Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?

Barrett · Jun 13, 2019

Ref. WW II USN torpedoes: yes the 1941-43 models left a whole lot to be desired. Their air-launched parameters were in large part responsible for the TBD debacle at Midway although that's more complex than The Sooole Survivor liked to tell. Fact is, tho: no TBDs were lost to enemy action in flight until the morning of 4 June 42. (Discounting those that sank with CV-2.)

The head of BuOrd when the WW II torpedoes were developed AND NEVER ADEQUATELY TESTED was later FADM Wm. Leahy who was recalled to duty as FDR's briefcase carrier. IMO he only got his ill-deserved 5th star so the Brit field marshals would return his calls. He's the one who (in)famously said "As an explosive expert I can say that the atom bomb will not work."

Anyway: not until late 43 were US subs deployed with reliable torpedoes, similar situation with air-launched. The late-great Bill Martin (Mr Night Carrier) said that VT-10 dropped 31 torpedoes in 43-44 and none ran hot, straight & normal. that's why he developed night bombing tactics for TBFs. In a self-respecting navy people would've gone away for that scandal but of course it didn't happen.

(Sidebar: I used to correspond with "Gummi" who runs the wonderful Uboat.net site up there in Iceland. He said that the Kriegsmarine ordies who designed defective magnetic detonators went to jail. I had to tell him that ours made admiral.)

Anyway: every innovation I know of in US torpedo technology came from industry, not the navy. There's a fascinating story about Hedy Lamarr's involvement with frequency-agile technology, mainly for comm, but eventually applied to acoustic torpedoes I believe. (My brother knew her daughter and said Hubba Hubba...)

From latter 1944 the "ring tail" variety of aerial torps entered combat, debuted by VT-13 in USS Franklin. They worked well, with higher and faster drop parameters than previous models.

Shortround6 · Jun 13, 2019

GrauGeist said:
Not many dive-bombers were used as supplemental CAP.

Blackburn Skua, except it might have been primary CAP.

There is also a world of difference between using SBDs against 3 seat B5N2s

and a single seat fighter powered by the same engine.
The Kate was originally slightly better than the poor old Devastator (which was entering service when the Prototype Kate flew), Kates used in WW II got a new higher powered engine than the early versions used. Devastator used the same engine for the whole production run, A whopping 850hp max. at altitude.

An interesting dog fight would have been SBD-3s against D3A1 Vals.

GrauGeist · Jun 13, 2019

VBF-13 said:
"Slow But Deadly" is more a description that became popular through repetiveness because it sounds cool, is my take on that, as I've never heard it, at least not from the generation. That makes me think it came after. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Americans of that time were well known for colloquilisms and nicknames for just about everything.

The TBF was known as the "Turkey", the P-47 was the "Jug", the BT-13 was the "Vibrator", the PT-22 was the "Maytag", the SB2C was the "Sonofabitch 2nd Class" and the list goes on.
In addition to hearing the SBD referred to as the "Slow But Deadly", I also heard it referred to as the "Barge".

pinsog · Jun 13, 2019

Shortround6 said:
Blackburn Skua, except it might have been primary CAP.

There is also a world of difference between using SBDs against 3 seat B5N2s
View attachment 541712
and a single seat fighter powered by the same engine.
The Kate was originally slightly better than the poor old Devastator (which was entering service when the Prototype Kate flew), Kates used in WW II got a new higher powered engine than the early versions used. Devastator used the same engine for the whole production run, A whopping 850hp max. at altitude.

An interesting dog fight would have been SBD-3s against D3A1 Vals.

Love to hear your thoughts on a Val dogfighting SBD. SBD is tougher, better armed, 2 50's forward and 2 30's in the back. Val had 2 30's forward and a Lewis gun (I think) in the back. Val is super agile, could an SBD ever get behind a Val?

Schweik · Jun 13, 2019

CORSNING said:
The SBD was rugged and just that good....and it helps to be in the right place at
the right time.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQkKmMpeTiAhUCi6wKHSM2CVIQwqsBMAF6BAgJEAQ&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw6a9eA-WJo&usg=AOvVaw1ot-oKYKZ5aV1nk8eDeyph

Damn I miss that show.

I think dive bombers as a type, at least the more modern ones, have a certain advantage - because they were designed for high G pull-outs, they could make high-G turns. When it's also a fairly strongly made aircraft, like the SBD or also, the Stuka, a good pilot willing to put it through it's paces can evade fighters and flak pretty well.

Dive bombing was also (I think) generally a safer way to attack, certainly safer than torpedo bombing.

The SBD was one of those great designs that was just far enough of the curve at the moment, without necessarily seeming to be very advanced, that it was effective. A lot of little things like having reliable dive brakes, sufficient instruments to navigate, good radios, figuring out how to keep the bomb-sights / windscreen from fogging up in a dive from 10,000 ft, could make the difference between success and failure.

The navy pilots in particular were also quite well trained. Half of them in the early days at least were trained as scout / bomber rather than just bomber pilots, and the scout guys got some pretty good air combat training in addition to navigation and dive bombing. I'm sure that helped.

As for the Swede, I believe his victories are legit. He did quite well as a fighter pilot after his experiences with the SBD.

Schweik · Jun 13, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
The SBD, like the Hellcat, was a "sweet spot" airplane, the result of mastery of the innumerable compromises that go into any design to produce an honest, vice-free airplane that performs to the limit of its available power, while remaining docile and predictable in its handling. Ed ("simplicate and add lightness") Heinneman was renowned for the handling qualities and performance of his designs. In the aeroNAUTICAL world, that's a big step towards a low loss rate. Add to that a stable dive, precision controllability, and two acres worth of dive brakes, and you've got a bird that gets the job done first time, and saves the attrition of re-attack.
Cheers,
Wes

Well put

Schweik · Jun 13, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
Later on, and after much innovation outside the box. And helped by another "sweet spot" airframe.

The A-20 did pretty well as a skip-bomber too, and the Russians used it as a torpedo bomber with some success.

Schweik · Jun 13, 2019

pinsog said:
Love to hear your thoughts on a Val dogfighting SBD. SBD is tougher, better armed, 2 50's forward and 2 30's in the back. Val had 2 30's forward and a Lewis gun (I think) in the back. Val is super agile, could an SBD ever get behind a Val?

They did use them against Vals and Kates and they shot quite a few down. Against Zeros it was usually far more dismal, Swede's epic feat nothwithstanding.

I wouldn't say that it was thought of as a good idea to use SBD's as CAP incidentally, it was just an act of desperation. They didn't have enough aircraft - they needed scouts, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, ASW patrol and escort fighters and CAP fighters. And on carriers that only carried 70 some odd aircraft. It's really kind of a serious flaw in Carrier design, and one of the reasons why Carriers usually weren't so great at attacking ground targets. You can put a bomb in the middle of Henderson field and they can fill it up in two days. You put a bomb in the center of the Akagi and it is going to be in dry dock for two years if you are lucky.

The actual non-bombing job SBD's did most other than scouting was as ASW patrol. American Admirals were deathly afraid of IJN submarines. They always had to divert 5 or 10 of them at least to go looking for subs around the Carriers, and some slipped through anyway.

I agree with the notion that it was largely a matter of the SBD appearing at the right moment of musical chairs in the accelerated development cycle of pre and early war designs. It makes a lot of sense to me. The SBD wasn't so new and innovative that it didn't actually work yet when they first got it (like the Helldiver) but it wasn't designed when all the realities of combat were still only dimly understood (and therefore obsolete) like the Devastator or Vindicator (or Swordfish etc.) ... and it wasn't oversized for a carrier plane like the Avenger. It had been designed to do as well as it could with the engine it had and the realistic design limits regarding bomb load, range etc. Certainly it was the best carrier based naval bomber of the war.

The D3A Val was also a remarkably good dive bomber IMO but due to the Japanese design philosophy it turned out to be less effective in attrition war. Once the Japanese momentum was checked sufficiently

pinsog · Jun 13, 2019

Schweik said:
They did use them against Vals and Kates and they shot quite a few down. Against Zeros it was usually far more dismal, Swede's epic feat nothwithstanding.

I wouldn't say that it was thought of as a good idea to use SBD's as CAP incidentally, it was just an act of desperation. They didn't have enough aircraft - they needed scouts, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, ASW patrol and escort fighters and CAP fighters. And on carriers that only carried 70 some odd aircraft. It's really kind of a serious flaw in Carrier design, and one of the reasons why Carriers usually weren't so great at attacking ground targets. You can put a bomb in the middle of Henderson field and they can fill it up in two days. You put a bomb in the center of the Akagi and it is going to be in dry dock for two years if you are lucky.

The actual non-bombing job SBD's did most other than scouting was as ASW patrol. American Admirals were deathly afraid of IJN submarines. They always had to divert 5 or 10 of them at least to go looking for subs around the Carriers, and some slipped through anyway.

I agree with the notion that it was largely a matter of the SBD appearing at the right moment of musical chairs in the accelerated development cycle of pre and early war designs. It makes a lot of sense to me. The SBD wasn't so new and innovative that it didn't actually work yet when they first got it (like the Helldiver) but it wasn't designed when all the realities of combat were still only dimly understood (and therefore obsolete) like the Devastator or Vindicator (or Swordfish etc.) ... and it wasn't oversized for a carrier plane like the Avenger. It had been designed to do as well as it could with the engine it had and the realistic design limits regarding bomb load, range etc. Certainly it was the best carrier based naval bomber of the war.

The D3A Val was also a remarkably good dive bomber IMO but due to the Japanese design philosophy it turned out to be less effective in attrition war. Once the Japanese momentum was checked sufficiently

A Kate isn't a big deal for an SBD, bigger, no forward weapons, not going to outturn an SBD. A Val was very agile without bombs.

Shortround6 · Jun 13, 2019

pinsog said:
Love to hear your thoughts on a Val dogfighting SBD. SBD is tougher, better armed, 2 50's forward and 2 30's in the back. Val had 2 30's forward and a Lewis gun (I think) in the back. Val is super agile, could an SBD ever get behind a Val?

A lot depends on the situation. A big problem is that a lot of the performance numbers are for when each plane is carrying a bomb of some sort. Without the bomb speed changes somewhat but both climb and the ability to sustain a turn increase. And here we start getting into unknowns. The Val is lighter with a bigger wing. The Val has a higher ceiling loaded than the SBD-3 has clean with 150 gallons of fuel on board by about 3000ft. They are not going to fighting at anywhere near the service ceilings but you get the idea.

As a point of inforamtion the SBD-3 was supposed to climb to 15,000 as a scout (no bomb) with 150 gallons in protected tanks in 10.9 minutes. Now compare that to even the worst single seat single engine fighter you can find that was used in WW II. A Gladiator could get to 20,000ft in that amount of time with almost a minute to spare.
At altitude and we are talking about 10,400ft to 16,000ft the engine in the SBD was good for 800hp and the take-off weight with armor and protected tanks and 150 gallons of fuel was 8277lbs. At low altitude (0-4500ft) in low gear the engine was good for 950hp.

These dive bomber fighters (all three) may be well able to do a high G turn but their ability to actually sustain more than a partial turn without slowing down to near stall speed or having to loose altitude is certainly questionable.

Shortround6 · Jun 13, 2019

pinsog said:
A Kate isn't a big deal for an SBD, bigger, no forward weapons, not going to outturn an SBD. A Val was very agile without bombs.

That is part of my problem with the SBD as a CAP plane, apparently the US commanders knew full well it's limitations and pretty much kept the SBDs at altitudes/positions to try to intercept the Kates. All well and good. But in many of these internet discussions we are told how wonderful the SBD was because it could be used as an emergency or secondary CAP fighter. Well, if it was useful against only one out three of the enemies primary aircraft that is better than nothing but not quite the picture that is often painted.

pinsog · Jun 13, 2019

Wasn't it at Coral Sea that the SBD chased a Kate for 50-75 miles and finally pulled up abreast of him (don't know the distance apart) and the rear gunners of both planes blazed away until the SBD won the gun battle.

Shortround6 · Jun 13, 2019

i have no idea but if that SBD pilot was 50 miles away from his own carrier he sure wasn't defending it from any other attackers

pinsog · Jun 13, 2019

Shortround6 said:
i have no idea but if that SBD pilot was 50 miles away from his own carrier he sure wasn't defending it from any other attackers

It was revenge after the attack so the Kate had no torpedo. I think that story was in The First Team, someone will chime in and tell us where that happened. I think they said the SBD had about a 3 knot advantage on the Kate and finally caught him.

Edit: when I think about it, I think they shot at each other until both back seaters ran out of ammo and the SBD turned back, but they later at some point, determined that that particular Kate didn't make it back.

michael rauls · Jun 13, 2019

RCAFson said:
SBD kill claims have to be taken with a very large grain of salt as was their ability to mix it in dogfights The SBD-3 had less than a 1000hp at altitude and still weighed ~9000lb without a bomb. Granted, unlike the TBD the SBD airframe was stressed for high G manoeuvres and their pilots could fly to the limit knowing that they had a basically unbreakable airframe. The USAAF was distinctly underwhelmed by their A-24s, which was a lighter variant of the SBD.

It wasn't their speed that protected the SBD (it cruised at ~130 knots), rather it was their cruise altitude which made it difficult for IJN CAP to spot and intercept them.

I've heard that before in reference to the SBDs outstanding( for a bomber) kill loss ratio. That is that you have to discount it or take it with a grain of salt. A couple thoughts 1 many of the kills were within sight of navy personnel aboard ships 2 yes all types of ww2 aircraft were subject to overclaiming but why would the SBD be more prone to this phenomenon than other types? Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the kill ratio of the SBD at greater percentage than all other aircraft( I can think of several reasons it should be discounted at a lesser rate but leaving those aside) then the kill ratio is valid for comparison and stands as the best of any bomber of the war.

GrauGeist · Jun 13, 2019

Schweik said:
I wouldn't say that it was thought of as a good idea to use SBD's as CAP incidentally, it was just an act of desperation. They didn't have enough aircraft - they needed scouts, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, ASW patrol and escort fighters and CAP fighters. And on carriers that only carried 70 some odd aircraft. It's really kind of a serious flaw in Carrier design

The fact that the USN could use SBDs as supplemental CAP was a plus for the carrier, which in those days, were very limited on their aircraft compliment - the early US carriers typically had a compliment of 78 to 90 aircraft.

So this essentially doubled the USN's Carrier's CAP capabilities and also provided protection while the Carrier was recovering her fighter compliment to refuel/rearm, etc. The SBD was also used as an advance scout, flying in teams ahead of the taskforce at preset patterns and intervals. It was the scouts of VS-6 and VT-6 from the Enterprise that flew into the melee at Pearl Harbor on 7 December, too.

RCAFson · Jun 13, 2019

michael rauls said:
I've heard that before in reference to the SBDs outstanding( for a bomber) kill loss ratio. That is that you have to discount it or take it with a grain of salt. A couple thoughts 1 many of the kills were within sight of navy personnel aboard ships 2 yes all types of ww2 aircraft were subject to overclaiming but why would the SBD be more prone to this phenomenon than other types? Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the kill ratio of the SBD at greater percentage than all other aircraft( I can think of several reasons it should be discounted at a lesser rate but leaving those aside) then the kill ratio is valid for comparison and stands as the best of any bomber of the war.

From 7 Dec 1941 to 31 Dec 1942 SBDs claimed 88 IJN (28 VT/VB + 60VF) aircraft for the loss of 39 SBDs (USN Aviation Stats). If I go through First Team V1&2 am I going to find 88 kills attributed to SBDs? For example at Coral Sea:

feet, took another look around, then set course for Task Force 17. By 1115 when the last Yorktown aircraft departed, the carrier Shōkaku appeared in bad shape, her crews battling fierce fires. The Yorktown pilots claimed six 1,000-lb. bomb hits and three torpedo hits on a carrier they believed was the Kaga. SBD crews reported eleven Zeros destroyed, while VF-42 claimed three (one to McCuskey, two to Woollen). Total air group losses in the target area amounted to two SBDs from Bombing Five. The crews described the stricken enemy carrier as burning fiercely at the bow with a flame resembling an "acetylene torch,"13 apparently fueled by aviation gasoline. They thought the carrier was a goner...

...Sixteen Zeros from the Shōkaku and the Zuikaku participated actively in the defense of MO Striking Force, and their losses were two fighters shot down and two more shot up. Japanese claims were extremely high, something like thirty-nine planes shot down! The Zuikaku Fighter Unit reported shooting down thirteen fighters, six dive bombers, and three torpedo planes, while the Shōkaku fighter pilots claimed five fighters, nine dive bombers, and two torpedo planes, not counting probable kills or damaged aircraft. High scorer in Japanese reports was Okabe Kenji, credited with three fighters and three dive bombers shot down, and one of each of those types as probables.19 As far as can be determined, the Japanese fighters actually shot down two SBD dive bombers and three F4F fighters in both attacks. The Japanese certainly were enthusiastic claimers...

A total of twenty Grumman F4F fighters and twenty-three Douglas SBD dive bombers participated in the defense of Task Force 17. Their losses totaled three F4Fs (two from VF-2, one from VF-42) and five SBDs shot down, while another SBD was lost in a landing accident on board the Lexington. Other fighters and dive bombers damaged beyond repair managed to land on board the carriers. American aerial victory claims amounted to ten fighters, four dive bombers, and one torpedo plane for Fighting Two and Fighting Forty-two, while the three dive bombing squadrons reported the destruction of six fighters, one dive bomber, and ten torpedo planes, for a grand total of thirty-two enemy planes. From a correlation of Japanese and American sources, it appears reasonable that the F4Fs actually shot down no Zeros, but perhaps splashed three dive bombers and one torpedo plane, while the SBD crews accounted for no Zeros, but downed one dive bomber and five torpedo planes—total ten Japanese aircraft destroyed by aerial engagement. American antiaircraft fire from the ships likely destroyed one dive bomber and two torpedo planes. (First Team V.1)

The SBDs attacking the IJN claimed 11 Zeros and maybe got one, but most likely got none. SBDs defending TF-17 claimed 6 Zeros and got none, while claiming 11 attack aircraft and getting 6.

So 17 Zero kill claims and maybe one actual kill.

XBe02Drvr · Jun 13, 2019

Schweik said:
and it wasn't oversized for a carrier plane like the Avenger.

Huh? A folding wing Avenger takes up more space than a stiff wing Dauntless? Something wrong with this picture, don't you think?
My uncle flew Avengers off jeep carriers for Atlantic convoy protection, and he said that despite its size, it was the most comfortable plane in the fleet to operate off a small, slow moving deck. Superb slow speed handling, solid, reliable control response, and good visibility on approach, plus soft, long throw oleos. He said you had to try real hard to make it bounce on landing.
Cheers,
Wes

pinsog · Jun 13, 2019

The SBD's did account for a few large Japanese 4 engine flying boat recon planes during the Guadalcanal campaign. They shot down enough that the Wildcat pilots were getting mad about it. Shot some down within sight of the carrier.

fliger747 · Jun 14, 2019

Was the one fifty cal in the TBF turret more effective than the twin 30's of the SBD?

Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?

Senior Airman

Major General

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Tech Sergeant

Major General

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Master Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads