Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?

Reluctant Poster · Jun 23, 2019

glennasher said:
From what I've read, the tallboys didn't really do any more damage to the Tirpitz, it was already sunk, and sitting on the floor of the fjord with it's decks still above water. It was already "done" and the 617th just added to the misery of the sailors aboard. It literally couldn't go anywhere at all.
I'll have to dig up the book I got that from, but that's what the author claimed.

The Tirpitz had sailed from Altenfjord to Tromsø a month before so it most definitely had NOT been sunk. It had how ever been badly damaged by a tallboy through the bow on a previous raid such that it had been restricted to 10 knots. The Germans considered it wasn't worth restoring to full combat capability and it would not have sortied again.
The US didn't win the war all by itself, give credit where it's due

fubar57 · Jun 23, 2019

Loss of Battleship Tirpitz
Battleship Tirpitz

GrauGeist · Jun 23, 2019

Reluctant Poster said:
The US didn't win the war all by itself, give credit where it's due

At what point in this thread, has it even been mentioned that the U.S. did??

michael rauls · Jun 23, 2019

Let me take the thread in a different direction and address why was the SBD so effective.. An interesting question as it's performance stats don't show anything particularly impressive.
I'm not a pilot so only an educated guess on my part(or at least I like to think so........about the educated part that is), but it seems to me that those always desirable docile handling characteristics and especially sturdy build must be major factors in the success both in dive bombing and it's realative success( for a dive bomber) in air to air.
Mix in some good luck at critical points in a couple critical battles and you've got yourself a winner.

Schweik · Jun 23, 2019

GrauGeist said:
During Operation Torch, the Ranger launched nearly 500 sorties in a three day period and if memory serves right, she laid about 10 miles off the African coast during most of the operations, so again, short distances provided for a much shorter mission cycle.

One of the big and I think little known actions by the US (and this included the Ranger) was against the Vichy French airforce in Morocco. It was a short but quite brutal fight, the French were using D.520s and Hawk 75s, the USN had SBD's and F4Fs. Per MAW IV the US Navy took a lot of casualties.

The Vichy French also tangled with Royal Navy aircraft, also quite intense. For example on 8 Nov 1942 the RN made the following claims:

Sea Hurricanes from 800 Sqn claimed 5 x D.520s
Seafire from 807 Sqn claimed 2 x D520 and 1 damaged
Albacores from 822 Sqn claimed 1 x D520 and 2 damaged
Wildcat IV claimed a Boston

Losses were

5 x Albacores, 2 x Hurricanes, 3 x Sea Hurricanes, 1 x Seafire lost to combat with D.520s and 2 to accidents

French losses were

1 x DB 7, 6 x D.520s shot down and 2 crash landed

Also on 8 Nov 1942 in another area (near Cassablanca) the US Ranger, and the CVE's Sangamon, Suwanee and Santee got into combat with the Vichy:

F4F-4's claimed 12 x D.520s or Hawk 75s, and 1 Martin 167 and an Le045
SBD03's claimed two fighters damaged

losses were:

Ranger

1 x F4F shot down, 5 x crash landed and POW, 3 x ditched and rescued (9 total)

2 x SBD lost to enemy action and 1 to an accidentr

Sangamon and Suwanee

2 x F4F, 1 damaged and jetissoned, 1 x SBD, 1 x TBF crashed on takeoff

Santee

1 X F4F shot down, 5 x F4F ditched or landed on French / Morroccan soil and POW, 2 x TBF crashed on takeoff

French losses were

9 x Hawk 75, 4 x Martin 167, 1 x D.520 (5 more listed as 'damaged in combat'), 1 X Potez 63, and a bunch damaged on the ground

As for the dual controls, IIRC in The Battle for Hell's Island there was an incident where an SBD gunner had to use the backseat control to fly when the pilot was killed or wounded. I can't remember if he actually landed it or ditched or what.

Schweik · Jun 23, 2019

Shortround6 said:
They often required "tuning" as in the operator turned a dial connected to a potentiometer or variable coil in order to get the right frequency. Depending on the weather or atmospheric conditions the radios tended to drift in Frequency. Also for the same "power" a radio using code transmission had around 3 times the range of a radio using voice transmission.
Bf 110s used the same radio as the He 111 and other the german bombers while the 109 used a rather short ranged radio.

In his autobiography James Edwards mentioned the difference between the VHF radios used by the RAF and the UHF radios used by the Americans. He said the latter had buttons preset to certain frequencies which sounds a bit like the old buttons on a car radio, whereas the VHF radios had dials that required frequent fiddling to stay on the squadron band as they flew around. He specifically said he thought one of his guys died because he was fiddling with his radio when bounced and didn't hear the warnings to break.

Schweik · Jun 23, 2019

It's interesting to note that the Ranger etc. seemed to lose relatively few SBD's to air combat.

Greg Boeser · Jun 23, 2019

Well, only the Ranger had SBDs. The CVE air groups consisted of F4Fs and TBFs.

GrauGeist · Jun 23, 2019

Schweik said:
It's interesting to note that the Ranger etc. seemed to lose relatively few SBD's to air combat.

The Ranger's SBDs were well protected by their F4Fs in addition to the RAF and USAAF fighters that participated in many of the missions during Operation Torch.

Schweik · Jun 23, 2019

What happened to the Albacores?

Schweik · Jun 23, 2019

It's interesting that they didn't put SBD's on the CVE's too, I'd forgotten about that. I guess the TBF's were more versatile? Greater range? and by then the torpedoes were more likely to work properly.

Shortround6 · Jun 23, 2019

You also have the problem that the wing won't fold. Limits the deck park or makes using the elevator a pain in the butt if it is even possible. I have not looked up the elevator dimensions and could well be wrong on that.

Kevin J · Jun 23, 2019

Schweik said:
What happened to the Albacores?

Applecores.

GrauGeist · Jun 23, 2019

Shortround6 said:
You also have the problem that the wing won't fold. Limits the deck park or makes using the elevator a pain in the butt if it is even possible. I have not looked up the elevator dimensions and could well be wrong on that.

The CVEs didn't have enough room for the fixed wing SBD. I believe the only CVE that operated the SBD (and only for a short time) was the USS Long Island (AVG-1/CVE-1)...otherwise, the early CVEs starting with the USS Bogue (CVE-9) typically carried a compliment of 16 FM-2 fighters and 12 TBM bombers.
However, some of the modified CVEs which were converted from tankers and freighters, like the USS Santee (CVE-29), did operate some SBDs because they were larger - but I beleive that there were only four of these types.

Shortround6 · Jun 23, 2019

"U.S. Aircraft Carriers" by Norman Friedman
Independence class carriers.
2 elevators, 42ft X 44 ft

Long Island
1 elevator, 34 ft X 38 ft ( in 1943 as training carrier)

USS Card CV 11 (Bogue class)
2 elevators, one 41ft 3in x 33ft 3in forward and one 33ft 3in X 41ft 3in aft

USS Sangamon(CVE 26)
2 elevators, 34ft 1in X 42 ft 1 in

USS Liscombe Bay (CVE 56)
2 elevators, forward 41ft 10 3/4in x 33 ft 9 1/2 in, Aft 37ft 10 3/4in x 41ft 9 1/2 in

USS Commencement Bay (CVE 105)
2 elevators, 44 ft X 42 ft.

For comparison the USS Essex (CV 9)
2 elevators, 48 ft 3 in X 44 ft 3in
plus one deck edge, 60ft x 34 ft, 18,000lb capacity.

I have no idea what could or could not be done by putting an aircraft on an elevator kitty corner/cater corner.

dimensions of the SBD again

Length: 33 ft 1.25 in (10.0902 m)
Wingspan: 41 ft 6.375 in (12.65873 m)

and 32ft 6 in long with the the tail wheel on the ground/deck.

It certainly looks like it could be done but on some of those ships it requires pretty exact parking of the plane on the elevator.

Greg Boeser · Jun 23, 2019

Schweik said:
It's interesting that they didn't put SBD's on the CVE's too, I'd forgotten about that. I guess the TBF's were more versatile? Greater range? and by then the torpedoes were more likely to work properly.

TBFs/TBMs could carry depth charges.

XBe02Drvr · Jun 23, 2019

Schweik said:
In his autobiography James Edwards mentioned the difference between the VHF radios used by the RAF and the UHF radios used by the Americans. He said the latter had buttons preset to certain frequencies which sounds a bit like the old buttons on a car radio, whereas the VHF radios had dials that required frequent fiddling

Those were the short range radios used for air to air communications. The long range radios carried by scout and patrol aircraft operated at much lower frequencies such as the HF band and were mostly CW (Carrier Wave) units that were not voice capable.
Cheers,
Wes

Shortround6 · Jun 23, 2019

TBFs/TBMs could carry depth charges.

The SBDs could too, just not as many, especially the early SBDs.

Lets remember that we are talking about at least 3 SBDs and perhaps 4 or more?

And in my opinion they don't quite follow the official model breakdown.
The SBD-1,2 and 3 had a 1000hp engine (for take-off) the early ones didn't have armor or self sealing tanks but that was soon changed and the older ones refitted.

We all (or most of us) know that the SBD-5 had a 1200hp engine (T-O) and a much increased bomb load and the SBD-6 had a 1350hp engine (T-O).

however there are a number odd Performance Data sheets here Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive

that show the SBD-1,2,3 with higher gross weights than the pilot's manual gives and a max load of a 1600lb on the center line, this bomb did not exist when the SBD-1,2,3 was first built and only came into existence (production wise?) during the SBD3/4 production run.

It may be that the capabilities of the early SBDs as far as bombs and fuel goes was upgraded at times during 1942 by allowing higher than original gross weights. I could be wrong on this.
However the big change would be that the planes could operate at greater ranges, the 1600lb AP being a rather rare and specialized weapon, The Enterprise in Oct 1943 carrying twice as many torpedoes as 1600lb AP bombs, 18 bombs vs 36 torpedoes. There were over 1100 thousand pound bombs of different types and 576 500lb bombs in the Magazines so the chances of arming an SBD with the 1600lb bomb to hit those high weight numbers was pretty slim.

Schweik · Jun 23, 2019

GrauGeist said:
The CVEs didn't have enough room for the fixed wing SBD. I believe the only CVE that operated the SBD (and only for a short time) was the USS Long Island (AVG-1/CVE-1)...otherwise, the early CVEs starting with the USS Bogue (CVE-9) typically carried a compliment of 16 FM-2 fighters and 12 TBM bombers.
However, some of the modified CVEs which were converted from tankers and freighters, like the USS Santee (CVE-29), did operate some SBDs because they were larger - but I beleive that there were only for of these types.

Oh crap I should have thought of that. Wings didn't fold. I think that's it.

Schweik · Jun 23, 2019

Greg Boeser said:
TBFs/TBMs could carry depth charges.

One of the main jobs done by SBD's in the early war was ASW patrol and strike missions, for whatever reason.

Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?

Tech Sergeant

General

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Banned

2nd Lieutenant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Banned

Banned

Major General

Banned

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major General

2nd Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Major General

Banned

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads