Best Dive Bomber of WWII - Aircraft of World War II

V-1710 · 11-29-2005, 11:09 PM

I vote for the Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless.

syscom3 · 11-29-2005, 11:12 PM

Me too.

V-1710 · 11-29-2005, 11:36 PM

I almost wanted to say the Junkers JU-87, but it was only effective if there was NO competent opposing fighters in the area. The Dauntless not only sunk a substantial number of Japanese warships, but managed to have the lowest loss ratio of any U.S. Navy carrier-born aircraft. I have heard that Dauntless also shot down a fair number of Zeros as well.

FLYBOYJ · 11-30-2005, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V-1710

I have heard that Dauntless also shot down a fair number of Zeros as well.

It sure did, eh Syscom?!?

We had this discussion on another thread, "Swede" Vejtasa, got his first three kills as the pilot of a Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless dive bomber with VS-5

syscom3 · 11-30-2005, 12:31 AM

Well, I have bought a book about the IJN fighter groups and aces, and so far, the Dauntless claims for the Zero's dont add up.

There were plenty of exaggerations on both sides apparently.

pbfoot · 11-30-2005, 12:54 AM

the ju87 was the one from 39 - 45 it caused the most havoc was far more multi role capable it was a tank buster it sunk a lot of naval tonnage severely damaging carrier illustrious sinking the formidable it sunk a couple of Russian battleships and flew in a far more intensive area of action not to demean the us pacific naval war

trackend · 11-30-2005, 02:40 AM

SBD5 is my choice. faster & better bombload to range ratio than the JU87

V-1710 · 11-30-2005, 02:53 AM

I have read where Dauntless pilots commented that the SBD was easier to fly than the SNJ (AT-6) trainers. The only comments on the JU-87's flight characteristics I have read were quite negative. Twin .50's in the nose, twin .50's in the rear cockpit, and capable of very abrupt turns and changes in speed (I guess it was due to all that flap area) made for a dangerous dive bomber to try to attack. [/b]

Gnomey · 11-30-2005, 07:53 AM

Dauntless for me too.

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-30-2005, 11:58 AM

damn it why did the RAF have any decent dive bombers

Andrew · 11-30-2005, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

the ju87 was the one from 39 - 45 it caused the most havoc was far more multi role capable it was a tank buster it sunk a lot of naval tonnage severely damaging carrier illustrious sinking the formidable it sunk a couple of Russian battleships and flew in a far more intensive area of action not to demean the us pacific naval war

If you a are talking about the carrier HMS Formidable, she suffered severe damage, by 2 1000kg bombs dropped by Stuka's on the 26th May, and was out of the war for 6 months.

cheddar cheese · 11-30-2005, 12:17 PM

Ju-87...Mmmmm...

pbfoot · 11-30-2005, 12:40 PM

yeah the stukas only damaged Formidable, my error but still the stuka fought in a much more intense theatre of combat and still performed well

MacArther · 11-30-2005, 01:34 PM

The Vengance and the Dautless. The Vengance because it had larger amounts of forward firepower, the Dautless because it was the coolest and did the job very well. Another point for the Vengance, it had a top level speed of 365mph according to the text I found it in.

delcyros · 11-30-2005, 04:35 PM

I would go for the Ju-88. It performed well in dive attacks and could
fullfill a number of roles the Ju-87 couldn´t do. For single engined I am impressed by the max 1.4 tons of bombs as a huge payload for a single engined plane such as Stuka, but the Dauntless is technically better.

11-29-2005, 11:09 PM	#1
V-1710 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 163	Best Dive Bomber of WWII I vote for the Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless.

11-29-2005, 11:12 PM	#2
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,283	Me too. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

11-30-2005, 12:31 AM	#5
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,283	Well, I have bought a book about the IJN fighter groups and aces, and so far, the Dauntless claims for the Zero's dont add up. There were plenty of exaggerations on both sides apparently. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

11-30-2005, 07:53 AM	#9
Gnomey "World Traveller" Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK Posts: 15,224	Dauntless for me too. __________________ "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts" Sir Winston Churchill "To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today" Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum My Photo Collections on Flickr

11-30-2005, 11:58 AM	#10
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	damn it why did the RAF have any decent dive bombers __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

11-29-2005, 11:36 PM	#3
V-1710 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 163	I almost wanted to say the Junkers JU-87, but it was only effective if there was NO competent opposing fighters in the area. The Dauntless not only sunk a substantial number of Japanese warships, but managed to have the lowest loss ratio of any U.S. Navy carrier-born aircraft. I have heard that Dauntless also shot down a fair number of Zeros as well.

11-30-2005, 12:54 AM	#6
pbfoot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: niagara falls Posts: 5,588	the ju87 was the one from 39 - 45 it caused the most havoc was far more multi role capable it was a tank buster it sunk a lot of naval tonnage severely damaging carrier illustrious sinking the formidable it sunk a couple of Russian battleships and flew in a far more intensive area of action not to demean the us pacific naval war

11-30-2005, 02:40 AM	#7
trackend Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Canvey Island, Essex Posts: 4,029	SBD5 is my choice. faster & better bombload to range ratio than the JU87

11-30-2005, 02:53 AM	#8
V-1710 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 163	I have read where Dauntless pilots commented that the SBD was easier to fly than the SNJ (AT-6) trainers. The only comments on the JU-87's flight characteristics I have read were quite negative. Twin .50's in the nose, twin .50's in the rear cockpit, and capable of very abrupt turns and changes in speed (I guess it was due to all that flap area) made for a dangerous dive bomber to try to attack. [/b]

11-30-2005, 12:17 PM	#12
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	Ju-87...Mmmmm...

11-30-2005, 12:40 PM	#13
pbfoot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: niagara falls Posts: 5,588	yeah the stukas only damaged Formidable, my error but still the stuka fought in a much more intense theatre of combat and still performed well

11-30-2005, 01:34 PM	#14
MacArther Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 876	The Vengance and the Dautless. The Vengance because it had larger amounts of forward firepower, the Dautless because it was the coolest and did the job very well. Another point for the Vengance, it had a top level speed of 365mph according to the text I found it in. __________________ http://www.fictionpress.com/u/478009/ Hillary 2012: The world has to end sometime!

11-30-2005, 04:35 PM	#15
delcyros Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg) Posts: 1,726	I would go for the Ju-88. It performed well in dive attacks and could fullfill a number of roles the Ju-87 couldn´t do. For single engined I am impressed by the max 1.4 tons of bombs as a huge payload for a single engined plane such as Stuka, but the Dauntless is technically better. __________________ ---delcyros---

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode