Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?

F

fliger747

Senior Airman
332
181
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Winkle Brown was always entertaining to read, he would give his impression on first seeing a given aircraft. I don't always agree with his sense of beauty, but interesting. He describes seeing the SBD as being a decidedly pre war looking aircraft, this plane was the scourge of the Pacific?
 
If the SBD can be described as 'a decidedly pre war looking aircraft ', then the Stuka and Val certainly belong to ww1? What to say about Swordfish and Albacore?

Jokes aside - SBD didn't operated in vacuum. Apart from the 1st half of 1942, it usually enjoyed good support by Allied/friendly fighters, maintenance was ranged between decent and excellent, it operated against a numerically inferior enemy, and, last but not least, it was excellent in doing what was designed to do - accurate dive bombing. It's weapon (= bombs) worked as good as possible, opposite to the US torpedoes in the 1st 20 months of the war. US pilots were well trained, some with good pre-war experience, too.
It also carried a sized bomb-load, engines and fuel got better, enemy was effectively defeated by 1944, and Japanese anti-aircraft suite was sorely lacking against modern and numerical opposition. US aircraft also carried radar as the times went by, again a nod for SBD in this case.
Add (not just) the Midway success, and it all works in SBD's favor.
 
Surprisingly the loss rate amongst SBD crews was the lowest of any USN Aircraft. They were in desperation in several early actions sent out as ersatz fighters to go after the torpedo planes. WWII was the rather short heyday of the dive bomber.
 
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!"
 
fliger747 said:
Surprisingly the loss rate amongst SBD crews was the lowest of any USN Aircraft.
Click to expand...
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
 
XBe02Drvr said:
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
Click to expand...
Some honor must go to another brilliant designer, Jack Northrop, whose BT-2 was the core of the SBD.
 
MIflyer said:
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!"
Click to expand...
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.
It had an extremely low loss rate. I think I saw one of the other posters say the lowest of USN types. That doesn't seem like something that could be the result of luck i.e. being in the right place at the right time. Especially since it saw front line service form the first day of US involvement in the war to the end.
It also was the only bomber of the war with a positive kill ratio( 1.3 to1 if memory serves) again doesn't sound like something that would stem from luck. At least not on a long consistant basis.
 
michael rauls said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Shortround6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Also I do think had the Devistators and SBDs circumstances been switched at Midway that the Dauntless would have faired better, again because they had a long consistent record of doing so. How much better I don't know. That was a tuff spot to be in but judging from there record I don't think it's going out on a limb to say at least somewhat better.
 
The SBD
pinehilljoe said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
The first encounter between the SBD and the IJN was with VS-6 and VB-6 on 7 December 1941 and they did not fare well, friendly fire excluded.
 
I think it's also the company it keeps as the Devastator and Helldiver are considered bad and so by default the Dauntless is good. But Dauntless was also used as a reserve fighter so that's quite the plus for its handling and performance.

Plus being a naval fighter that didn't want to kill you on landing and take off must have been very special.

The phrase x factor is overused and there is another thread about what non spec sheet aspects make an aircraft good. The Dauntless is the prime example of this. The Swordfish is another.

Most aircraft losses in ww2 were not combat related so an easy to fly, safe friend that doesn't want to kill you will always get high scores.
 
The TBD's and the few F4F's absorbed essentially all the Zeros that were defending the IJN fleet at Midway, and in fact the only attacks on SBDs appeared to have occurred on their way home. If the Zeros had been up at altitude on patrol before the SBD's push over things would have not have gone nearly so well. On the other hand, if the TBD's had arrived unannounced with little or no fighter interception they still would not have done well because their torpedoes were built by Federal Govt feathermerchants more interested in preserving their jobs than in producing a decent weapon. The TBD was not that much older than the SBD but it was the first monoplane all metal carrier aircraft the USN adopted and the small difference in time was a period of very rapid advancement, roughly equivalent to the difference between a P-40 and a P-51.

If the USN had been equipped with, say, A-17's, at Midway or Coral Sea I don't think it would have made much, if any, difference.

Medal of Honor winner Maj Howard had flown SBDs before he went to the AVG and thought that trying to use SBDs for carrier defense was incredibly stupid. At Coral Sea most of the SBD's launched to try to intercept incoming Kates just flew like a dive bomber and achieved nothing. The very few that flew like a fighter did much better - and the rear gunner proved to be of very little value as a result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

NTGray
Was the Dam Busters raid a success?
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
8K
z42
Z
M
why is the A6M Zero's lack of armor emphasized so heavily
9 10 11
Replies
208
Views
20K
PAT303
P
A
Why did British aircraft production stagnate a bit during the war?
2
Replies
25
Views
7K
nuuumannn
nuuumannn
bauple58
Why was it?
2
Replies
27
Views
8K
nuuumannn
nuuumannn
O
Why were P-36s and Mohawks altitude-limited?
Replies
4
Views
1K
cammerjeff
cammerjeff
Back