GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Which carriers did the Stuka operate from?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Which carriers did the Stuka operate from?Which carrier should the Skua have sunk but didn't?
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 true that the Skua downed a number of Luftwaffe aircraft, but how many were Skua versus Bf109 or Fw190 confrontations?
Which carrier should the Skua have sunk but didn't?
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.Which carriers did the Stuka operate from?
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.Which carrier should the Skua have sunk but didn't?
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
Not while carrying bombs
Mission kill.
...
Which dive-bomber could defend itself against BF109s and FW190s?
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:
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?
Point #4 in my post above. Survivability has specifically been mentioned.I think the one critical feature that has not been mentioned is SURVIVABILITY.
4. Had the the greatest survivability against AA and fighters?
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.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.
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.
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:
(Source: Aichi D3A - Wikipedia )
- 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)
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....