"Official Movie Site?" Lol. Talk about "artistic license," this looks more like a cartoon than a movie.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"Official Movie Site?" Lol. Talk about "artistic license," this looks more like a cartoon than a movie.I just saw the trailer for the new movie Midway, looks like tons of CGI footage of SBDs and a story line with a lot of Hollywood artistic license.
Midway – Official Movie Site
Virtual "electronic warfare". Calculated to continue the mythologies that have inhibited reality around every war ever since the "big one"."Official Movie Site?" Lol. Talk about "artistic license," this looks more like a cartoon than a movie.
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.
"Pearl Harbor" had P-40s in it and that movie was a complete dumpster fire.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.
Yikes ... scary. Yeah there were some major design flaws with those things which, reminiscent of some comments Shortround6 made upthread, apparently came down to the size of the elevator on the carrier. The aircraft they designed was really too big for that elevator (and that itself was probably a mistake because bigger usually means slower). They tried to cram it all into that small square and had to shorten the airframe which was a source of a lot of the stability and handling problems. The rest was probably due to the engine. You can tell just looking at it, the backseater doesn't have enough room to train his guns... and his position takes a very awkward chunk out of the whole back fuselage which can't be good for aerodynamics. And the tail looks way oversized in a futile attempt to compensate. Giant tail fins are a sign of design trouble on an airplane IMO.
View attachment 542930
Almost a 50' wingspan seems a bit too much for a single-engined carrier aircraft to me. And while it was faster, the Helldiver really didn't offer much of an improvement over the much smaller and nicer flying SBD in terms of combat effectiveness. It had inferior range and a much higher accident rate, lower reliability / availability rate and I doubt any improvement in bombing accuracy. I think the thing was just too big from the get-go and it went downhill from there.
Unfortunately I have to agree. Watching Pearl Harbor" was probably the biggest cinematic disappointment I can think of."Pearl Harbor" had P-40s in it and that movie was a complete dumpster fire.
The SB2C-3/4/5 could carry double the bomb load of an SBD to a greater range.
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.
On both the 24th and 25th, the SB2Cs carried two 1000# bombs, either two SAP or an AP and SAP. The double load was found feasible on this ship while experimenting with a substitute for 1000# SAP trunion bands. While at MANUS, during our last re-arming, the ship was only able to obtain about 30 such bands. A 500# GP trunion band was tried on a 1000# SAP bomb by using ordinary 3/8" bolts, 5" long. The bolt length was necessary to permit pulling the band together. This rig resulted in a slight displacement of the trunions that was not sufficient, however, to affect accuracy. With these bands it was recognized that the normal bomb bay arrangement for two 500# GP bombs could be used and, therefore, two 1000# SAP bombs could easily be carried. Shortly after this discovery, word was received of a similar effect accomplished by cutting off the long trunions on the 1000# SAP band.
The mixed load of AP and SAP bombs apparently was effective against combatant ship targets.
Action Report: 22-31 October 1944 (Serial 0056)
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.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.
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 idea 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.
One shot, that's it. Get it on the button, then get out.
The lesson written in blood from WWII to Iraq/Afghanistan: Strike and skedaddle. Repeat attack runs are suicidal.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.
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.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.
Interesting...do you have a citation for that?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.
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).
At this time (pilots were manning planes) Lieutenant Commander HAMILT0N called my attention to the fact that his planes had only 220 gallons of gasoline and said that he would like to have 250 gallons (full). I told him that we were trying to get both groups off as nearly together as possible and there was no time to give him any additional gasoline. Since the planes carried 1000 pound bombs, a full fuel tank required extra wind for the overload condition. There was sufficient surface wind that morning and we could have launched in this heavy condition. I forgot that the planes were gassed to 220 gallons until it was too late to fill them. However, 220 gallons was more than enough fuel to permit them to travel the distances involved.
Battle of the Coral Sea: U.S.S. Lexington--Action Report
0906 Commenced launching attack group of 33 VSB, 14 VT, 10 VF.
15 VSB armed with one 1000 lb. bomb each.
12 VSB armed with one 500 lb. bomb and two 100 lb. bombs each.
6 VSB armed with one 500 lb. bomb each.
14 VTB armed with torpedoes...
1730 Commenced launching second attack group composed of 24 VSB.
11 VSB armed with one 1000 lb. bomb each.
13 VSB armed with one 500 lb. bomb each.
Battle of Midway: USS Enterprise Action Report
However Lundstrom states:At 0900 (all times given hereafter are zone plus 10) commenced launching the Air Group for attack; VSB loaded with 500-lb. bombs, VTB with torpedoes and VF with M.G. ammunition only.
Battle of Midway: USS Hornet Action Report
The Hornet's dive bombing force comprised thirty-four SBD-3 Dauntlesses, apparently half of them armed with 500-lb. bombs and the rest with thousand-pounders. First to take off were fifteen SBDs from Scouting Eight led by Lt. Cdr. Walter F. Rodee. Next came the "Sea Hag," Cdr. Ring, and two wingmen from Bombing Eight, and finally the sixteen SBDs of Bombing Eight proper under Lt. Cdr. Robert R. Johnson.
Lundstrom, First Team.
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.
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.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.