"Official Movie Site?" Lol. Talk about "artistic license," this looks more like a cartoon than a movie.
Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?
- Thread starter fliger747
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Virtual "electronic warfare". Calculated to continue the mythologies that have inhibited reality around every war ever since the "big one".
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
It does look a bit cartoonish judging from the trailer. However, it has SBDs in it and is about Midway so it can't be all bad.......i hope.
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
- 753
- May 1, 2016
Hollywood has to add love and drama to even the most exciting topics like Midway, look at the 1976 movie. A movie like the Longest Day would never make it today.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
"Pearl Harbor" had P-40s in it and that movie was a complete dumpster fire.
The SB2C-1 was a bit of a nightmare, but to be fair, the -3 and later variants were much improved. When the perforated flap was introduced in the -4 (IIRC) it was definitely superior to the SBD in most every way and it had folding wings. When a quick torpedo bomber conversion kit was introduced, there were even calls to use the SB2C-4/5 as combined torpedo/divebombers and remove the TBF from fleet carriers.
The SB2C-3/4/5 could carry double the bomb load of an SBD to a greater range.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Unfortunately I have to agree. Watching Pearl Harbor" was probably the biggest cinematic disappointment I can think of.
Shortround6
Major General
That may require some careful consideration. There is no doubt that the SB2C could carry a heavier payload further (and much faster) but double the payload requires a bit of finagling.
The Helldiver could carry one large bomb in the bomb bay. Like 1000lbs or above. The Dauntless could carry a 1000lb bomb under fuselage, Both (in the later versions of the SBD) were rated to carry a 1600lb AP bomb and the Helldiver was rated to carry a 2000lb while the Dauntless was not. The Helldiver could carry two 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and the Dauntless had to go to wing racks to carry more than one bomb.
The Dauntless was rated at up to 325lbs under each wing while the SB2C kept changing, During the war it was pretty much up to 500lbs under each wing, post war the SB2C-5 was rated at 1000lbs under each wing. However there is some evidence that only 2 squadrons of SB2C-5s saw combat during the war (in late July or Aug of 1945) so only the SB2C-3/4 should be counted.
The SBD was also constantly evolving and an SBD-6 with the 1300/1350hp engine was operated somewhat heavier than an SBD-3 and had a different bomb load/radius capability.
Once again, there is no doubt that the SB2C could carry a bigger load further and faster.
From a CV-6 action report:
AFAIK, no carrier based SBD ever carried more than 1000lbs of bombs because of the need to delete fuel to carry a heavier load.
Shortround6
Major General
Thank you for the information.
Some of the later SPDs were allowed higher gross weights than the early ones but they still were not going to carry full fuel with a 1600lb or a 1000lb bomd plus wing bombs.
Interestingly an SPD-5 and an SB2C-2 needed about the same take-off run carrying a 1000lb and full fuel for either plane (260 gallons for the SPD-5 and 330 gallons for the SB2C-2)
Some of the later SPDs were allowed higher gross weights than the early ones but they still were not going to carry full fuel with a 1600lb or a 1000lb bomd plus wing bombs.
Interestingly an SPD-5 and an SB2C-2 needed about the same take-off run carrying a 1000lb and full fuel for either plane (260 gallons for the SPD-5 and 330 gallons for the SB2C-2)
That was because all they needed was one. Let's remember the primary purpose for which these machines were built. One shot, that's it. Get it on the button, then get out. That was why they trained so hard to make that one shot count. These pilots were hitting 4 for 5 and 5 for 5 by the time they were qualified in the SBD-3s and 5s. Concededly these were ideal situations, and the tactical compliment didn't always prepare them for the real thing. No amount of tactical training can. But the point is, they weren't looking to come back and drop more bombs. All they needed was one, and get it on the mark. That was their curriculum, or primary one. Everything else was secondary to that.
Last edited:
The SB2C-3/4/5 would drop both it's thousand lb bombs at the same time or alternately a single 2000lb bomb or a single 1600lb bomb. Carrier based SBDs were limited by aircraft TO characteristics and fuel load to 1000lb and then only when ranged aft. Forward ranged SBDs were often limited to 500lb bomb loads. Additionally SB2C-3/4/5 (these variants had upgraded engines with 1900hp at TO) could carry DTs for even more range. It seems pretty certain that the SB2C-3/4/5 was considerably superior to the SBD, which is why the SBD was removed from carrier service with the arrival of the SB2C-3.
However even with the perforated flaps, the SBC2 was considerably heavier than the design weight and with a full bomb load gained speed during the dive unlike the SBD, and this meant that the SB2C used a stepped dive, with the final dive run beginning at 12K ft, IIRC.
The lesson written in blood from WWII to Iraq/Afghanistan: Strike and skedaddle. Repeat attack runs are suicidal.
Cheers,
Wes
This is a fair synopsis of how these two machines rate, I agree completely with it. And the SBDs needed more deck to get off with the higher weights. But, I'll say, and take this FWIW, I never heard any SBD pilot who wasn't enamored with these. Conjecturally, the right balance was struck, for the job it was built to do. That is to say, the right trade-offs, the right everything. At 1000#, that was pushing things a little. Those aircraft were coming off the bow, many times, even, dipping. But, overall, throughout the variants, their characteristics were kept in balance. Not being a technical expert, of course, I don't have your diction, but that would be my way of describing it. These were never pretended to be anything other than what they were. And throughout all their variants, and the various technical innovations adopted, I'd argue that aspect held right up.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Interesting...do you have a citation for that?
The SBD-3 was limited to 1,200 max. bombload (1,000 centerline and 100 lb. under each wing) but the SBD-5 had a max. of 2,250 bombload (1,600 centerline and 325 lb. under each wing).
This is from Lexington's Action Report for Coral Sea:
and it indicates the limitations of the SBD-3 in carrying even a 1000lb load, and this off the Lexington with the longest flight deck in the USN. As it turned out they could have carried full fuel because there was sufficient wind, but when planning a strike they always had to anticipate minimum likely wind conditions and plan accordingly. At Midway there was insufficient wind and both Hornet and Enterprise has to launch SBD strikes where the forward aircraft carried 500lb bombs:
Hornet:
However Lundstrom states:
but regardless, the light wind prevailing at Midway forced a reduction in SBD-3 bomb loads.
Shortround6
Major General
There seems to be something strange in the Performance Data sheets for the SBD as the SBD-3 at 10,400lbs (full fuel 1000lb bomb) is listed at a take-off distance (25kt wind) of 580ft.
The SPD-5 is listed at 10,403lbs (full fuel 1000lb bomb) is listed at a take-off distance (25kt wind) of 570ft. despite having a 1200hp engine instead of a 1000hp engine.
The SPD-6 is listed at 10,608 lbs (with 24 more gallons of fuel 1000lb bomb) is listed at a take-off distance (25kt wind) of 534ft. with it's 1350hp engine. It is also listed as taking off in 481ft with two drop tanks and no bombs at a weight of 10,382lbs.
This is part of the problem with blanket statements about the SBD there were about 1360 SBD-3s& 4s built which fought the early part of the war. There were 2965 SBD-5s with the 1200hp engine which fought the bulk of the Pacific war from 1943 on with about 450 SPD-6 showing up in 1944. production stopped in the summer of 1944.
According the Performance Data sheets even the SPD-1 was up-rated to include the 1600lb bomb (which was first delivered to the fleet about a year and half after the SPD-1 was) and the SBD-1 if any were left in anything but a training unit in 1942 would have had to have been upgraded with new fuel tanks and armor. The planes with the 1000hp engines should be looked at with a high degree of suspicion when it comes to the higher bomb loads. The SPD-3 sheet shows the plane being reduced to 158 gallons of fuel to carry the 1600lb alone at 10,400lbs and the manual shows a high weight of 9019lbs with a 1000lb and 100 gallons of fuel.
At some point they increased the max gross weight but without increasing the power of the engine how useful that increase really was is subject to question.
With a 500lb bomb and 240 gallons of fuel the weight would have been around 9370lbs.
The SPD-5 is listed at 10,403lbs (full fuel 1000lb bomb) is listed at a take-off distance (25kt wind) of 570ft. despite having a 1200hp engine instead of a 1000hp engine.
The SPD-6 is listed at 10,608 lbs (with 24 more gallons of fuel 1000lb bomb) is listed at a take-off distance (25kt wind) of 534ft. with it's 1350hp engine. It is also listed as taking off in 481ft with two drop tanks and no bombs at a weight of 10,382lbs.
This is part of the problem with blanket statements about the SBD there were about 1360 SBD-3s& 4s built which fought the early part of the war. There were 2965 SBD-5s with the 1200hp engine which fought the bulk of the Pacific war from 1943 on with about 450 SPD-6 showing up in 1944. production stopped in the summer of 1944.
According the Performance Data sheets even the SPD-1 was up-rated to include the 1600lb bomb (which was first delivered to the fleet about a year and half after the SPD-1 was) and the SBD-1 if any were left in anything but a training unit in 1942 would have had to have been upgraded with new fuel tanks and armor. The planes with the 1000hp engines should be looked at with a high degree of suspicion when it comes to the higher bomb loads. The SPD-3 sheet shows the plane being reduced to 158 gallons of fuel to carry the 1600lb alone at 10,400lbs and the manual shows a high weight of 9019lbs with a 1000lb and 100 gallons of fuel.
At some point they increased the max gross weight but without increasing the power of the engine how useful that increase really was is subject to question.
With a 500lb bomb and 240 gallons of fuel the weight would have been around 9370lbs.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Imho, the SBD vs Helldiver comparison is a classic case of a plane with better performance stats vs one with better and I would argue even more important caracteristics that don't show up in performance stats like good handling characteristics and steadiness in a dive( kind of important for a dive bomber).
Yes I know some of these issues were somewhat improved on later models of the
SB2c but as best as I can tell from what I've read the Dauntless still held a sizable edge in the handling characteristics and steadiness in a dive department as I've always read praise of the Dauntless by it's pilots regarding these things but never by a Helldiver pilot regardless of whether it was an early or late model.
Yes I know some of these issues were somewhat improved on later models of the
SB2c but as best as I can tell from what I've read the Dauntless still held a sizable edge in the handling characteristics and steadiness in a dive department as I've always read praise of the Dauntless by it's pilots regarding these things but never by a Helldiver pilot regardless of whether it was an early or late model.
As I've argued in the past some of the pre and early war published data on USN aircraft is suspect, being overstated, and doesn't match the observed performance of the aircraft. At some point (1943?) the data was being assessed more realistically before being published.
Nice. Thanks for providing. FWIW, the SBD-3s and 5s had no problem carrying a 1000# bomb, and that's just a fact, and I've the bombing practice logs on both those as source for that.
