Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The SBD, like the Hellcat, was a "sweet spot" airplane, the result of mastery of the innumerable compromises that go into any design to produce an honest, vice-free airplane that performs to the limit of its available power, while remaining docile and predictable in its handling. Ed ("simplicate and add lightness") Heinneman was renowned for the handling qualities and performance of his designs. In the aeroNAUTICAL world, that's a big step towards a low loss rate. Add to that a stable dive, precision controllability, and two acres worth of dive brakes, and you've got a bird that gets the job done first time, and saves the attrition of re-attack.Surprisingly the loss rate amongst SBD crews was the lowest of any USN Aircraft.
B-25s skip bombing were pretty good.SBD was about the only American bomber that could reliably hit a ship size target. That makes it look great compared to everything else we flew.
Some honor must go to another brilliant designer, Jack Northrop, whose BT-2 was the core of the SBD.The SBD, like the Hellcat, was a "sweet spot" airplane, the result of mastery of the innumerable compromises that go into any design to produce an honest, vice-free airplane that performs to the limit of its available power, while remaining docile and predictable in its handling. Ed ("simplicate and add lightness") Heinneman was renowned for the handling qualities and performance of his designs. In the aeroNAUTICAL world, that's a big step towards a low loss rate. Add to that a stable dive, precision controllability, and two acres worth of dive brakes, and you've got a bird that gets the job done first time, and saves the attrition of re-attack.
Cheers,
Wes
And who was one of Ed Heinneman's mentors.Some honor must go to another brilliant designer, Jack Northrop, whose BT-2 was the core of the SBD.
Later on, and after much innovation outside the box. And helped by another "sweet spot" airframe.B-25s skip bombing were pretty good.
I don't know if you can write off the SBDs outstanding record as simply being in the right place at the right time. Other types, the Devistator for example, were in the same places at the same times and unfortunately didn't fair so well.The SBD was in the right place at the right time. It actually was not judged as being very effective, although the crews clearly were excellent. At both Coral Sea and Midway the US concluded it was not dropping big enough bombs. The SB2C was supposed to fix that, and eventually it did, but it took a while before it was available and even longer before it was effective.
The TBF and TBM ended up being used as bombers more than they did torpedo planes. They could carry a lot more than the SBD.
Funny story from just after the Marianas Turkey Shoot. The USN launched a strike on the IJN fleet and on return the aircraft were desperately short of fuel and landing on any carrier they could find. An SBD landed on one of the newer carriers that had not been equipped with the airplane. The pilot was told to "Taxi forward and fold your wings." He replied that the wings on the SBD did not fold and the response was, "Well, fold them anyway!"
I don't know if you can write off the SBDs outstanding record as simply being in the right place at the right time. Other types, the Devistator for example, were in the same places at the same times and unfortunately didn't fair so well.
I absolutely agree that circumstances played a huge part in the success at Midway. As they do in most battles now that I think about it but my point was that the SBD had a long consistent record of success from the beginning to the end of the war. At some point you have to conclude there is a good design and not just good fortune.There was more to the Dauntless than just being in the right place at the right time but that is the secret to it's success at Midway.
Just being in the same battle on the same day doesn't count as being in the same place at the same time.
If Dauntlesses had taken the place of Devastators in the early attacks would they have fared much better? Same pilots with the same training, no stories of how well Swede Vejtasa did at coral sea. (he had been flying since July of 1939).
If Devastators had found themselves over the Japanese carriers at the same time/location as the Dauntlesses did (and with the same crews) would they have done much worse? (OK US Devastators didn't have dive brakes or at least very good ones, French ones did though)
There isn't any question the Dauntless was the better plane but circumstances often have at least something to do with legends.
The SBD was manned by pilots trained in old procedure at the start of the war, this changed quickly in the months following December 1941.A very good design for its period.
Performance was good enough.
Manned by the "First Team" of very well trained Naval Aviators in 1942.
The right airplane, at the right time, with the right pilots.
The SBD was rugged and just that good....and it helps to be in the right place at
the right time.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQkKmMpeTiAhUCi6wKHSM2CVIQwqsBMAF6BAgJEAQ&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw6a9eA-WJo&usg=AOvVaw1ot-oKYKZ5aV1nk8eDeyph