Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Another point to consider, is what aircraft of that time period were capable of.

In otherwords, ALL aircraft could dive on target at angles beyond 70°, but only a few were able to do it more than once.

The Ju87 and SBD were designed and fully able to dive at angles between 70° and 90°, the Stuka having an auto-pilot that assisted the pilot with pullout and recovery to level flight.

Going from memory, some of the other types that were designed (and capable) of fairly steep dive angles, were the SB2C with angles up to 80° and the A-36 with of angles up 70°.

One dive-bomber that held promise by the way, but never got a chance, was the Hawker Henley.
 
There were other dive bombers of varying degrees of effectiveness, including the Skua (something the crew of the Königsberg found out), the Vultee Vengeance (mostly used in the CBI theatre), the Aichi D3A, and (surprising, at least to me) the Fairey Swordfish.
 
fliger747 said:
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.
Click to expand...


A number of SBD pilots became aces, and they were well able to hold their own even against the formidable Zero. Losses were about 1:1 iirc.

SBD - Scout Bomber Dive - it was expected to be able to get into a fight when scouting. Very tough, agile, well armed.
 
Macandy said:
SBD - Scout Bomber Dive - it was expected to be able to get into a fight when scouting.
Click to expand...

The last letter in the Scouting (Scouting Bomber, Scouting Observation) designations was for the manufacturer. The number 2 meant that it was the second model in that class by the same manufacturer.

SBD = Scouting Bomber, Douglas

SBC = Scouting Bomber, Curtiss
SB2C = Scouting Bomber, second type, Curtiss

SBU = Scouting Bomber, Vought
SB2U = Scouting Bomber, second type, Vought
 

Thank you, I wondered at the nomenclature!

Cheers,
Biff
 
BiffF15 said:
Thank you, I wondered at the nomenclature!

Cheers,
Biff
Click to expand...
You're welcome!
Milosh said:
Biff US Navy/US Marine Corps Attack Aircraft Designations
Click to expand...
Joe Baugher's site is always the right decision!

And his breakdown may help folks understand why not all the suffixes are the manufacturer's first letter (i.e.: Curtiss - "C", North American - "J")

So odd designations like:
OS2U = Observation, Scouting, second type, Vought
PBJ = Patrol Bomber, North American
PB4Y = Patrol Bomber, fourth type, Consolidated (Consolidated had several PBYs: Catalina, PB2Y Coronado, XPB3Y - not built)
PBO = Patrol Bomber, Lockheed
TBF = Torpedo Bomber, Grumman
TBM = Torpedo Bomber, General Motors
J2F = Utility, second type, Grumman

Ya'll having fun yet?
 
Just an add, these squadrons were VSB squadrons (Scouting-Bombing). Again, that should tell us these weren't missioned to mix it up with fighters. Our fighting squadrons were VF. Early on, those consisted of F4s. Our F6s were in the VBF squadrons (Bombing-Fighting) for their bombing as well as fighting capacities.
 
Last edited:
From what I remember reading, the qualities that made the SBD so effective were the following
  • Probably redundant to say, but it could tolerate a high g-load, which is useful for dive-bombing, particularly when pulling out low.
  • It seemed to have good maneuverability by the standards of a dive-bomber, and was sometimes able to be brought to bear on fighter-types.
  • It's handling seemed to be fairly docile (I never heard anything to say it was an ensign-eliminator, but I haven't read this thread through).
  • It seemed to be fairly sturdy by the standards of the time.
  • The swiss-cheese flaps seemed to provide effective at speed-control, yet were also decent flaps.
  • It seemed to have effective payload.
BiffF15 said:
Thank you, I wondered at the nomenclature!
Click to expand...
Yeah, the USN had it's own system (as did the USAAC/USAAF, which later carried over to the USAF with a variety of changes), and it wasn't as intuitive. When double letters were used, it effectively meant a new category, so if you modified a fighter into a fighter-bomber (there was a case with this), it wouldn't go from F11C-2 to BF11C-2, it would be BFC-1 (the USN called fighter bombers "bomber-fighters" in the early 1930's). That said, it'd eventually go back to F11C.

The manufacturers letters did change periodically
U.S. Naval Aircraft Designations: 1922-62
 

As we've discussed earlier, the SBD could not compete with the Zero and SBD claims against them were wildly exaggerated.
 
Macandy said:
it was expected to be able to get into a fight when scouting. Very tough, agile, well armed.
Click to expand...
I never thought that affected the combat performance. That said, I'm surprised you wouldn't want to build maneuverability into any plane that you could as, it naturally provides a survivability benefit.
 
Zipper730 said:
I never thought that affected the combat performance. That said, I'm surprised you wouldn't want to build maneuverability into any plane that you could as, it naturally provides a survivability benefit.
Click to expand...
Any dive bomber, once it gets rid of it's bomb load, is going to be very maneuverable, you hardly have to make any special effort to design it in..
Fairly powerful engine, lots of wing area, needed to lift those big loads is also the same thing needed to make a aircraft agile.
 
Also, at the time that pilots like Vejtasa and Leppla were taking on A6Ms, it was a VERY target rich environment.

Additionally, many of Vejtasa's A6M kills were done during head-on attacks.
Leppla scored a Zero by diving on it as it was attacking a squadron mate.

Rarely did the SBD enter a turning fight with an A6M. But the fact remains, that the SBD was used far more aggressively than other dive-bombers and this was done out of necessity. The SBD's kill record also includes flying boats, torpedo bombers and dive-bombers (the most victories being the latter two types).
 

There's no indication from IJN records that Vejtasa or Leppla scored any A6M kills while flying the SBD.

The Skua was used more aggressively as a fighter than the SBD.
 
RCAFson said:
There's no indication from IJN records that Vejtasa or Leppla scored any A6M kills while flying the SBD.

The Skua was used more aggressively as a fighter than the SBD.
Click to expand...
lmao @ Skua...ok, sure.

Now, it appears you have a detailed list of the cause of downing of all 96 Japanese aircraft during that battle.
So, by all means, please share.

Many thanks in advance.
 
GrauGeist said:
lmao @ Skua...ok, sure.

Now, it appears you have a detailed list of the cause of downing of all 96 Japanese aircraft during that battle.
So, by all means, please share.

Many thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Vejtasa and Leppla were transferred to fighter squadrons by June 1942. Their time in SBDs was relatively short and his and Leppla's SBD combat missions have been documented and cross referenced with IJN records and there are no recorded A6M losses during those missions. See First Team Vol1 and 2 for more info. If you haven't read First Team, than quite frankly, you are not in a position to make informed comment about this.

The Skua was used as a fighter-interceptor (in addition, of course to it's duties as a divebomber) by the FAA from Sept 1939 to early 1941. It shot down the first Luftwaffe aircraft lost to the UK whilst flying from Ark Royal. It routinely flew CAP missions during that period whereas the SBD was only rarely used in a similar role, mainly because the USN had a relative abundance of dedicated fighter aircraft. After the Fulmar was introduced the Skua was progressively withdrawn from frontline duties.
 
Last edited:
Ahh...yes, good attempt to discount the SBD while building the Skua.

But let's look at the real picture: The Skua shot down a Dornier (yay) for all the accolades of the *first kill* AND then how is it an He111 was able to down one? Seriously...
Then let's talk about what happened when the Skua got caught by Bf109s...they were massacred and because of this, eventually were relegated to second-line duties.

Meanwhile, the SBD fought it's way through front-line fighters of Imperial Japan to sink more tonnage than any other aircraft of the entire war (including tonnage in the MTO and ETO). Read all you want and spin on that all you want, but the SBD stood head and shoulders above any other dive-bomber of the war.

I apologize if this cramps your narrative, but reading a single book versus reading volumes of action reports puts me well beyond the ability to make informed comments.

So perhaps you should take your own advice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
829
Jabberwocky
J
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
S
Why airplanes were designed the way they were.
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
8K
EwenS
E
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
10K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register