers, Dorsetshire and Cornwall, sending both to the bottom, along with the carrier Hermes.

 

[RCAFson]

In regards to the many interesting comments and opinions on dive bombers, I think the one critical feature that has not been mentioned is SURVIVABILITY. A plane has to give its crew a reasonable chance to reach it's target, attack and return, or every sortie potentially becomes a depressing suicide mission.

In that case the self-sealing tanks and armor of the SBD appeared to give it an advantage over the others, surely the Val. No better illustration can be given then at Midway, June 4th, when Hiryu's counterstrike of eighteen Vals took off in search of the American carriers after three of it's sister ships were in flames. The Vals were the most experienced of the Kudo Butai, and escorted by six Zeros. On the way, they encountered a flight of six SBDs straggling back and the Zero's impulsively left the Vals and tangled with the now emptied American dive bombers.

The Zeros destroyed no SBDs and in the process had two of their own so badly damaged they were forced to break off and return. The remaining four Zeros were too far behind and when Yorktown's CAP of eight Wildcats were vectored to the now unescorted Vals, the Wildcats savaged the flight, shooting down nine of the vulnerable Japanese dive bombers and scattering the rest. Admirably, the remaining determined Vals continued on and seven ultimately made it through to drop their bombs, but this might be considered as weight of numbers.

When considering six SBDs were attacked by six of the cream of the Japanese fighter force and suffered no losses while damaging two Zeros, and eight Wildcats destroyed nine of eighteen VALS during that early stage of the war, when experience and training were hugely on the side of the Rising Sun, the tough American dive bomber surely demonstrated it superiority in the Pacific.

In Europe, the Stuka was withdrawn from combat in areas once German air superiority was not maintained.

In conclusion, one may conjecture or opine ad nauseum about the various aspects of an aircraft, but even before anything else is considered, the Number One issue that must be considered is -- can it bring its crew back?

In fact, none of the 6 x SBDs that encountered the Zeros made it back to any USN carrier or base and all 6 aircraft and their aircrew were lost.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think the one critical feature that has not been mentioned is SURVIVABILITY.

Point #4 in my post above. Survivability has specifically been mentioned.

4. Had the the greatest survivability against AA and fighters?

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's a bad idea to dive-bomb an armored warship in general,

Outside of destroyers, isn't every warship armoured against vertical attack? HMS Hermes, for example had a 1" armoured deck, shown below as the floor to the hangar deck.

 

[GrauGeist]

Warships for the most part, had armored decks to protect themselves from an adversary's "plunging fire" long before the advent of dive-bombers.
I am not sure if the warships designed during the early-middle part of the war factored in the prospect of aerial bombs or not.

I am certain that they took note of what dive-bombers were capable of.
They certainly provided a considerable upgrade to AA defenses in any case.

 

[Shortround6]

Outside of destroyers, isn't every warship armoured against vertical attack? HMS Hermes, for example had a 1" armoured deck, shown below as the floor to the hangar deck.

Yes and no.

During WW I most ships larger than destroyers had armored decks. However the "protection" was often to keep shells from descending into machinery spaces and magazines.

This is the set up for protected cruiser (smaller than an armored cruiser)
Red is armor and grey are coal bunkers. If full the ship had a lot more protection than when empty A certain number of feet of coal was figured to be worth 1 in of armor. With the coming of oil fuel this protection went away. Most Navies were still building coal fired ships until the end of WW I.
Everybody shifted to oil fired (or at least mixed firing) during the 20s and just about everybody used oil firing in the 30s.

However the 20s and 30s were the era of treaties and size limits on ships. It took quite a while to work out what could and could not be done and the machinery was making constant improvements. Fuel was often not counted in the 'weight' of a ship (you still had to count the structure that acted as fuel tanks) and a more modern ship that could make the desired power with a power plant weighing hundreds of tons less than an old power plant had those hundreds of tons to put into armor.

Many of the 1920s heavy cruisers (8 in guns) were referred to as either "tin cans armed with hammers" or "eggshells armed with hammers."
The early British County class cruisers had armored boxes around the magazines, armored ammunition hoists 1 in on the gun houses and smatterings of armor in other places (steering gear) although there seem to be a lot of discrepancies in descriptions. Some of the pre-war descriptions may be a bit optimistic?

1in of armor is not very much protection at all unless the projectile is coming in at quite an angle. In fact against shells decks of around 1in in thickness were often referred to as "bursters". Causing the large shell to burst (detonate) right after penetrating the deck but before the shell could get deeper into the ship. When a 2nd deck was used it's purpose was to catch the shell fragments.

This is a very general view and exceptions can easily be found. A 1938-40 cruiser design will be quite different than a 1924 cruiser design.
For instance a Kent used about 1830 tons of machinery to make 80,000hp while a Fiji used only 1440tons to make 80,000hp.

 

[Shortround6]

Warships for the most part, had armored decks to protect themselves from an adversary's "plunging fire" long before the advent of dive-bombers.
I am not sure if the warships designed during the early-middle part of the war factored in the prospect of aerial bombs or not.

I am certain that they took note of what dive-bombers were capable of.
They certainly provided a considerable upgrade to AA defenses in any case.

Well, it wasn't until the mid to late 30s that very many ship borne aircraft could carry a 500lb bomb as a dive bomber.
This plane made it's first flight in 1933

didn't go into service until 1935.

for a battleship, it they had deck armor to stop a 13-16in shell coming down at a 40 degree angle or better then they probably could keep a 500lb bomb out of the protected areas of the ship.

Cruisers not so much.

 

[BlackSheep]

Great question. I've read that the D3A sank more allied warships than any other axis aircraft, and the SBD returned the 'favor' to the Japanese. You can calculate success many different ways however, such as total tonnage or number of ships sunk (or for that matter, the type of ship), which obviously makes it more complicated to compare the actual combat effectiveness of the aircraft in question. The publication Naval Aviation Combat Statistics - World War II provides the number and total tonnage of various Japanese warships/merchant ships which were sunk either in whole or in part by US Naval aviation during the war, but unfortunately does not specify the type of aircraft involved in their ultimate destruction. According to the report there were 492 Japanese vessels sunk solely by both land and carrier-based aircraft, which equated to 2,174,501 tons of shipping lost. A further 71 ships or 360,763 tons were sunk in combination with "other forces" (such as surface ships, submarines, and other allied aircraft).

The Dauntless' biggest claim to fame came during the Battle of Midway, when four Japanese carriers (Shoho, Soryu, Kaga, Akagi, and Hiryu) were sent to the bottom by its bombs.

Discounting the Pearl Harbor attack (where B5N torpedo bombers were used as well), the Aichi D3A is known to have singularly sunk the following allied warships:

• USS Peary, American destroyer, 19 February 1942 – Australia
• USS Pope, American destroyer, 1 March 1942 – Java Sea
• USS Edsall, American destroyer, 1 March 1942- Indian Ocean
• USS Pecos, American oiler, 1 March 1942- Indian Ocean
• HMS Cornwall, British heavy cruiser, 5 April 1942 – Indian Ocean
• HMS Dorsetshire, British heavy cruiser, 5 April 1942 – Indian Ocean
• HMS Hector, British armed merchant cruiser, 5 April 1942 – Indian Ocean
• HMS Tenedos, British destroyer, 5 April 1942 – Indian Ocean
• HMS Hermes, British aircraft carrier, 9 April 1942 – Indian Ocean
• HMAS Vampire, Australian destroyer, 9 April 1942 – Indian Ocean
• USS Sims, American destroyer, 7 May 1942 – Pacific Ocean
• USS De Haven, American destroyer, 1 February 1943 – Pacific Ocean (Ironbottom Sound)
• USS Aaron Ward, American destroyer, 7 April 1943 – Pacific Ocean (Ironbottom Sound)
• USS Brownson, American destroyer, 26 December 1943 – Pacific Ocean
• USS Abner Read, American destroyer, sunk by kamikaze 1 November 1944 – Pacific Ocean
• USS William D. Porter, American destroyer, sunk by kamikaze 10 June 1945 – Japan (Okinawa)

(Source: Aichi D3A - Wikipedia )

Calculating the combined tonnage of these ships for statistical purposes shouldn't be too difficult a task I believe.

Besides the destruction of shipping, the SBDs were also heavily involved in softening up enemy land installations and providing close air-support during the invasion of key Japanese strongholds throughout the pacific, something which the D3A had a more limited role in, being that the Japanese were primarily fighting in the defensive role by this stage of the war. The Dauntless' successes in these endeavors could certainly give it a statistical edge over it's Japanese counterpart if these numbers could be quantified in a usable way. Both aircraft have a reputation for nimbleness and because of this were somewhat effective in defensive combat with enemy fighters.

On the other hand, the JU 87 operated in many target-rich environments and destroyed a sizable number of ships, tanks, artillery, infantry personnel, ect., in its own right. If we use those metrics it could very well be considered just as or even more successful than the other two aircraft, when attempting to determine the overall effectiveness of destroying the war-fighting capability of the enemy in question. But it had a tough time defending itself against enemy fighters and losses were extremely heavy at times.

As you can see there's definitely lots to debate here....

As far as being effective to a degree against other planes, weren't SBDs given CAP duty over the carriers, especially against the threat of torpedo bombers?