Worst Piston engined Bomber of World War Two

[Oreo]

No fight needed and I may have been a bit animated but it was on your list of "appear inadequate" and I was giving my reasons.

You seem to be a nice guy. I will put forth a new opinion that the best five dive bombers of the war included the Ju 87.

I still advocate that, everything else being equal, radial engines were better to take into combat than inlines. If you go into combat with liquid-cooled engine, you better not get a stray bullet in your radiator. Taking the dive-bomber's likelihood of coming into contact with intense surface fire, I would much rather take my chances with a radial than an inline.

Now, as for the dive and torpedo bomber melee that some of you people have been engaging in, I don't know a whole lot about all these things, but for my two cents, I once had an opportunity to speak at length with a former USN pilot who had flown both the SBD and SB2C in combat, and he told me that he much preferred the SBD because it dived at a slower speed and was more controllable. He indicated that if he were in his dive in an SBD, he would be near vertical, and if he needed to make a course correction in mid-dive, it was a simple matter of a flick to the ailerons, and he would be back on target. He said with the SB2C, the dive was too fast and too hard to control to make much adjustment. I can't remember what or whether he said about the SB2C's dive angle.

Anyway, I visited him with my dad, circa 1992, at his home in New Hampshire. I don't know what has become of him since then, whether he is still alive or not, or what his name is. He had the distinction of flying the two dive bomber types, as well as the F6F in combat, and one other type which I can't remember for sure, but I think was the TBM. He flew the F2A during training at Pensacola. He was an extensive modeler, especially with flying models. He had dozens, maybe even 100 or more, completed flying models in his house, which was set up as a private museum. One B-26 model had to have been at least 6 feet wide. He had literally hundreds of unopened balsa kits in his attic. I wish I could remember his name. Anyway, we spent several hours with him, and it was a most rewarding day.

 

[Shortround6]

You bring up an interesting point. It is hard to judge the actual effectiveness of some of these aircraft because of the many variables.

For instance while the liquid cooled engine of the JU 87 is a mark against it we do not really know how it did it dive for ease of control and accuracy compared to the SBD and SB2C. I would imagine it is much closer to the SBD than the SB2C.

So I do we figure number of bombs on target for number of aircraft lost? The Ju 87 may have more planes lost for the same number of sorties but the Ju 87 may need fewer sorties for the same number of bombs on target than an SB2C.

Another thing that makes comparisons difficult is that the SB2C didn't enter combat use until the Ju 87 was being phased out as a dive bomber. The last versions built being supplied without dive brakes for use as night bombers.

 

[Oreo]

Not to mention typical targets and theaters of operation were different for the two types. By the time the SB2C arrived on scene, the air war in the Pacific was improving for the Allies, and the pressures of 1942 were diminishing. Not so for the Ju 87 crews at the time the SB2C arrived. Things were waxing worse and worse for the LW on the Eastern Front, and the mental pressure was intense. In the Pacific, the SB2C usually enjoyed air superiority thanks to the F6F and F4U, which goes a long way.

I am sure that, when unmolested, the Ju 87 was very very good at plunking bombs on little targets. And the SB2C was usually not molested, except by surface fire.

 

[VBF-13]

I once had an opportunity to speak at length with a former USN pilot who had flown both the SBD and SB2C in combat, and he told me that he much preferred the SBD because it dived at a slower speed and was more controllable. He indicated that if he were in his dive in an SBD, he would be near vertical, and if he needed to make a course correction in mid-dive, it was a simple matter of a flick to the ailerons, and he would be back on target.

If you boys will forgive me, I'd just like to confirm this. Oreo, you're dead right. While these planes had their ideal angles for their dives, in situations less than ideal, they were, in fact, known to come in on "near vertical" dives. They had that capacity by virtue of their perforated brake flaps, which also enabled their virtual pin-point accuracy.

And, these planes were fast. They weren't nicknamed the "Speedy D" for nothing.

 

[JoeB]

The divebomber was an effective concept in particular uses, like striking ships definitely, and also in *some* contexts and situations of land warfare. The 'light single (or very light twin)' bomber was OTOH a questionable concept in any situation by the 1940's. Such a/c in general didn't naturally bomb as accurately as divebombers, didn't carry a big bomb load like a bigger twin or even later fighter bombers, and were completely up sh*t's creek v. significant enemy fighter opposition if lacking very strong friendly fighter support. Against an enemy with little or no air arm and limited flak, and subject to being pressured and harassed in mobile warfare, it might work OK. It's not just or particularly the Fairey Battle, same could be said for the Japanese Type 97 Light Bomber (eventually codenamed 'Ann'): good harasser v basically fighterless Chinese and Fil-American ground forces in mobile phases of campaigns, but lacked much hitting power or accuracy v a target like Corregidor compared to a true divebomber (though it looked like one more than the Battle did), and just out of luck in theaters where Japanese fighters didn't dominate.

A typical (Ju-87, SBD, Type 99) divebomber had the same vulnerability problems, but the small CEP of divebombing was highly useful against certain targets (ships, bridges, gun emplacements in certain cases, etc) for which there was no direct substitute (though other ways to get those missions done eventually) and it could drop small bombs and weakly strafe as a harasser of ground forces lacking air cover or extensive flak and moving in the open, just as well as a light bomber could.

The SBD/A-24 and Type 99 ended up in certain situations where their vulneraility to fighters thwarted them as completely as Ju-87's, just not as numerous occasions. We've been through this many times; perhaps at the margin the SBD and/or Type 99 had some advantage in this respect due to better agility, some episodes of those a/c escaping or even turning the tables on fighter attackers are hard to imagine Ju-87's replicating, but they would still probably have been toast in many or most of the cases where Ju-87's suffered heavily to opposing fighters.

Joe

 

[parsifal]

The 'light single (or very light twin)' bomber was OTOH a questionable concept in any situation by the 1940's. Such a/c in general didn't naturally bomb as accurately as divebombers, didn't carry a big bomb load like a bigger twin or even later fighter bombers, and were completely up sh*t's creek v. significant enemy fighter opposition if lacking very strong friendly fighter support.

I would agree with this in many situations, but there are enough exceptions to make it an untrue statement. Though not limited to one type, I would use the Mosquito as the best example of the exception that completely shatters the rule. It was a light bomber, seldom escorted, highly accurate, and un-interceptbale (well, almost....).

The Russians approached this problem in a different way. Their Light bomber "sturmovik" losses were never light, but neither were they (the losses) ever a problem to them after 1943. They could produce so many of them, and attack in so many places simulataneoulsy as to make any losses they incurred, even against a competent and cohesive defence irrelevant.

The allies approached battlefield co-operation somewhat differently. Dedicated ground attack/divebombers tend to be accurate but vulnerable. Fighter bombersd are essentially fighters being used as light bombers, yet they have a (generally) lower attrition rate compared to their specialised cousins. This is because they have the performance after they drop the ordinance to get out of trouble

 

[Oreo]

If you boys will forgive me, I'd just like to confirm this. Oreo, you're dead right. While these planes had their ideal angles for their dives, in situations less than ideal, they were, in fact, known to come in on "near vertical" dives. They had that capacity by virtue of their perforated brake flaps, which also enabled their virtual pin-point accuracy.

Even a blind squirrel. . . . finds a hex nut every once in a while. I better get ready to be wrong a few more times, since I don't get to be confirmed right very often!

 

[VBF-13]

Just stay in there and pitch, you're doing fine. 8)

 

[JoeB]

I would agree with this in many situations, but there are enough exceptions to make it an untrue statement. Though not limited to one type, I would use the Mosquito as the best example of the exception that completely shatters the rule.

Their Light bomber "sturmovik" losses were never light, but neither were they (the losses) ever a problem to them after 1943.

I wouldn't include either of those planes in the type I'm thinking of. The Mosquito could be put in all kinds of categories and be an exception in each one, it's actually hard to characterize, and the Il-2/10 are a different concept. I'm thinking of a/c like the Battle, Type 97 Light, the Type 99 Light Twin (Lily), some bigger US Army O-series a/c which didn't end up seeing combat in WWII but were contemporary, some French very light twins, etc. They were a/c not much if at all superior in size speed and load to contemporary purpose built divebombers... but couldn't dive bomb, which about sums up why they weren't so capable.

I wasn't really thinking of the A-20/26 either, which I suppose could be called light bombers, but basically had the characteristics of the USAAF mediums in a slighly scaled down package, and were used that way.

Joe

 

[parsifal]

Id agree completely then, withthat clarification in mind joe