Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?

[Kevin J]

I wonder how effective that the SBD would have been against Tirpitz at sea? In her hideaway I believe Tirpitz was dive bombed yielding mainly superficial damage. However fo a raider not too hard to achieve a mission kill, such as the minor damage to Bismarcks bow which caused a number of other unfortunate events to tumble forth for her.

Certainly ships were a high value target and about the right size for the CEP of a dive bomber. Ground targets generally not as high value and smaller, less susceptible to damage.

As to the British aerial torpedos they must have been set to run pretty shallow to hit on the external armor belt, sending most of their force upwards. Perhaps the heavy seas factored in this somehow. These seemed to be effective enough at Taranto.

It took tallboy bombs to destroy the Tirpitz flown by Lancasters based in Russia. The SBD would have failed just like the Barracudas did with their 3600 lb bombs.

 

[pinsog]

It took tallboy bombs to destroy the Tirpitz flown by Lancasters based in Russia. The SBD would have failed just like the Barracudas did with their 3600 lb bombs.

Are you referring to Operation Tungsten? If so they used a few 1600 pound armor piercing bombs and 500 pound semi armor piercing bombs and then some 500 pound general purpose bombs. The first wave was only 21 Barracudas and they landed 3 1600 pound bombs, 3 500 pound semi armor piercing bombs and 1 gp 500 pound bomb. The second wave, no idea how many Barracudas on this wave, hit Tirpitz with 1 1600 pound bomb and 4 500 pound bombs. Total hits, 4 1600 pounders and 7 500 pound semi armor piercing along with some GP bombs.

I think if Tirpitz was caught on the open sea by a US fleet carrier would have been a different story. Assume 36 SBD's, give the first wave all 1000 pounders and there wouldn't be much left of the upper deck, AA guns, radar, radio masts etc. I would arm all returning SBD's with 1600 pound bombs, let's say 32 are left from first attack. If even 1/4 of these hit your talking about 8 hits. Near misses causing flooding, damaged screws or rudders. How many more strikes they might fly would of course depend on a lot of other factors. I don't think Tirpitz would survive even just dive bombers. If the US carrier used torpedo bombers, assuming they used functional torpedoes and Tirpitz doesn't have a chance.

 

[swampyankee]

It took tallboy bombs to destroy the Tirpitz flown by Lancasters based in Russia. The SBD would have failed just like the Barracudas did with their 3600 lb bombs.

There wouldn't be just SBDs; neither the USN nor RN were run by sentimental fools, so the Tirpitz and consorts (did the German Navy have any destroyers left by this time?) would run into multiple dive and torpedo bombers, possibly preceded by submarine-launched torpedoes and followed by optional destroyer-launched torpedoes and USN and RN heavy guns.

 

[michael rauls]

I think if you drop enough 1000lb bombs on any ship it's going to sink eventually. It's just with really hardened targets like the Tirpitz it's going to be far from the most efficient method.

 

[GrauGeist]

Operation Leader, which was primarily conducted to disrupt iron ore shipments from Norway (with the hopes that the Tirpitz would come out), was executed in October '43 as a joint operation between the USN and the RN.
In the group with the USS Ranger were the Battleships HMS Duke of York and HMS Anson, Cruisers USS Tuscaloosa, HMS Belfast and HMS Teazer and Destroyers USS Corry, USS Forrest, USS Hobson, USS Capps, USS Fitch, HMS Janus, HMS Milne, HMS Scorpion, HMS Opportune, HMS Vigilant, HMS Savage and HMS Scourge.
The air compliment aboard Ranger was:
(VF-4) 27 F4F Wildcats
(VB-4) 27 SBD Dauntlesses
(VT-4) 18 TBF Avengers

 

[pinsog]

Operation Leader, which was primarily conducted to disrupt iron ore shipments from Norway (with the hopes that the Tirpitz would come out), was executed in October '43 as a joint operation between the USN and the RN.
In the group with the USS Ranger were the Battleships HMS Duke of York and HMS Anson, Cruisers USS Tuscaloosa, HMS Belfast and HMS Teazer and Destroyers USS Corry, USS Forrest, USS Hobson, USS Capps, USS Fitch, HMS Janus, HMS Milne, HMS Scorpion, HMS Opportune, HMS Vigilant, HMS Savage and HMS Scourge.
The air compliment aboard Ranger was:
(VF-4) 27 F4F Wildcats
(VB-4) 27 SBD Dauntlesses
(VT-4) 18 TBF Avengers

That airgroup, with functioning torpedoes would make short work of Tirpitz. Wildcats go in strafing, followed by SBD's with 1000 pound GP to wreck the AA guns, then 18 Avengers, 9 off each bow do a hammer/anvil attack with virtually 0 AA fire. Done.....

 

[Shortround6]

the second chair I think hasn't got the attention here it should.

It was also there as a 2nd set of eyes for the scout/search/recon role. He was also the radio operator and again, 1939-42 ( or pick a year) were not the radios of 1944-45.

A radio with a range of several hundred miles, so necessary to the scout/search/recon function needed a dedicated operator.

 

[pinsog]

It was also there as a 2nd set of eyes for the scout/search/recon role. He was also the radio operator and again, 1939-42 ( or pick a year) were not the radios of 1944-45.

A radio with a range of several hundred miles, so necessary to the scout/search/recon function needed a dedicated operator.

What were the reasons those radios required a dedicated operator?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

What were the reasons those radios required a dedicated operator?

Ever fine tune a long range radio transmitter, compose a message, encode it, and key it into a CW radio while dodging flak and fighters? I had a truly sadistic instrument instructor once who tried to expand my multi tasking skills by having me fly practice pattern B under the hood while giving me instructions over the intercom which I had to reply to in morse with a key clipped to my kneeboard and wired into the intercom. He almost had me talked into joining the ham radio club until he pulled that stunt.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[VBF-13]

It was also there as a 2nd set of eyes for the scout/search/recon role. He was also the radio operator and again, 1939-42 ( or pick a year) were not the radios of 1944-45.

A radio with a range of several hundred miles, so necessary to the scout/search/recon function needed a dedicated operator.

Part of that training was in photography and mapping, too. At least, that's how it was in the SBD-5s. That second chair wasn't just there for the gunnery, that's right.

 

[pinsog]

Ever fine tune a long range radio transmitter, compose a message, encode it, and key it into a CW radio while dodging flak and fighters? I had a truly sadistic instrument instructor once who tried to expand my multi tasking skills by having me fly practice pattern B under the hood while giving me instructions over the intercom which I had to reply to in morse with a key clipped to my kneeboard and wired into the intercom. He almost had me talked into joining the ham radio club until he pulled that stunt.
Cheers,
Wes

No I haven't. What does the fine tuning encompass?

Was that instrument instructor situation civilian or military? What happened with that?

 

[Shortround6]

They often required "tuning" as in the operator turned a dial connected to a potentiometer or variable coil in order to get the right frequency. Depending on the weather or atmospheric conditions the radios tended to drift in Frequency. Also for the same "power" a radio using code transmission had around 3 times the range of a radio using voice transmission.
Bf 110s used the same radio as the He 111 and other the german bombers while the 109 used a rather short ranged radio.

 

[Shortround6]

Part of that training was in photography and mapping, too. At least, that's how it was in the SBD-5s. That second chair wasn't just there for the gunnery, that's right.

Later on when the vast majority of SBDs got radar the rear seater was also the radio operator but that had nothing to do with the original specification/design.

 

[GrauGeist]

If the rear gunner didn't wear enough hats already, he could also fly the aircraft in an emergency from the auxiliary flight controls.

 

[fliger747]

My dad said that a lot of guys that washed out of flight training became radio/gunners. So often they did have some flying experience! the sending of accurate messages was vital, think of how many messages sent in error or incomplete during major Pacific Battles!

 

[XBe02Drvr]

No I haven't. What does the fine tuning encompass?

Was that instrument instructor situation civilian or military? What happened with that?

The instructor was an Army E6 radar technician from a nearby HAWK battery who taught in the Navy Flying Club and was president of the base ham radio club. His home radio setup consisted of a Heathkit receiver he built himself and a honking big WWII vintage military surplus transmitter that had multiple RF frequency tuning dials, both coarse and vernier. As SR6 mentioned, it was prone to drifting off frequency, and had some sort of an arrangement through the receiver that caused a beat frequency to develop in the earphones if the transmitter drifted off the receiver's far more precise crystal controlled frequency. So you were sending code with your right hand and constantly tweaking the verniers with your left to suppress the beat frequencies in your ears. Those of you who've flown older multi engine planes with no propeller auto synch can relate to that. Joe told me that type of transmitter was used in Navy patrol bombers in WWII. In any case it's clear that a single seat long range scout plane was problematical with the radio technology of the day.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[VBF-13]

If the rear gunner didn't wear enough hats already, he could also fly the aircraft in an emergency from the auxiliary flight controls.

That's one I never knew, GG. The closest I'd ever come to knowing it was knowing they could swivel in the chair and face forward. Given this insight, that in itself is good to know, as otherwise they'd be having to fly it backwards, lol...

But seriously, I don't believe this never came up in any discussions I'd had, or research I'd undertaken. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[glennasher]

It took tallboy bombs to destroy the Tirpitz flown by Lancasters based in Russia. The SBD would have failed just like the Barracudas did with their 3600 lb bombs.

From what I've read, the tallboys didn't really do any more damage to the Tirpitz, it was already sunk, and sitting on the floor of the fjord with it's decks still above water. It was already "done" and the 617th just added to the misery of the sailors aboard. It literally couldn't go anywhere at all.
I'll have to dig up the book I got that from, but that's what the author claimed.

 

[swampyankee]

From what I've read, the tallboys didn't really do any more damage to the Tirpitz, it was already sunk, and sitting on the floor of the fjord with it's decks still above water. It was already "done" and the 617th just added to the misery of the sailors aboard. It literally couldn't go anywhere at all.
I'll have to dig up the book I got that from, but that's what the author claimed.

I think the RN's miniature subs caused pretty severe damage to the Tirpitz's propulsion system, to the point where it couldn't go to sea for about a year.(Tirpitz - Operational History)

By mid-1944, had Tirpitz gone to sea -- remember, the Allies were reading German codes -- the term for the experience of the crew would be "running the guantlet." The term for a lot of RN and USN naval aviators would be "live target practice."

 

[GrauGeist]

That's one I never knew, GG. The closest I'd ever come to knowing it was knowing they could swivel in the chair and face forward. Given this insight, that in itself is good to know, as otherwise they'd be having to fly it backwards, lol...

But seriously, I don't believe this never came up in any discussions I'd had, or research I'd undertaken. Thanks for pointing it out.

You're welcome.

It was an uncommon feature for a combat aircraft and was rarely used. The theory was for the rear gunner to provide relief to the pilot on long-range flights as well as assisting in an emergency.

Here is an illustration of the control system from a Douglas manual:

And here is a view of the controls as seen from the gunner's seat (looking forward):

(Photo: NASM)