Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?

RCAFson said:

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:

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.

Click to expand...

I could go through the combat records of any plane and pick out instances where 11 were claimed and they only realy got 6( most likely some of the other 5 were damaged but not destroyed) or they claimed 12 and got one.
And that's my point . Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots to a greater degree than other pilots than the "take it with a grain of salt" aplies more or less equally to all aircraft and after the discounting, at least by way of comparison you end up right back where you started.
So ya, go ahead and lop some off the SBDs record if you want but if you are going to be consistent you have to do the same for everything else and look at that you still have the best kill loss record of any bomber of the war, better than some fighters by the way.
Even if you want to lop of 40 or 50% off it's record it still knocked down almost as many enemy as at lost. Not bad for a plane that half the time( on the way in) was lugging a 500 or 1000 lb bomb. Oh, and for a bomber still the best of the war.

XBe02Drvr said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm sure it handled nicely for it's size but to me what you ended up with there was basically an oversized ASW airplane that was about as nimble and swift as a city bus, and not particularly effective at sinking enemy ships. To kill ships you are better off with an SBD or even a later issue Helldiver. For an attack plane against island targets you are probably better off with the Hellcat or a Corsair for a variety of reasons.

michael rauls said:

I could go through the combat records of any plane and pick out instances where 11 were claimed and they only realy got 6( most likely some of the other 5 were damaged but not destroyed) or they claimed 12 and got one.
And that's my point . Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots to a greater degree than other pilots than the "take it with a grain of salt" aplies more or less equally to all aircraft and after the discounting, at least by way of comparison you end up right back where you started.
So ya, go ahead and lop some off the SBDs record if you want but if you are going to be consistent you have to do the same for everything else and look at that you still have the best kill loss record of any bomber of the war, better than some fighters by the way.
Even if you want to lop of 40 or 50% off it's record it still knocked down almost as many enemy as at lost. Not bad for a plane that half the time( on the way in) was lugging a 500 or 1000 lb bomb. Oh, and for a bomber still the best of the war.

Click to expand...

Yeah really good point Michael. And even if they only shot down 6 Kates at Coral Sea each of those could have meant saving one of the big ships, if you add up all 6 that seems pretty likely to be a hit to me. Those SBD's may have saved a carrier.

The other thing to keep in mind is as emergency / backup CAP, they did not actually have to shoot down enemy bombers to succeed - they just had to prevent them from making dive bombing attacks or torpedo runs. To disrupt attacks in other words, which they did seem to be able to do. They may or may not have been able to dominate a Val but they weren't in any major risk of being shot down by one either. Against bombers, the SBD had two heavy guns in the nose where they are easier to aim, it was very maneuverable and stressed for tight turns, and handled well.

They clearly did shoot down torpedo bombers, and float plane / scouts, and probably some A6M and D3A as well.

The problem was in spite of some pilots managing to rise to the occasion, SBD's were certainly not in the same league as a Zero, and they only had so many guys like Swede Vejtasa. Most of the accounts I've read of the SBDs that faced zeroes in Coral Sea while flying CAP sound pretty nightmarish. Only the extremely heavily built nature of the plane allowed most of the survivors to live to tell about it. By contrast, in dive bombing missions they seem to have usually been able to escape without too much problems. Different type of scenario.

Again, I think they only resorted to doing that because of the extreme danger their ships, especially the carriers themsleves, were facing. They had to send half of their planes to attack the enemy, could only spare so many fighters for CAP, and they specifically did IIRC use the SBD's down low so as to catch torpedo bombers, i.e. so that they didn't bring their fighters too low to intercept dive bombers like happened to the Japanese at Midway.

michael rauls said:

I could go through the combat records of any plane and pick out instances where 11 were claimed and they only realy got 6( most likely some of the other 5 were damaged but not destroyed) or they claimed 12 and got one.
And that's my point . Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots to a greater degree than other pilots than the "take it with a grain of salt" aplies more or less equally to all aircraft and after the discounting, at least by way of comparison you end up right back where you started.
So ya, go ahead and lop some off the SBDs record if you want but if you are going to be consistent you have to do the same for everything else and look at that you still have the best kill loss record of any bomber of the war, better than some fighters by the way.
Even if you want to lop of 40 or 50% off it's record it still knocked down almost as many enemy as at lost. Not bad for a plane that half the time( on the way in) was lugging a 500 or 1000 lb bomb. Oh, and for a bomber still the best of the war.

Click to expand...

While i agree that there is no reason to discount the claims of SBD's more those of any other aircraft, it doesn't change the fact that it's kills to losses ratio is based on over claiming.

In the ETO and MTO, the USAAF heavy bombers also had an effective aerial kills to loss rate, combined for the two theaters, it's 2.78 to 1 (according to the USAAF Statiscal Digest).
However, we know that the gunners' claims were exaggerated, for understandable reasons, so the actual exchange rate is likely to be very different.

No one seems to have any difficulty in discounting the bomber gunners' claims

fliger747 said:

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

Click to expand...

The turret would definitely be better than a pintle mounted weapon as far as aiming and control. 1 50 with a 750 or so rpm vs 2 30's at 1,000 rpm per gun would start a whole debate on its own. A few big powerful bullets vs a swarm of smaller bullets. I don't know which I would chose.

Hmmm...a single .50 MG in an electronically operated turret versus a twin .30 MG on a free-mount against non-armored enemy aircraft...

That's a tough call (said with slight sarcasm).

michael rauls said:

I could go through the combat records of any plane and pick out instances where 11 were claimed and they only realy got 6( most likely some of the other 5 were damaged but not destroyed) or they claimed 12 and got one.
And that's my point . Unless someone can come up with a good reason to discount the claims of SBD pilots to a greater degree than other pilots than the "take it with a grain of salt" aplies more or less equally to all aircraft and after the discounting, at least by way of comparison you end up right back where you started.
So ya, go ahead and lop some off the SBDs record if you want but if you are going to be consistent you have to do the same for everything else and look at that you still have the best kill loss record of any bomber of the war, better than some fighters by the way.
Even if you want to lop of 40 or 50% off it's record it still knocked down almost as many enemy as at lost. Not bad for a plane that half the time( on the way in) was lugging a 500 or 1000 lb bomb. Oh, and for a bomber still the best of the war.

Click to expand...

The SBDs claimed 88 kills during 1942 and 28 of those 88 claims were made at Coral Sea. Actual kills at Coral Sea were maybe 1 Zero and 6 attack aircraft for 28 claims. I don't think you read my post correctly:

"From 7 Dec 1941 to 31 Dec 1942 SBDs claimed 88 IJN (60VF + 28 VT/VB ) 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:

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. I haven't summarized the entire two volumes of First Team because that would take a very long time, but I have no doubt that the same ratio will hold up, namely that the number of actual Zero kills will be 4 or 5 out of 60 claimed and ~15 actual kills from the 29 attack aircraft claimed. Extrapolating from the Coral Sea results we get about 20 kills from 88 claims

RCAFson said:

The SBDs claimed 88 kills during 1942 and 28 of those 88 claims were made at Coral Sea. Actual kills at Coral Sea were maybe 1 Zero and 6 attack aircraft for 28 claims. I don't think you read my post correctly:

"From 7 Dec 1941 to 31 Dec 1942 SBDs claimed 88 IJN (60VF + 28 VT/VB ) 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:

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. I haven't summarized the entire two volumes of First Team because that would take a very long time, but I have no doubt that the same ratio will hold up, namely that the number of actual Zero kills will be 4 or 5 out of 60 claimed and ~15 actual kills from the 29 attack aircraft claimed. Extrapolating from the Coral Sea results we get about 20 kills from 88 claims

Click to expand...

I didn't misread your post. I took the worst example of overclaiming and the least you gave to be fair and used them as examples that could aply to any aircraft.
The final war end ratio I've read several places is i believe 1.3 or 1.2 to 1. Amost an even trade. The ratio of claims you are using for the coral sea is much more optimistic for the SBD. 88 to 39. About 2.2 to 1. So I think it is safe to say that the same ratios will not hold up throughout claims. I've always read the 1.3 to 1 number refered to as verified claims.
For the ratios you gave to hold consistent( 4 to 1 overclaiming) SBDs would have to suddenly drop there claims to losses ratio by about 75 % to arive at the 1.3 to 1 ratio comonly given for the war end total.
That seems shall we say unlikely. Again the claiming numbers you are giving are much more optimistic for the SBD than( about double) than that which is commonly given as "verified claims. So it would seem some sort if verification did indeed go on( although I'm not sure what that entails) and for sure the same ratios will not hold up throughout claims at least not the varified claims numbers commonly given.

Schweik said:

I'm sure it handled nicely for it's size but to me what you ended up with there was basically an oversized ASW airplane that was about as nimble and swift as a city bus

Click to expand...

Any Avenger that performs as un-nimble and as un-swift as a city bus is being operated by a poorly trained crew who haven't been taught how to get the most out of their airplane. Obviously, it wouldn't be as swift as a fighter; that wasn't its role, but it was considerably faster than its predecessor, and not in danger of holding up the strike force.
It's nickname "turkey" came from its appearance in approach configuration, not its flying qualities, and the deckapes adopted the name as they cursed and sweated while manhandling it around on deck.

Schweik said:

and not particularly effective at sinking enemy ships.

Click to expand...

Mostly attributable to the ineffective torpedoes. But I agree an ineffective weapon makes for an ineffective weapons system. And by the time the torpedo issues were sorted out, the bulk of the war's torpedo type work was past.
OTOH, it could carry four depth charges and a full bag of fuel and still perform like a lightly loaded aircraft. And Uncle Ned said they could carry a rack full of rockets which were lethal to a surfaced sub.
Cheers,
Wes

Just another point. Just to pull out of these fast and steep dives, these machines had to be rugged, and the trim had to hold, under stresses to airframe and pilot so incredible these pilots were momentarily blacking out.

Stig1207 said:

While i agree that there is no reason to discount the claims of SBD's more those of any other aircraft, it doesn't change the fact that it's kills to losses ratio is based on over claiming.

In the ETO and MTO, the USAAF heavy bombers also had an effective aerial kills to loss rate, combined for the two theaters, it's 2.78 to 1 (according to the USAAF Statiscal Digest).
However, we know that the gunners' claims were exaggerated, for understandable reasons, so the actual exchange rate is likely to be very different.

No one seems to have any difficulty in discounting the bomber gunners' claims

Click to expand...

Four engine bombers had 4 or 5 guys shooting at the same incoming fighter and sometimes all making a claim for the same plane. On the SBD there's only one set of guns forward and one backward. Can't both be shooting at the same plane simultaneously.

michael rauls said:

Four engine bombers had 4 or 5 guys shooting at the same incoming fighter and sometimes all making a claim for the same plane. On the SBD there's only one set of guns forward and one backward. Can't both be shooting at the same plane simultaneously.

Click to expand...

No but just like Defiants, gunners from multiple planes could be be firing at one attacker and all make claims. This was a big reason for over claiming by the B-17s and B-24s, multiple aircraft firing at the same attacker, not just multiple gunners in the same plane.

AS for the Avenger. yes the torpedo sucked, but that doesn't mean the Avenger it self sucked or that it sucked at other jobs, for instance it's large bomb bay could not only carry four depth charges, it could carry four 500lb bombs or two 1000lbs which is a useful load compared to most SBDs or even Helldivers. I believe the Helldiver could only carry two 500lb bombs inside or one 1000lb bomb? Or two depth charges for anti sub work.
The US also had the luxury of putting it's carriers rather close to the Japanese Islands it was attacking which makes it rather easy for the fighters to carry heavy bomb loads.
Later Avengers were plumbed for a pair of 100 gallon drop tanks and they were rated to (but seldom did) carry a torpedo or large bomb with 335 gallons of internal fuel and 200 gallons in drop tanks for a rather impressive combat radius of over 400 miles. Try that with a Hellcat carrying even a 1000lb and a drop tank.

Shortround6 said:

No but just like Defiants, gunners from multiple planes could be be firing at one attacker and all make claims. This was a big reason for over claiming by the B-17s and B-24s, multiple aircraft firing at the same attacker, not just multiple gunners in the same plane.

AS for the Avenger. yes the torpedo sucked, but that doesn't mean the Avenger it self sucked or that it sucked at other jobs, for instance it's large bomb bay could not only carry four depth charges, it could carry four 500lb bombs or two 1000lbs which is a useful load compared to most SBDs or even Helldivers. I believe the Helldiver could only carry two 500lb bombs inside or one 1000lb bomb? Or two depth charges for anti sub work.
The US also had the luxury of putting it's carriers rather close to the Japanese Islands it was attacking which makes it rather easy for the fighters to carry heavy bomb loads.
Later Avengers were plumbed for a pair of 100 gallon drop tanks and they were rated to (but seldom did) carry a torpedo or large bomb with 335 gallons of internal fuel and 200 gallons in drop tanks for a rather impressive combat radius of over 400 miles. Try that with a Hellcat carrying even a 1000lb and a drop tank.

Click to expand...

Good point but with only one person shooting in a given direction per plane the overclaiming should be about the same as for fighter aircraft that could also have several guys pummeling the same plane at the same time. Perhaps somewhat higher but nowhere near a 4 engine bomber. At least the same potential dynamic does not exist.

We've been over this before in this forum, but you didn't need 20,000 of bombs to sink a carrier or even a battleship. Last time we debated this I dug up the two Japanese battleships sunk by US dive bombers, and we know they sunk numerous carriers and a large number of cruisers, destroyers, transports, oilers and so on. There seems to be a philosophical debate, both here in this forum and in the Anglo-American military world, whether a bomber is primarily a 'bomb truck' designed to carry the heaviest possible load to the general vicinity of the enemy, or if precision actually matters. In the US to this day we still have B-52s in the arsenal as conventional bombers, but most of the bombing is done in a relatively precision manner, not always with expensive laser or GPS guided bombs or hellfire missiles, but mostly by fighter-bombers, mostly in coordination with forward air controllers or ground spotters, and mostly very accurate by the standards of WW2.

In Naval combat in WW2 the Americans didn't have guided missiles (the Germans did and they worked pretty damn well but that is another story). But precision mattered. Dive bombers were lethal due to their comparative accuracy*, not due to their bomb load. It was important to disable or destroy ships as quickly as possible and with the least number of aircraft possible, not so much to move mud as the war-losing strategy in Vietnam had it. In Naval war, the risks were too great to stick around and sling thousands of tons of bombs. Damage had to be, and was, done quickly so that the carriers could get out of danger. The Marines famously developed some of the best yet ground spotting coordination with forward air controllers etc., I believe mostly with their fighter-bombers, to get the most out of ground attack (so that the aircraft would suffer less attrition).

As for air to air claims, my understanding is that most of the SBD claims were by the pilot with the main guns. When attacked at least most of the time, SBDs did not just sit in a static formation and let their gunners defend them. They did sometimes, but more often especially if the risks were high they were basically dogfighting, using their tight turning ability to evade and maneuver. Fighter pilots also did claim the same targets, but it's not in the same ballpark as a "box" of twelve B-24s or B-17s all shooting (and many claiming) the same fighter that blunders too close to their guns.



* as compared to the truly dismal accuracy of four engine heavies or level bombers in general

"Fact is, tho: no TBDs were lost to enemy action in flight until the morning of 4 June 42."

Yep, I think that is true. It appears that the main killer of TBD's before Midway was getting lost. At Coral Sea they put four F4F's down with the TBD's and lost all four Wildcats, but no TBD's. Apparently at least some of the torps worked as well. Thatch decided on that approach at Midway as well, and always said, "I only had six fighters. If I'd just had eight it would have made a big difference."

But as for torps, even as the USN struggled with the low production rate and poor performance of their existing torpedoes, the new air launched Acoustic Homing Torpedo MK 24, developed by a team at Harvard University together with industry, had its first successful test on 7 Dec 1942 and first lethal use on 14 May 1943. Given that outstanding record of both development and production, the USN had the team work on fixing the older torpedoes as well.

Schweik said:

For an attack plane against island targets you are probably better off with the Hellcat or a Corsair for a variety of reasons.

Click to expand...

Schweik said:

Last time we debated this I dug up the two Japanese battleships sunk by US dive bombers

Click to expand...

The Avenger can carry just as big a load and more varied against land targets and trying to dive bomb a 10-15meter wide bunker under palm trees is a whole lot different than dive bombing 100-200 meter long ships.

I would also like to know which two Japanese Battleships were sunk by dive bombers ALONE?
If you are counting battleships sunk at Kure at the end of the war..........."The shallow anchorage precluded the use of torpedoes."

A lot of damage was done by Hellcats carrying 1000lb bombs but then Hellcats can't dive bomb at the angles that the Dauntless and Helldiver did.

The Avenger could carry
twelve 100lb bombs
four 500lb bombs
one 1000lb GP bomb
two 1000lb AP bombs
one 1600lb AP bomb
one 2000lb GP bomb
one torpedo
two 1000lb GP bombs in tandem.

late avengers (TB-3s) could carry a 500lb on each wing, four 5 in rockets under each wing or a Douglas gun pack of two, .50 cal guns and 340 rounds of ammo under each wing.

The small bombs had a max release angle of 30 degrees, the 500lb bombs were 20 degrees max (they were arrange two side by side with one pair behind the other in the bomb bay) but the 1000lb bombs could be released at up to 63 degrees and 1600lb could be released at 66 degrees.

That doesn't make the Avenger a dive bomber but it does give a number of useful attack profiles and a lot of options for a task force commander.

"In Naval combat in WW2 the Americans didn't have guided missiles..."

In fact the Mk 24 FIDO acoustic homing torpedo was the first air launched guided missile ever used in actual combat.

Much later in the war the Bat missile was launched from VPB-109 Privateers with some success. It was a radar guided fire and forget weapon. It's biggest flaw was that after it was locked onto a target the crew might have no idea what target that was. The next biggest flaw was that the airframe was made out of plywood and did not take well to being hauled around the Pacific under the wing of an airplane and then stored outside, with the result that its glide range was often less than advertised.

Schweik said:

In Naval combat in WW2 the Americans didn't have guided missiles (the Germans did and they worked pretty damn well but that is another story).

Click to expand...

The USN also had the Interstate TDR, which might be considered a "drone" by today's standards and saw limited against shipping and heavily defended positions in the Pacific

michael rauls said:

I didn't misread your post. I took the worst example of overclaiming and the least you gave to be fair and used them as examples that could aply to any aircraft.
The final war end ratio I've read several places is i believe 1.3 or 1.2 to 1. Amost an even trade. The ratio of claims you are using for the coral sea is much more optimistic for the SBD. 88 to 39. About 2.2 to 1. So I think it is safe to say that the same ratios will not hold up throughout claims. I've always read the 1.3 to 1 number refered to as verified claims.
For the ratios you gave to hold consistent( 4 to 1 overclaiming) SBDs would have to suddenly drop there claims to losses ratio by about 75 % to arive at the 1.3 to 1 ratio comonly given for the war end total.
That seems shall we say unlikely. Again the claiming numbers you are giving are much more optimistic for the SBD than( about double) than that which is commonly given as "verified claims. So it would seem some sort if verification did indeed go on( although I'm not sure what that entails) and for sure the same ratios will not hold up throughout claims at least not the varified claims numbers commonly given.

Click to expand...

Carrier based SBD's had a claims to losses ratio of 2.5 to 1 and land-based SBD's a ratio of 0.9 to 1. The combined ratio is 1.3 to 1; and that is still the claims not verified enemy losses.

USN stats also show 306 victories for 28 lost to enemy aircraft for an exchange ratio of 10.9 to 1 for the PB4Y, beating the SBD by a stretch 'in the most enemy aircraft shot down by a bomber 'department.

michael rauls said:

Four engine bombers had 4 or 5 guys shooting at the same incoming fighter and sometimes all making a claim for the same plane. On the SBD there's only one set of guns forward and one backward. Can't both be shooting at the same plane simultaneously.

Click to expand...

Point is that that the bomber air gunners' claims are readily and universally accepted as over claiming. While over claiming by fighters and other aircraft may not have been as optimistic as the air gunners; it still is a factor, yet it seems to be happily ignored by many aviation enthusiasts when extolling the virtues of there favorite aircraft.