Best 1943 Carrier Bomber (non-TB)

[freebird]

A variation of Les's earlier poll, but for the Carrier Dive Bombers (FB) available in 1943.

The criteria: A dive-capable carrier bomber, 2-seater, available for carrier operations in mid-1943

So sorry, the Corsair is not an option.
(it would blow away everything else on the poll if it was)
Also I believe the "Grace" was not available until 1944?

"Best" means ONLY most capable, versatile, survivability, handling, firepower, speed etc.



It does not take into account reputation, career longevity, prestige, success in combat etc.

So none of the reasons that many people gave for the first poll would apply.

I voted SBD because it had the longest, most successful career out of the WWII carrier dive-bombers. It's performance at Midway was stunning.

In other words, if you were to look at these 3 planes WITHOUT knowing who built them or their war record, and judged only by performance.

Also, if you vote in the poll, please tell us WHY you chose to vote for the one you did.

[freebird]

1.) Firefly (Fairey Firefly mk.1)

Speed: 319 mph @ 17,000 ft
Ceiling: 29,000 ft.
Range: 1,364
Bomb load: 2,000 lb.
Armament: 4 x 20 mm cannon

2.) Helldiver (Curtiss-Wright SB2C-1)

Speed: 280 mph @ 17,000 ft
Ceiling: 25,000 ft.
Range: 1,100
Bomb load: 2,000 lb.
Armament: 2 x 20 mm cannon, 2 x Machine Guns


3.) Judy (Yokosuka D4Y1)

Speed: 342 mph @ 15,500 ft
Ceiling: 32,500 ft.
Range: 978
Bomb load: 700 lb.
Armament: 3 x Machine Guns

[tomo pauk]

Since Firefly was not flown operatively in 1943 (but in June 44, two months after Corsair), do we still consider the poll valid?

[freebird]

Since Firefly was not flown operatively in 1943 (but in June 44, two months after Corsair), do we still consider the poll valid?

Yes. "Available for operations" not the date when its first combat operations occur.
The poll is also purposely limited to 2-seater aircraft

1770 squadron The squadron formed at Yeovilton as a 2-seater fighter squadron with 12 Firefly Is in September 1943. The first operational Firefly squadron.

[syscom3]

The SBD isnt on the poll. How come?

[R Leonard]

The SBD isnt on the poll. How come?

That would be my question. The SBD was in front line carrier operations thru June 1944 and in land-based operations through July 1945.

[freebird]

The SBD isnt on the poll. How come?

Because the more modern, faster, heavier payload Helldiver is there.

But mainly because I suspected some folks would vote for the Dauntless because of it's success at Midway & elsewhere.


Is there a reason why you would choose a Dauntless over a Helldiver?

[syscom3]

Its 1943.

The Helldiver didnt get its "bugs" worked out untill 1945.

[freebird]

Its 1943.

The Helldiver didnt get its "bugs" worked out untill 1945.

What were the bugs?
It made it's first operation in late 1943 (Rabual IIRC) Were the bugs still a major problem in mid '44? Was the second varient any better?

Do you consider the Dauntless to be superior to a Judy or a Firefly, even with the much slower speed?

[R Leonard]

Who needs the Midway results influence? SBD was more survivable in combat than the SB2C and no bad habits.

[freebird]

Who needs the Midway results influence? SBD was more survivable in combat than the SB2C and no bad habits.

Are there any engagements where they both served in '44 or '45?
Woudn't the lower speed of the Dauntless be a handicap EXCEPT for the fact that by late '43- or '44 the Allies had almost complete operational air superiority?

[R Leonard]

East Philippine Sea, June 20 1944, maybe you've heard of it. Total losses of SB2Cs were 43 out of 51, or 84%; SBD losses were 4 out of 26, or 15%.

Asking for actions in which they were both present is kind of a funny question. If the purpose is to negate the operational results for SBDs before the introduction of the SB2C, then, by the same token, that approach would negate all the SB2C operational results after the SBD was no longer used in fleet operations, right?

[syscom3]

East Philippine Sea, June 20 1944, maybe you've heard of it. Total losses of SB2Cs were 43 out of 51, or 84%; SBD losses were 4 out of 26, or 15%.

Werent a lot of those losses due to nightime return times which meant they had to ditch?

[freebird]

Asking for actions in which they were both present is kind of a funny question. If the purpose is to negate the operational results for SBDs before the introduction of the SB2C, then, by the same token, that approach would negate all the SB2C operational results after the SBD was no longer used in fleet operations, right?

No, it is possible to analyze data for an operation to guage the capabilities of an aircraft, even if you don't take into account the results of the operation.

For example, at Midway there were both Devastators and Avengers, so it's possible to compare the performance of both in a similar situation. Strangely the Avenger didn't fair any better than it's predecessor. Probably the lesson was that any TB is vulnerable to defending fighters, unless it has sufficient escort.

Also the Dauntless would have also probably been slaughtered by the Zeros at Midway, except for the fact that they were busy with the TB's.

[Lucky13]

Remember the Captain of USS Yorktown CV-10 that had his Helldivers swapped for SBD-3 Dauntless', because, as he put it, wouldn't use them as anchors!

SBD for me all the way!