Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?

Hmmm. I may have been wrong about the "Pete," per the Wiki:

"The type was also used as an area-defense fighter and engaged in aerial combat in the Aleutians, the Solomons and several other theaters. In the New Guinea front, it was often used in aerial combat with the Allied bombers and Allied fighters. "

They talk about them in The First Team being used as aircover over, I believe, some small convoys trying to get to Guadalcanal. Better than nothing. They could harrass SBD's and Avengers and were difficult for Wildcats to cope with due to extreme maneuverability.

Well. the PB4Y-1 (converted B-24) as used by the USN and PB4Y-2 Privateer flew almost all of their missions at 2000 ft or lower. Their accuracy against ships was not bad at all, although they tended to be much more cautious with warships.

A friend of mine was a radio operator on PB4Y-2, the only unit that used the Bat missile in combat. He said he had a parachute but never even put it on. At the altitudes they were flying at it would have been useless.

The Mitsubishi F1M2 F1M biplane, code named Pete, was indeed used as a fighter by the IJN, although mainly because at the island bases it was located at it probably was the only thing available.

Just finished "Never Call Me a Hero", the memoir of N. Jack "Dusty" Kleiss, who fought with VS-6 from Pearl Harbor to Midway.
Highly recommended reading. His commentary on the TBD and the Mk 13 torpedo are quite damning.

YEs, I have that book but have not read it. I recently finished reading No Higher Honor about the original USS Yorktown aircraft carrier and also have but have not read Stay the Rising Sun about the USS Lexington.

swampyankee said:

Within a few hours, yes. After that, well, memory is malleable. This is one of the reasons eyewitness testimony is far from the "gold standard" in evidence that it's often been purported to be.

Click to expand...

Well, I think they know what they hit. That's not to say they were all honest about it, but then the possibility of dishonesty is a factor in every claim. It has to be taken into account. Over-claiming is a reality. But to be fair, it's a reality all around.

In a lot of cases it was not a question of "honesty", but of what they saw from their vantage point in a few seconds of fast action. They fired, they saw a puff of smoke or perhaps a few pieces came off, or appeared to, the plane fired at did some sort of odd maneuver (out of control? violent evasive action?) and so on. Trouble can be that several gunners all firing at the same time saw a similar sequence of events but didn't realise how many other guns were firing at the same target.

Did that Zero that went passed roll inverted and then dive because it had been hit or because it carburator wouldn't handle negative Gs, like an early Merlin, so they can't just bunt into a dive. If there are clouds the target plane may disappear into them and resume somewhat normal flight.
It is hard for one man to really keep aware of all that is going on. The Fire service was nowhere near as dangerous as flying combat missions but standard procedure is to have two man minimum on the attack hose, the nozzleman controls the nozzle and sprays the water. The 2nd man (usually an officer ) helps move the hose and maintains situational awareness. The nozzleman can get fixated on the fire in front of him and miss fire breaking out to side, behind or overhead. It is the officers job to watch out for these things. Back seater in a single engine attack plane has nobody watching out for him, he has to identify the most imminent threat. Fire at it, observe tracer if there is any, call out warnings to the pilot and watch for 2nd and 3rd attackers. A lot to do.

The was some dishonesty, there was also a lot of honest impressions that turned out to be incorrect. The British were shooting down He 113s for well over a year, Do 17s were misidentified as Ju-88s. Ju-88s and He 111s were mistaken for each other. In a lot of these cases the pilot (or gunner) shot down or damaged something, just not what they thought it was.

I actually agree with Shortround on that. I think they usually thought they got the kills they claimed, on all sides.

Schweik said:

Hmmm. I may have been wrong about the "Pete," per the Wiki:

"The type was also used as an area-defense fighter and engaged in aerial combat in the Aleutians, the Solomons and several other theaters. In the New Guinea front, it was often used in aerial combat with the Allied bombers and Allied fighters. "

Click to expand...

One of the interesting aspects of the air war in the North Western Area (NWA) was the aerial combats fought against Japanese floatplanes located at Taberfane Island. This was the location of 934 Kokutai, who in 1943, was equipped with Jakes, Petes and Rufes. The Petes and Rufes often intercepted RAAF Hudsons, Dutch B-25s and USAAF B-24's. The arrival of 31 sqn RAAF with their Beaufighters soon inflicted many losses on this unit. It wasn't uncommon for Beaufighters and Petes to mix it up it up over Taberfane, usually with the Beaufighters coming out on top.

That getting it right when claiming victories was difficult, can be gauged by those random accounts of encounters where both sides returned claiming victories but not suffering any losses.

When the IJN hit the Yorktown at Midway a bomb blew up in the intake duct, blowing out all of the fires in the boilers and creating a huge black cloud of soot from the stacks. Dead in the water and with a huge pall of black smoke overhead, the IJN crews "knew" they had killed that carrier. But that damage was easy to fix and the Yorktown was under way again when the next wave of IJN attackers came in. Since they "knew" they had killed the first carrier they figured it was a different ship and attacked again. The damage from that attack resulted in an Abandon Ship order, but in fact a salvage crew was later put back aboard and was in the process of saving the ship when an IJN submarine attack inflicted fatal damage.

So there were three carrier kills the IJN could claim, based on what they saw occur.

The B-17's thought they had made many hits, a ship might disappear in a group of bomb splashes! Every destroyer became a cruiser and every cruiser a battleship.

Greg Boeser said:

Just finished "Never Call Me a Hero", the memoir of N. Jack "Dusty" Kleiss, who fought with VS-6 from Pearl Harbor to Midway.
Highly recommended reading. His commentary on the TBD and the Mk 13 torpedo are quite damning.

Click to expand...

Why don't you give us a sample. Particularly interested in what he had to say about the TBD.

Wildcat said:

One of the interesting aspects of the air war in the North Western Area (NWA) was the aerial combats fought against Japanese floatplanes located at Taberfane Island. This was the location of 934 Kokutai, who in 1943, was equipped with Jakes, Petes and Rufes. The Petes and Rufes often intercepted RAAF Hudsons, Dutch B-25s and USAAF B-24's. The arrival of 31 sqn RAAF with their Beaufighters soon inflicted many losses on this unit. It wasn't uncommon for Beaufighters and Petes to mix it up it up over Taberfane, usually with the Beaufighters coming out on top.

Click to expand...

Is it too much to ask that somebody do a movie with heavy emphasis on the air and naval combat in this area? I'd really like to see some of that in play. Also the equivalent in the Solomons where it's all a bit more picturesque.

One of the things Christopher Shores pointed out in his Mediterranean Air War series is how effective and deadly Beaufighters were. They sometimes took heavy losses but they seem to have inflicted steady and sometimes quite heavy losses on Axis aircraft, including on types that other fighters didn't seem to be able to catch very often like Ju 88s. They were also often showing up at opportune times to strafe E boats or whatever the equivalent was in the Med. They seem to have been useful in nearly every Theater. One of the indespensible Allied aircraft.

Googled Taberfane Island and mostly got a bunch of comptuer game screens. But I found this:



And this, allegedly from 31 Sqr RAAF



Looks like a pretty thorough WIki on the campaign too, though no idea how accurate

North Western Area Campaign - Wikipedia

There is a rather dramatic account of a "Mavis" being attacked by a Kittyhawk and both getting shot down in the subsequent action near Darwin. It sounds like that 20mm tail gun did pack a punch after all:

"Four of the flying boats took off from Ceram at 2.00 a.m. but the fifth aircraft, piloted by Sub-Lieutenant Mirau, was delayed with engine trouble and did not take off until 4.00 a.m. Mirau's aircraft was alone when, at about 10.30 a.m., it sighted the Houston convoy steaming towards Timor. Mirau reported this by radio and was told to continue shadowing the convoy, which he did for a further three hours. Before heading back to Ceram he made an unsuccessful bombing attack on the convoy from 4,000 metres, using 60 kilogram bombs. The crew of the flying boat were just settling down to lunch when, as described earlier, they were attacked by an American Kittyhawk.

Mr M. Takahara (who, after the war, became an executive director of one of Japan's largest stockbroking firms) was the flying boat's observer at the time, and one of only two crewmen to escape the encounter unscathed. His recollections of the incident, which were published recently in Japan, provide a rare personal insight into the nature of the Japanese air war over northern Australia. The following extract from Takahara's third-person narrative account describes what happened after the Kittyhawk was sighted:

The fighter then came at them from the rear. As it approached, Takahara blazed away at it with the cannon. At the same time shots from the fighter tore through the body of the flying-boat. When the fighter was right upon them they saw that white smoke was issuing from its tail. As the fighter dived towards the sea Takahara fired a whole magazine (50 rounds) into it. They saw the fighter hit the water ... Takahara discovered that his wireless operator had been hit and ... the flying-boat, too, with flames coming out of the door forward of the tanks ... Takahara felt the shock as they hit, opened the door and then lost consciousness. He came to in the water.[6]

Takahara and the other five crewmen who survived the crash were able to draw some comfort from the knowledge that the Japanese Army Air Force did eventually capitalize on their success in locating the Allied convoy. The next morning they saw twenty-seven Japanese bombers flying south to attack the convoy. The flying boat crew were subsequently captured on Melville Island and eventually interned at Cowra, where they took part in the famous break-out in August 1944."

And another description of a PBY getting attacked by Japanese fighters:

"A United States Navy Catalina[8] from the U.S. Navy's Patrol Squadron 22 was investigating the ship's unreported presence when it was set upon by nine Zero fighters.[9] The Catalina pilot, Lieutenant Thomas H. Moorer, survived the attack and subsequently submitted a comprehensive report, which is now considered to be the earliest contemporary account of an aerial combat in northern Australia.



The crew of the Catalina were subsequently rescued by the Florence D., which came alongside and identified itself. Soon afterwards, however, the ship was also attacked and sunk by twenty-seven dive-bombers from the 1st Air Fleet. This was in effect the last anti-shipping strike of 1942. Japanese tactics had changed altogether by January 1943 when they resumed anti-shipping operations in the Arafura Sea and Torres Strait. The vital supply route to Darwin was constantly patrolled by small float-plane formations equipped with either Petes, Jakes or Nakajima B5Ns (Kates). A tactic commonly employed by Japanese pilots was to switch off the engine and dive out of the sun, which meant that the aircraft was neither heard nor seen until it had dropped its bomb. The supply ship HMAS Patricia Cam was sunk in this fashion near Wessel Island on 22 January 1943. The store ship Macumba was also sunk by float-planes at Millingimbi on 10 May, although on this occasion a Spitfire from No. 457 Squadron managed to shoot down one of the float-planes.[Note 4]"

Love the silent dive bombing strategy.

Drama! Maybe we should write a screenplay!

Here's the order of arrival and action of VS-6/VB-6 on Sunday morning, 7 December 1941.

By the way, it was a bit of irony that the Enterprise launched her scouting groups at the same time the IJN was launching it's attack groups.

First to arrive was VS-6/16: pilot Patriarca/gunner DeLuca and VS-6/15: pilot Willis/gunner Ducolon. As they were lining up to land at Ewa, came under attack by IJN aircraft, VS-6/16 taking hits by a D3A.
The flight turned back, VS-6/15 was shot down with Willis/Ducolon MIA, VS-6/16 landed at Burns Field, Kauai.

Next to arrive was VB-6/3: pilot Gonzalez/gunner Kozelek and VB-6/12: pilot Weber/gunner Keany. 25 miles from Oahu, VB-6/3 was shot down with Gonzalez/Kozelek MIA, VB-6/12 evaded attaks by a D3A.
Arriving at 8:20 a.m. off Keana point were VS-6/14: pilot Deacon/gunner Coslett and VS-6/9: pilot Roberts/gunner Jones. Flying through groups of A6Ms and D3As, VS-6/14 and VS-6/9 attempted to land at Hickam Field, where they came under considerable defensive fire. VS-6/14 took damaged and was forced down, ditching 200 yards off the beach and were injured by ongoing defensive fire but were rescued by a USN boat. VS-6/9 managed to land at Hickam despite the intense AA and gunner Jones employed his MGs as AA during the next attack wave.

Next, VS-6/AG Commander: pilot Young/gunner Nichols and VS-6/2: pilot Teaff/gunner Jinks came under attack by A6Ms off Barber's Point. Both VS-6/1 and VS-6/2 managed to evade the fighters and arrived at Ford island at 8:35 a.m. and managed to land in spite of the defensive AA. Both aircraft were lightly damaged but all crewmen were uninjured.

At 8:25 a.m., VS-6/4: pilot Dickenson/gunner Miller and VS-6/9: pilot McCarthy/gunner Cohn came under attack off Barber's Point by A6Ms. In spite of taking evasive action, VS-6/9 was shot down, pilot McCarthy successfully baled out, gunner Cohn was KIA. VS-6/4 continued to take evasive action, during which gunner Miller shot down an attacking A6M but VS-6/4 was now being overwhelmed by attackers, being set on fire. Pilot Dickenson successfully baled out near Ewa Field, gunner Miller was KIA.

VS-6/1: pilot Hopping/gunner Thomas became seperated from VS-6/3: pilot Vogt/gunner Pierce during their patrol. VS-6/1 made it through to Ford Island in the midst of a dive-bombing attack, but landed virtually unscathed. VS-6/3 arrived shortly after, but came under attack by a group of A6Ms from the Kaga near Ewa field. Eyewitnesses stated that VS-6/3 went on the attack against the A6Ms and during a turning fight, which VS-6/3 was closing on an A6M which stalled and VS-6/3 collided with the enemy aircraft. Pilot Vogt and gunner Pierce were KIA.

VS-6/11: pilot Fogg/gunner Dennis and VS-6/8: pilot Dobson/gunner Hoss both arrived over Ford Island amidst intense defensive AA. VS-6/8 managed to land un-damaged inspite of the AA, VS-6/11 turned back and landed at Ewa Field.

VS-6/7: pilot Hilton/gunner Learning and VB-6/5: pilot Kroeger/gunner Chapman arrived off Barber's Point at 8:45 a.m. and tried to land at Ewa Field but were waved off, so the flight headed to Ford Island nut were turned back by intense AA. The flight returned to Ewa and successfully landed.

Last to arrive, VS-6/10: pilot Gallagher/gunner Merritt and VS-6/5: pilot West/gunner Hanson, landed without incident at Ewa Field.

And it appears I was wrong about not recollecting a mid-air collision.

At Pearl Harbor a number of the USAAF fighter pilots had been invited to attend a pig hunt and roast at a private residence over on the Big Island. They flew over in a B-18 on Saturday, spent the night, and got up on Sunday only to find out about the attack. The B-18 had no guns on board, but they flew back anyway.

fliger747 said:

The B-17's thought they had made many hits, a ship might disappear in a group of bomb splashes! Every destroyer became a cruiser and every cruiser a battleship.

Click to expand...

I've spent a lot of time in the outback Australian deserts and it's very easy to see things that aren't there or miss identify what they are.

Weather Elements: The Superior Mirage: Seeing Beyond

Float versions were produced of the Wildcat and Spitfire V, though not produced as far as I know. I wonder what the ins and outs were of single float versus twin floats? Then there was the C47 on floats...

Schweik said:

One of the things Christopher Shores pointed out in his Mediterranean Air War series is how effective and deadly Beaufighters were. They sometimes took heavy losses but they seem to have inflicted steady and sometimes quite heavy losses on Axis aircraft, including on types that other fighters didn't seem to be able to catch very often like Ju 88s. They were also often showing up at opportune times to strafe E boats or whatever the equivalent was in the Med. They seem to have been useful in nearly every Theater. One of the indespensible Allied aircraft.

Click to expand...

31 sqn was particularly effective in its long range strikes against Japanese airfields and floatplanes bases in this AO. Against 934 Ku I have 8 destroyed in air combat and 19 destroyed on the ground. RAAF Beauforts, Spitfires & Hudsons shot down a further 8 floatplanes.

Schweik said:

There is a rather dramatic account of a "Mavis" being attacked by a Kittyhawk and both getting shot down in the subsequent action near Darwin. It sounds like that 20mm tail gun did pack a punch after all:

Click to expand...

The P-40 pilot was Lt Robert Buel USAAF. He was the first allied airman KIA in air combat over Northern Australia.