Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 130

Thread: SBD vs. JU-87 vs. Aichi D3A

  1. #31
    Senior Member proton45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    676
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would have to agree with the comments in reference to "air superiority"...one could compare HP stats, kill ratio's, years of service or combat losses and draw whatever conclusions one wanted to about which dive bomber was "better"...but the over all success of any bombing campaign has more to do with who controls the sky then which bomber was designed first (oldest) or whatever...


  2. #32
    Senior Member seesul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Zlin, Czech Republic
    Posts
    3,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    SBD


    ...in memory of my friend Joe Owsianik, a former right waist gunner from B-17G, 42-97159 from 2ndBG 20th Sqdn, who was forced to bail out on Aug. 29th, 1944 over my country. Joe passed away on November 1, 2010.

  3. #33
    Banned Kurfürst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Aquincum, Pannonia Prima
    Posts
    1,076
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by proton45 View Post
    I would have to agree with the comments in reference to "air superiority"...one could compare HP stats, kill ratio's, years of service or combat losses and draw whatever conclusions one wanted to about which dive bomber was "better"...but the over all success of any bombing campaign has more to do with who controls the sky then which bomber was designed first (oldest) or whatever...
    It`s just so true I will spam the thread with it.... Look at what happened to unescorted B-17/B-24s.. Look how they fared when they were well escorted in contrast.

    A better pilot beats a better plane, and better tactics will beat a better pilot..

  4. #34
    Senior Member Velius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    263
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet View Post
    The key is control of the skies. If you can fly free and roam over your targest you are going to have success.

    I guess the Val had it's time in the sun only when it was accompanied by zeros to deal with the fighters and provide air supierority. The stuka was much the same way right?

    I might be wrong on this one but was the Dauntless able to hold it's own without the aid of fighters?

  5. #35
    Senior Member Thorlifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Tx
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like
    More so, but it still helped to have some cover. Remember, the Val, like most Japanese planes, had no armor or self sealing fuel tanks. It's didn't take too many hits from a .50 cal to turn it into a fireball. The Dauntless could take some punishment and keep flying.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,766
    Post Thanks / Like
    >I might be wrong on this one but was the Dauntless able to hold it's own without the aid of fighters?

    http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...ack-11124.html

  7. #37
    Senior Member renrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montrose, Colorado
    Posts
    4,542
    Post Thanks / Like
    The SBD had some maneuverability, had two forward firing 50 cals and was even used as a CAP against VTs early on but it would not have a good chance unescorted against enemy VFs. However it served and served well during the whole war.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by B-17engineer View Post
    It was obselete because AMericans and British had superior aircraft, Plus in the BoB its losses were so high it had to withdraw, the SBD never withdrew from any battle, and the 254 mph who cares it was still slow enough that american fighters could blast it out of the sky when ever. THe SBd could pull a 9 G turn atleast if a Zero pulled behind it it could turn, If the Zero did that its wings would rip off, My point being the SBD could Turn better defend its self better and never had to be WITHDRAWN from battle.

    The tank killing wasn't even dive bombing. I will say that Hans-Ulrich RUdel was the best dive bombing pilot ever: 512 soviets tanks destroyed, Sank the Battleship Marat, 11 fighters shot down, he bailed out 13 times and he destroyed 13 locamotives. All in the Stuka with his 37mm anti-tank gun

    I understand both what your saying, I am just supporting that the SBD proved itself and never had be withdrawn, one reason it was superior cause french pilots weren't prepared and there aircraft were just as good as British planes, the British knew they were going to attack and were prepared.

    The part of the French planes is reffering to the Stuka.....
    This is utter non-sense.

    The Americans and British "had superior aircraft"? How come? To what type of superior aircraft you´d be referring to?

    Fighters perhaps? Non-sense again. The Stuka was not designed to engage in air-to-air combat, something i think you should know.

    If referring to dive bombers, which i believe should be the point here, name a British dive bomber that proved superior to the Stuka, or that could outmatch the Stuka´s battle record.

    Battle of Britain, oh well, the Bf 109 E-3 and E-4 were clearly superior to the Hurricane and perhaps slightly superior to the Spitfire Mk. I; there you have the fighter designed to engage the British fighters that would intercept the Stukas.

    Good you mentioned Rudel there; the fact he had to bale out 13 or more times due to enemy fighter action or AA fire and lived to tell the story could certainly help you comprehending a bit further how safe the Stuka could be. You can not go on challenging your "luck" factor forever without paying the consequences.

    You assertion the Dauntless was never withdrawn from service means virtually nothing for concluding which plane was the best.

    Sure the Dauntless made a fine dive bomber, but given the circumstances surrounding the deployment of both models, i´d see any definitive superiority of any of the 2 planes marginal.

  9. #39
    Member MAV_406's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like
    the SBD could hold its own in a dog fight. the stuka was easy meat and the val was extreamly easy to ingnite and explode. in my opion being able to make an attack is the most important part of any strike fighter. no point having a great dive if you cant get there.

  10. #40
    The Pop-Tart Whisperer Njaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern New Jersey
    Posts
    21,503
    Post Thanks / Like
    A better pilot beats a better plane, and better tactics will beat a better pilot..
    True, true, true, true!!!

    I guess the Val had it's time in the sun only when it was accompanied by zeros to deal with the fighters and provide air supierority. The stuka was much the same way right?
    Being covered by fighters does not mean air superiority. In the BoB, the Stukas had cover, sometimes twice their number but they did not have command of the air over England. There was at times an equal number of RAF against the Luftwaffe and although the fighters tangled, the RAF still got to the bombers.

    One other thing: Command of the air over England sometimes forced German bombers to turn back before even reaching the target. Not something much seen later by the Allies when they took it to Germany.

    "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!"


  11. #41
    Senior Member lesofprimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Long Island Native in Mississippi
    Posts
    19,166
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rudel also flew the Fw 190 and scored his "kills" in that seat.... His numbers are inflated by anyones measure, and he lost several backseaters while flying the Stuka....



  12. #42
    Der Crew Chief DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA/Germany
    Posts
    40,706
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Velius View Post
    I guess the Val had it's time in the sun only when it was accompanied by zeros to deal with the fighters and provide air supierority. The stuka was much the same way right?

    I might be wrong on this one but was the Dauntless able to hold it's own without the aid of fighters?
    Its that way for any Dive Bomber. If you dont have air superiority you are going to take heavy losses.


    fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

  13. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,766
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi Udet,

    >You assertion the Dauntless was never withdrawn from service means virtually nothing for concluding which plane was the best.

    Hm, the USAAF's A-24 seems to have been withdrawn from combat service after suffering serious losses (on a small scale).

    David Donald's "Bomber" gives the A-24 versions as follows:

    A-24 = SBD-3 (minus arrestor gear), 78 examples factory build
    A-24 = SBD-3A, 90 examples from a Navy batch converted to A-24 standards
    A-24A = SBD-4, 100/170? examples
    A-24B = SBD-5, 615 examples, Tulsa-built

    I figure all of the Army A-24 variants had the arrestor gear removed, but Donald mentions it only specifically for the first batch.

    Accordingly to Donald, armour and self-sealing tanks were introduced with the SBD-2 variant.

    Regards

    Henning (HoHun)

  14. #44
    Senior Member Nikademus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    525
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by HoHun View Post
    Hi Udet,

    Accordingly to Donald, armour and self-sealing tanks were introduced with the SBD-2 variant.

    Regards

    Henning (HoHun)
    According to this site, the SBD-3 introduced armor and fuel protection.

    The Douglas SBD Dauntless & Curtiss SB2C Helldiver

    However the same chart confirms that the A-24's were SBD-3's or higher so it would seem the USAAF was armored. Do you have any info on these heavy losses and the circumstances? It would be useful to take a look at em.

  15. #45
    Senior Member Nikademus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    525
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fighter escort doesn't mean the bombers are safe. I agree. I think however it's relevent that the Stuka proved so difficult to escort even when ample support was available. The facet that keeps getting mentioned in multiple sources is not the DUR of the bomber but rather that it was too slow. [unweildyness is less mentioned but there] This would appear to be in part due to the nature of the 109 itself however. I'm getting an impression from current reading that the situation was improved with a mixture of 109's and 190's on the escort.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •