Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?

[RCAFson]

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?

I have read most of the USN action reports as well, but these must be correlated against IJN records and this is where Lundstrom's 3 volumes (two volume First Team and Black Shoe Carrier Admiral) works are invaluable. Kill claims are always suspect unless they can be verified. Lundstrom worked closely with IJN records and collaborated with Japanese authors and translators to give us a very accurate look at the Pacific Airwar in 1942.

The fact is that the SBD was only rarely used as a fighter and it fared poorly against fighters as well. There were only 190 Skuas produced and their actual kill ratio was far higher than the SBD's because they were used continuously in a fighter role. During the Norwegian campaign Skuas shot down many Luftwaffe aircraft. mainly bombers and recon seaplanes via their front guns, all these kills being correlated to Luftwaffe records. The peak of the fighting being 27 and 28 April 1940 when Skuas shot down 7 x He111 bombers with their front guns, all kills being verified by Luftwaffe records and/or subsequently captured Luftwaffe aircrew. See Fledgling Eagles for more details.

During the Norway campaign, from 17 April to 10 June 1940, mainly carrier based, Skuas shot down 23 Luftwaffe aircraft via their front guns: 17 x He111, 2 x Ju88, 2 x Do18, 1 x Do26 and 1 x He115 according to Fledgling Eagles, which correlated Skua kill claims with Luftwaffe losses.

 

[VBF-13]

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).

Credit our fighters with the fighting. Credit these, when necessary, with an assist.

 

[Conslaw]

Credit our fighters with the fighting. Credit these, when necessary, with an assist.

Prewar naval aviators were cross-trained in the different aircraft types when possible, dive bombers, fighters, and torpedo plnes. Consequently a guy flying a dive-bomber may have fighter training and experience to go along with the impulse to mix it up in the air. Still, the SBD-3's top speed in the 220-240 range was not helpful in a fight with enemy fighters.

 

[GrauGeist]

Again, as has been mentioned a few times, the majority of A6Ms downed by the SBD (where the pilot was credited with the "kill") were done so in head-on attacks.

 

[pinsog]

I have read most of the USN action reports as well, but these must be correlated against IJN records and this is where Lundstrom's 3 volumes (two volume First Team and Black Shoe Carrier Admiral) works are invaluable. Kill claims are always suspect unless they can be verified. Lundstrom worked closely with IJN records and collaborated with Japanese authors and translators to give us a very accurate look at the Pacific Airwar in 1942.

The fact is that the SBD was only rarely used as a fighter and it fared poorly against fighters as well. There were only 190 Skuas produced and their actual kill ratio was far higher than the SBD's because they were used continuously in a fighter role. During the Norwegian campaign Skuas shot down many Luftwaffe aircraft. mainly bombers and recon seaplanes via their front guns, all these kills being correlated to Luftwaffe records. The peak of the fighting being 27 and 28 April 1940 when Skuas shot down 7 x He111 bombers with their front guns, all kills being verified by Luftwaffe records and/or subsequently captured Luftwaffe aircrew. See Fledgling Eagles for more details.

During the Norway campaign, from 17 April to 10 June 1940, mainly carrier based, Skuas shot down 23 Luftwaffe aircraft via their front guns: 17 x He111, 2 x Ju88, 2 x Do18, 1 x Do26 and 1 x He115 according to Fledgling Eagles, which correlated Skua kill claims with Luftwaffe losses.

So a Skua is better than an SBD because it shot down some unescorted German bombers? And how exactly would it have done against a Zero? All due respect, but the Ark Royal going 1 on 1 with any of the 6 Japanese carriers at Midway would have lasted about 3 minutes with Zero's clearing the sky of Skua's and then 18 Val's and 18 Kate's obliterating the Ark Royal with the only losses coming from AA fire.

SBD's shot down Japanese 4 engine float planes, torpedo planes and dive bombers. Essentially, a Zero was the only thing that represented a real threat to an SBD.

 

[RCAFson]

So a Skua is better than an SBD because it shot down some unescorted German bombers? And how exactly would it have done against a Zero? All due respect, but the Ark Royal going 1 on 1 with any of the 6 Japanese carriers at Midway would have lasted about 3 minutes with Zero's clearing the sky of Skua's and then 18 Val's and 18 Kate's obliterating the Ark Royal with the only losses coming from AA fire.

SBD's shot down Japanese 4 engine float planes, torpedo planes and dive bombers. Essentially, a Zero was the only thing that represented a real threat to an SBD.

What a strange post above...and the only thing that represented a threat to the Skua was an Me109...

Did I say the Skua was better than the SBD? I did say it was used more aggressively (as a fighter) because the FAA was woefully short of carrier borne fighters early in the war. The SBD had more range and can carry a heavier bomb load but doesn't have folding wings for a theoretically smaller complement per carrier. If the USN had Skuas at Midway instead of SBDs I suspect the outcome would have been the same, as the Skua's 500lb bomb was just as capable of setting IJN carriers ablaze.

The Skua had a lower wing loading and a better power to weight ratio than the SBD but was slower, and was about equally well armed with 4 x .303mgs with 600 RPG, and so it's very likely that it would have done as least well as the SBD against the Zero; which is to say that it would have been heavily defeated, just as the SBD would have been badly defeated by the Me109, but probably would have done less well against Luftwaffe strike aircraft.

Ark Royal, had she survived to June 1942 and was carrying Skuas in combination with other aircraft, would have been just as likely to defeat any one IJN carrier as they would her. It would all depend on who spotted the other first.

 

[RCAFson]

Again, as has been mentioned a few times, the majority of A6Ms downed by the SBD (where the pilot was credited with the "kill") were done so in head-on attacks.

The only likely confirmed head on SBD kill vs a Zero that I can find occurred on 8 August 1942 over Tulagi:

Meanwhile, Lt. (jg) Robert L. Howard, 2nd Section leader of VS-71's 2nd Division, glimpsed the Misawa land attack planes skirt south around Group YOKE.9 Oblivious to AA fire, he worked out an attack on one bomber, but his two .50s would not shoot. After pulling off to clear them, he sheepishly realized that in his excitement he had never charged them. After beating up Maxwell's section, Ōki and Kimura latched onto Howard's lone SBD. Lawrence P. Lupo, Sea2c, the radioman, responded enthusiastically to a series of four stern attacks. At last Kimura reefed in a tight climbing turn for a head-on approach, but Howard raked his Zero with a strong burst. Catching fire as it went past, the Mitsubishi fell off to the left and plowed into the water among some small boats near Florida. Ōki saw his wingman go down, then raced up Howard's tail to duel with Lupo at close range. Not only did Lupo drive off the Zero, but he perforated his own vertical stabilizer as well. 71-S-15 returned to base sporting ten bullet holes, including two in the right main fuel tank, but neither Howard nor Lupo was hurt...

( First Team V2. )

 

[pinsog]

What a strange post above...and the only thing that represented a threat to the Skua was an Me109...

Did I say the Skua was better than the SBD? I did say it was used more aggressively (as a fighter) because the FAA was woefully short of carrier borne fighters early in the war. The SBD had more range and can carry a heavier bomb load but doesn't have folding wings for a theoretically smaller complement per carrier. If the USN had Skuas at Midway instead of SBDs I suspect the outcome would have been the same, as the Skua's 500lb bomb was just as capable of setting IJN carriers ablaze.

The Skua had a lower wing loading and a better power to weight ratio than the SBD but was slower, and was about equally well armed with 4 x .303mgs with 600 RPG, and so it's very likely that it would have done as least well as the SBD against the Zero; which is to say that it would have been heavily defeated, just as the SBD would have been badly defeated by the Me109, but probably would have done less well against Luftwaffe strike aircraft.

Ark Royal, had she survived to June 1942 and was carrying Skuas in combination with other aircraft, would have been just as likely to defeat any one IJN carrier as they would her. It would all depend on who spotted the other first.

After reading this post then rereading your previous posts, it fleshed out your thinking a bit more and I understand what you were saying.

From this post, I would (personally) prefer 2 50's to 4 303's especially if taking on a larger less maneuverable plane like an HE111 (big, easy to hit, slower rate of fire doesn't matter as much as hitting power per bullet). Also had 2 belt fed 30's in the back that could help out if you were beside the target.

 

[michael rauls]

The only likely confirmed head on SBD kill vs a Zero that I can find occurred on 8 August 1942 over Tulagi:

( First Team V2. )

I see your sticking to the" if we dont have the papper work on it it didn't happen" point of view, which is fine...........for you.... but as we went over in a previous series of posts there is a myriad of reasons why kills might not always show up in axis records.
Certainly axis records give a more realistic view than raw claims but for all those aforementioned reasons are not the be all/ end all of kill validation.
Several of the other posters listed cases where accusations of wild overclaiming were maid by some historians only to have the records turn up later validating many of those victories. Also the heavily damaged planes that end up being written off eventually but dont show up on records as being lost in action...... units that we wouldn't know to check the records of because we don't have a record they were there in the first place...... etc.etc.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Actually, the "we don't know how many planes the Japanese lost because all their records were destroyed" myth has been seriously debunked.

 

[GrauGeist]

Ok, here's a math problem for everyone:
The Japanese lost 96 aircraft st the battle of Coral Sea.
So then we look at how many F4F fighters were available, we look at how many AA units were credited with a downing, we look at how many were lost to operational error and in the end, there just might be room to actually give credit to the SBD.
I know, I know...there are a few people who refuse to believe the SBD did anything more than sink the most tonnage in the PTO, but numbers say different.

 

[michael rauls]

Well the truth is we don't know every axis plane that was lost. Previously unknown records pop up from time to time as several examples were given upthread and of course there are several other reasons( no need to list them again) victories might not show up in known axis loss records.
Just because some may use this to validate what is alot of overclaiming( happened on all sides and not nescesarily with naferious intent) does not mean there is not SOME validity to these things. How much is hard to say of course but previously unknown records do pop up now and then and the other things did happen at least occasionally. One could point to each of these mitigating circumstances and say" well how often did that happen" and taken individualy that may be a good point but cumulatively it seems intuative that there is probably a fair number of allied victories that are lagit but don't nescesarily show up on known axis records. What percentage? Is it 5%, 10, maybe 15? I dunno......but I do know the number is not zero.
I don't think it's an all or nothing/pick a side issue. I don't think it's correct to say that allied pilots didn't overclaim( not intentionally in most cases I don't think) but I also don't think it's correct to say if we dont have a written record of the air to air victory then we know it didn't happen. There are just too many reasons why at least sometimes this isn't going to be the case.