Best 1943 Carrier Bomber (non-TB)

[Lucky13]

From my Yorktown book.....

Page 15,
"The SB2C "beasts" performed so miserably - tailhooks falling off, wheel strutts collapsing, hydraulics failing - that the Curtiss engineers could not repair them fast enough. One of the bombers even plummeted into the water, pilot and rearseat gunner rescued."

Page 19,
"Of the manifold headaches which fed the skipper's ulcers at Trinidad throughout late May and early June, however, none equaled the disastrous performance of the SB2C Helldivers. Their tailhooks pulled out of their wells so much that air maintenance officer Joe Tucker grounded half of the 36 "Beasts". So when several Congressmen came aboard to observe flight operations, Tucker refused Commander Dozier's call for a maximum launch. Enraged, Dozier ordered Tucker to have the malfunctioning Helldivers take part in the demonstration.
Sure enough, everyone of the 17 bombers lost its tailhook on grabbing the arresting cables and piled into the wire crash barrier."

Page 20,
"Jocko,seeing his old shipmate distressed, heard him out but could only reply 'Well, Joe, the SB2C is the divebomber built for the new carrier program. If it doesn't work, we're in a helluva mess.'
'We're in a helluva mess then', said Tucker, 'because it's not gonna work until there are 200 or so modifications made that are all essential. It is not ready to go out there on carriers. The best thing in the world that could be done would be to return it to Curtiss-Wright and make them prove it before we put them on the new carriers.'
Jocko eyed him, 'If you were me, what would you do?'
Tucker thought a moment and figured he'd crossed all his bridges; he was doomed. 'Well, if I was you, Captain, I would sit right down and write a letter to BuAer and tell them - I wouldn't ask them, I'd tell them - to tell Curtiss-Wright to come and get their damned airplanes. And, I'd turn this ship right around and head back into Trinidad, and I'd put those SB2C's ashore and leave them there!'
'What would you use in their place?'
'We're alot better off with SBD's that'll fly than we are with SB2C's that won't'
Clark sat there, thought a few minutes, and said firmly, 'You know, I agree with you.'
Then he yelled out the door,
'Tell commander Dozier to come up here! Andy, come in here!'
Navigator Anderson stuck his head in first, and Jocko told him, 'Set course for Trinidad '
'What?'
'Set a course for Trinidad. Cease operations!'
'Aye, aye, Sir!'
When Dozier arrived on the bridge, he was visibly shaken at the sight of Tucker with the captain. But Jocko had both men write a message informing the Bureau of Aeronautics that the Yorktown was returning to Norfolk prematurely and to request 36 brand new SBD-5 Dauntless divebombers to replace the hapless "Beasts". Then jocko rejected the entreaties of the Curtiss-Wright to keep the planes, and set course for Norfolk on June 13, escorted by three 'tin-cans', destroyers"


--------------------

 

[tomo pauk]

Sure enough , it required SB2C-3 version to solve the production quality issues, plus to add some horse power.

 

[Lucky13]

One crew or pilot was even killed....during the carrier qualifications(?)!

 

[tomo pauk]

One crew or pilot was even killed....during the carrier qualifications(?)!

Carrier qualifications = the 'exam' the plane had to pass in order to be accepted for carrier use. (Sorry if this is redundant )

 

[Freebird]

Some particulars could help a decision, but since Judy seems to be nobody's favourite, I'll do the allied planes from the poll.

Interesting points Tomo. However there are a few errors in your data.

Range:
Underwing bombs negate any combat range advantage Firefly could have in clean configuration - this is a draw.

I believe that it still had a greater range, but I'll need to check that.

Gun armament: Strafing
Firefly has advantage for a 'direct' attack, or strafing.

Agreed
Advantage Firefly

Bomb rocket armament:
Firefly can carry bombs rockets in the same time, while Firefly can't. Advantage SB2C.

Not correct, the SB2C-1 did not have rockets. It began deliveries to squadrons Dec '42, becoming operational summer '43. (Firefly delivered Mar '43, operational Sept '43)
The SB2C-3 began deliveries only in 1944, and it was the later version SB2C-4 that had the added under wing racks that allowed it to carry rockets as well as bombs
So the 1943 Firefly could carry Rockets OR bombs, the SB2C-1 was limited to bombs.

Advantage Firefly

Suitability for the bomber's task:
Firefly is not a dive bomber, so pin-point attacks are a tough issue for it. Advantage SB2C.

Wrong - the Fairey-Youngman flaps were installed on the Firefly, allowing it to make dive boming attacks, just as the Barracuda did. (The only difference was that the flaps were retractable on the Firefly to allow for faster speeds when in straight line flight

No advantage

Survivability vs. AAA:
The main difference is engine type: air-cooled is better then liquid-cooled here. Advantage SB2C.

A drawback of the higher perfomance V or inline engines.

Advantage Helldiver

Speed:
Firefly is faster without bombs. Now since SB2D carries bombs in the bomb bay (Firefly has them attached under wings), the speed is just about equal. So Firefly has the advantage only in way home - a minor advantage in my eyes.

Firefly 286 mph bomb- loaded, 316 unladen while the SB2D is 280 mph

Survivability vs. fighters:
Firefly would drop stores and then try to force a turning fight, in what it excelled.
The lack of effective rear guns is obvious for it. Since we talk about bombers, SB2C has the advantage, because of rear guns. Small advantage SB2C.
SB2C would have to rely on twin 0.30 LMGs to hit the attacker; perhaps enough for Zero Oscar, but not against anything more capable.
Firefly has one 'sweet spot', the cooling system of the engine.
Both planes are much slower then fighter opposition.
Both planes need air superiority to operate, so this is a draw.

I believe that the first SB2C-1 version of the Helldiver only had a single (rear) MG for defence, can anyone confirm that?
I don't think that the rear guns gave that much help, they didn't do much for the Devastator or Avengers at Midway, when faced with fast agile fighters they were badly hit.

I think that the Firefly's better speed manouverability (after jettison) gives it an advantage.

Adavantage Firefly

Electronic equipment:
Draw.

Firefly had a superior ASV radar

Advantage Firefly

 

[Lucky13]

Could you swap the SBD's Wright R-1820-60, 1,200 hp (895 kW) engine for the Helldiver's Wright R-2600 Cyclone radial engine at 1,900 hp (1,400 kW)?
How would that affect on the SBD's performance, speed, range, ceiling seeing that the SBD was 1400 Kg lighter.....? How much fuel could they carry SBD v SB2C?

 

[tomo pauk]

How about this:
Firefly was bombing nothing until June 1944, so the type's war performance in 1943 is equal to the P-38M's (night fighter) achievement in WW2, ie. equal to zero. BY that time, SB2C made it's mark in the Pacific war, despite the shortcomings, and the -3 was being delivered. Therefore, the dash 3 needs to be compared with Firefly, not dash 1.

Could you please further elaborate this:

A drawback of the higher perfomance V or inline engines.

Does this mean that better performing inlines had drawback (beacouse of cooling system), or that inlines are more powerful then radials?

Firefly had a superior ASV radar

Fact or opinion?

As for the tail guns, it was either single .50 cal, or twin .30 cal. ( from Squadron Signal - SB2C in action).

 

[Freebird]

How about this:
Firefly was bombing nothing until June 1944, so the type's war performance in 1943 is equal to the P-38M's (night fighter) achievement in WW2, ie. equal to zero. BY that time, SB2C made it's mark in the Pacific war, despite the shortcomings, and the -3 was being delivered. Therefore, the dash 3 needs to be compared with Firefly, not dash 1.

As I mentioned earlier, the criteria was only on CAPABILITY, not War Record. So the Japanese aircraft can be compared on it's abilities, despite the fact that after mid-1943 the Japanese had virtually no successful carrier operations, as in the war they were getting their *** kicked.
Suppose the Allies had lost the battle of Midway etc etc and the Japanese had the upper hand in the Pacific? Things might be quite a bit different.

Someone could start a later 1944 poll comparing the Firefly mk IV to the SB2C-4, I suppose.

Could you please further elaborate this:

Does this mean that better performing inlines had a drawback (because of cooling system),

Yes.

Radar - Fact or opinion?

Well, I know that the Firefly had a very good radar system, for bombing and poor-weather operations. (As parsifal has already mentioned)

I couldn't find any record at all of radar installed on the 1943 SB2C-1 version, Lucky does your book mention this?

As for the tail guns, it was either single .50 cal, or twin .30 cal. ( from Squadron Signal - SB2C in action).

Does it say exactly what the SB2C-1 had?

 

[tomo pauk]

As I mentioned earlier, the criteria was only on CAPABILITY, not War Record. So the Japanese aircraft can be compared on it's abilities, despite the fact that after mid-1943 the Japanese had virtually no successful carrier operations, as in the war they were getting their *** kicked.
Suppose the Allies had lost the battle of Midway etc etc and the Japanese had the upper hand in the Pacific? Things might be quite a bit different.

Someone could start a later 1944 poll comparing the Firefly mk IV to the SB2C-4, I suppose.

Since MkIV was available from 1945 on, he can't even be on that poll.
...
Well, I know that the Firefly had a very good radar system, for bombing and poor-weather operations. (As parsifal has already mentioned)

Since no facts about Firefly making kills/hits while using the radar are posted, I'll say it's a opinion that radar set was great.

I couldn't find any record at all of radar installed on the 1943 SB2C-1 version, Lucky does your book mention this?



Does it say exactly what the SB2C-1 had?

.50 cal was mounted on 1st two series, while from series III on the twin .30 was carried. The change was made in 1943.

With restrictions orders what can and can not be valid for this thread, one could get the idea that poll favors certain aircraft.

 

[Freebird]

Since MkIV was available from 1945 on, he can't even be on that poll.

Reference for that?

Anyways, what might or might be available in 1944 or 1945 is irrelevant for the purpose of this poll

Well, I know that the Firefly had a very good radar system, for bombing and poor-weather operations. (As parsifal has already mentioned)
I couldn't find any record at all of radar installed on the 1943 SB2C-1 version, Lucky does your book mention this?

Since no facts about Firefly making kills/hits while using the radar are posted, I'll say it's a opinion that radar set was great.

More useful than an aircraft without one, wouldn't you say?
You havn't provided any facts or references about the Helldiver's radar, or if it even had one in 1943.

Does it say exactly what the SB2C-1 had?

.50 cal was mounted on 1st two series, while from series III on the twin .30 was carried. The change was made in 1943.

thanks for clearing that up. 8)

With restrictions orders what can and can not be valid for this thread, one could get the idea that poll favors certain aircraft.

No, it's really quite simple, I don't know how anyone could misunderstand it.

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


"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.

Okay, I'll try spell it out so there is no confusion.

You are the CAG chief (or Captain whatever) on an Allied aircraft carrier, on May 1, 1943
You have just spent a month or so testing out a squadron of the two newest dive-capable Allied carrier bombers, the Helldiver the Firefly. By an amazing set of circumstances, you also have a captured squadron of Japanese D4Y1 "Judys"

None of these planes has been in combat, so there is no war record or anything.
Your orders are now to choose a squadron of the best of these 3 aircraft to take aboard, to set out for operations. (but have a couple of months to train pilots on it of course....)

Make sense now?

 

[Shortround6]

Throw the Helldivers over the side right away (it only saves time) and check the other two planes again.

 

[Freebird]

Throw the Helldivers over the side right away (it only saves time) and check the other two planes again.

When I put up the poll I didn't know that the Helldiver was such a problem aircraft in it's first year. Learned something new.

I wonder why so many people chose the Helldiver anyways?

I also wonder, how many battles were there where the Dauntles or Helldiver was intercepted by Zeros? How big a handicap was it for the Dauntless, which was ~80 mph slower? Was speed the main factor, or manouverability?

 

[tomo pauk]

Reference for that? [= Firefly MkIV able only from 1945]

Signal Squadron - Firefly in action.

Now isn't it funny that I cite my references, while you, freebird, avoid the same when asked time and again. So until you provide your sources about the wuderwaffe, I'll follow you example.

Anyways, what might or might be available in 1944 or 1945 is irrelevant for the purpose of this poll

Dude, you proposed that...

[about skewing the poll 'rules' to favor a particular plane]
No, it's really quite simple, I don't know how anyone could misunderstand it.

Don't worry, I've understood that all right.

Okay, I'll try spell it out so there is no confusion.

You are the CAG chief (or Captain whatever) on an Allied aircraft carrier, on May 1, 1943
You have just spent a month or so testing out a squadron of the two newest dive-capable Allied carrier bombers, the Helldiver the Firefly. By an amazing set of circumstances, you also have a captured squadron of Japanese D4Y1 "Judys"

None of these planes has been in combat, so there is no war record or anything.
Your orders are now to choose a squadron of the best of these 3 aircraft to take aboard, to set out for operations. (but have a couple of months to train pilots on it of course....)

Make sense now?

No confusion at all.
I'll choose SB2C, since those are a) operational (= Firefly falls off) and b) Judy has engine survivabilty issues on that May 1, 1943.

 

[syscom3]

When I put up the poll I didn't know that the Helldiver was such a problem aircraft in it's first year. Learned something new.

I wonder why so many people chose the Helldiver anyways?

I also wonder, how many battles were there where the Dauntles or Helldiver was intercepted by Zeros? How big a handicap was it for the Dauntless, which was ~80 mph slower? Was speed the main factor, or manouverability?

Too bad we cant go back and change our choices. Lots of great info comes out and youre stuck with what you "thought" was the best.

 

[Freebird]

Signal Squadron - Firefly in action.

Now isn't it funny that I cite my references, while you, freebird, avoid the same when asked time and again. So until you provide your sources about the wuderwaffe, I'll follow you example.

Dewd, come back to reality. You havn't asked for any reference other than the radar, which was Parsifal's quote - you can ask him about that.

Firefly was designed, built and used as a true multi role aircraft, which has both advantages and disadvantagers as a concept.
Nearly all the day equipped fireflies were equipped with an advanced ASV radar, to allow blind bombing.

Some hundreds of the type were equipped with AI MKX airborne radar for night fighting, and the type remained the RNs principal night fighter for some years after the war.

"Time time again"? Try again. I've already quoted my reference: Complete book of Military Aircraft of WWII, Military Press NY. ISBN 0-517-66475-5
If I've used a website (like "FleetAirArmArchive.net") I've quoted that as well.

You havn't cited any reference that the Helldiver operated with radar in 1943.

Any more questions?

Dude, you proposed that...

No, I suggested that someone else could if desired.
"Someone could start a later 1944 poll"

Don't worry, I've understood that all right.
No confusion at all.
I'll choose SB2C, since those are a) operational (= Firefly falls off) and b) Judy has engine survivabilty issues on that May 1, 1943.

No, apparently you don't understand or are being deliberately obtuse. All 3 aircraft were first delivered between Jan and Mar of 1943, so all 3 are "available". I didn't specify "already operational", as none were on May 1, 1943. (My book says Helldiver first operational "second half of 1943", so that would be July or later.

In any event, if you read again what I wrote, choose the superior aircraft, as all 3 are available in May 1943, and then

( have a couple of months to train pilots on it of course....)

So after a few months, your pilots would be trained and the squadron could become "operational"

Why does that seem complicated to you?

 

[Freebird]

Too bad we cant go back and change our choices. Lots of great info comes out and youre stuck with what you "thought" was the best.

Were we not able to do that before? I seem to remember we could. Maybe the new "skin"

Rumor has it that one of the Mods can edit your vote... (payment in pop-tarts )


Anyways, I would have hoped more folks would have chipped in "I voted for xxx because"...

 

[parsifal]

APS-6 Airborne Radar


Wavelength: 3 cm
Power: 1 kW
Range: 5 nautical miles (9 km) on aircraft
15 nautical miles (30km) submarine
30 nautical miles (55km) on merchant ship
75 nautical miles (140km) coastline
Scope " gunsight
Accuracy: 3 degrees
Weight: 150 lbs
Production: 791 sets between April 1944 and April 1945



Also known as AIA-1, the AN/APS-6 airborne radar was a simplification of AN/APS-4 (ASH) suitable for single-seat fighters. It used a much smaller display, just 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter, which eliminated the need for a radar operator and served as a radar gunsight.


See also
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/radar/aps-4a-radar-5069.html#post198648


See also

US Radar: Operational Characteristics of Radar Classified by Tactical Application [FTP 217]
In summary this site has this to say about ASH/APS-6 radar

AN/APS-4 (ASH) Lightweight ASV and Interception Set
DESCRIPTION: Lightweight airborne search and interception set primarily for carrier based aircraft. All major components are contained in a single pressurized housing similar to a Mk 41 depth bomb, and detachable in the same manner as an ordinary bomb.
USES: For locating and homing on ships and coastal targets; for locating planes and making interception approaches; and for navigating. Range, bearing and elevation data are given as B or modified H indications appearing on the same scope. Set operates with AN/CPN-6 racon, and has provisions for IFF connections for identifying targets.
PERFORMANCE: Reliable maximum ranges are 15 miles on surfaced submarines (broadside), 30 miles on 4,000-8,000 ton ship, 75 miles on well-defined coastline, and 5 miles on aircraft. Aircraft can be tracked to 300 feet. Range accuracy is ± 5%. Covers ± 75° in bearing. Bearing accuracy is ± 3°. Covers -30° to +10° in elevation when searching, ± 30° when intercepting. Elevation accuracy is ± 3°.
TRANSPORTABILITY: Packaging not yet fixed, but set will be shipped in two cases, largest of which will measures 24" x 24" x 60" and weigh approximately 150 lbs. Total packaged weight should not exceed 250 lbs.
INSTALLATION: For installation in light carrier-borne aircraft. Installed weight is 150 lbs.
PERSONNEL: One operator per set is required, except when operated by the pilot of single-place aircraft. 12 maintenance men per group for carrier-based planes, or 4 per squadron for shore-based planes are recommended.
POWER: Total primary power required: (a) from combination AC-DC primary generator -- 10 amps. 27.5 V DC and 1000 watts, 115 V, 800-2400 cycles AC; or (b) from primary DC generator, requiring use of motor-alternator -- 68 amps. 27.5 V DC


This link is also interesting

[5.0] Microwave Radar At War (2)

 

[parsifal]

When I put up the poll I didn't know that the Helldiver was such a problem aircraft in it's first year. Learned something new.

I wonder why so many people chose the Helldiver anyways?

I also wonder, how many battles were there where the Dauntles or Helldiver was intercepted by Zeros? How big a handicap was it for the Dauntless, which was ~80 mph slower? Was speed the main factor, or manouverability?

IMO the SBD was the best daytime D/B of the war. It was the ideal mix of stability, accuracy, range, firepower and defensive capability. Its performance was not that bad when compared in the fully loaded state.

The runs it got onto the board are testament to its effectiveness

By contrast, I consider the Firefly to be probably the best the multi-role carrier aircraft of the war. It is often passed over because of its non-American origins.

Its postwar career is testament to its effectiveness

 

[Shortround6]

I also wonder, how many battles were there where the Dauntles or Helldiver was intercepted by Zeros? How big a handicap was it for the Dauntless, which was ~80 mph slower? Was speed the main factor, or manouverability?

While the Dauntless was 80mph slower that may be for top speed. If the planes were "bounced" at cruising speeds the difference might be a lot less. Long range cruise for the Helldiver was under 200mph. How much warning did the SB2- need to accelerate up to top speed and how long could it run at top speed?
If you are 300 miles from the carrier cooking the engine isn't your only problem. how many minutes of combat power can you use before you don't have enough gas to get home. For Carrier planes there just aren't many alternate landing feilds.

 

[R Leonard]

Frankly don't know all that much about Fireflies. I knew they were operating over Sumatra and Borneo, Okinawa, and the Japanese home islands; there's been some interesting info posted above. The question in my mind would be, with this multi-purpose role, was the Firefly a true dive bomber or did it perform what some would call dive bombing at the steep end of the glide bomber envelope?

And as has been noted, the SB2C suffered structural problems throughout its development and into its initial deployment. It was generally believed that the -1 was a real dog; had a tendency to shed parts up to and including the entire fuselage aft of the rear gunners compartment (if he was lucky). There was an entire post-production modifications assembly line set up at the Curtiss plant where planes were rolled off the assembly line straight into the modification line. Even the -3 had severe vibration and buffeting problems in the dive envelope (optimum for the SB2C was 78°) which translated into accuracy problems. Changes in the number and placement of holes in the dive brakes eliminated most of these problems in late -3's and in the -4, but the -4 did not start to reach squadrons in combat until mid-October of 1944. And was the SB2C faster than the SBD? Certainly, but no one cruises at max speed and you don't need max speed for a dive bomb attack profile, in fact you'd really rather slow it down.

Since the original poll addressed best carrier dive bomber in 1944, one of the questions raised by myself and others was "what about the SBD?" After all, the SBD was in action from carrier decks into July of 1944 – and I won't talk about the 35,341 combat action sorties flown by land-based SBD drivers in 1944 and 1945 compared to the 2,023 same flown by land-based SB2C drivers.

Incidentally, and apropos of nothing else, the SB2C made its combat debut sixty-six years ago, 11 November 1943.

If we look at squadrons in action off US carriers for the first seven months of the year we see an average of 4 SBD squadrons and 3 SB2C squadrons operating per month. On the average, the SBD squadrons numbered about 27 aircraft and the SB2C squadrons about 35, one supposes the advantage of folding wings. On the other hand, more aircraft per squadron means higher sortie rates. The highest months for SBD squadrons in action were January and February with 8 active squadrons each. SBD squadrons in action per month started to decline after that; for March through July squadrons in action were 3, 4, 1, 2, and 2. The opposite effect is seen with SB2C squadrons. SB2C squadrons in action for the corresponding period were 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Subsequent to July and through the end of the year, SB2C squadrons in action were 6, 8, 9, 11, and 7. Carrier based SBD's flew 3468 combat action sorties in 1944; SB2C's flew 11,687.

Presuming we're limiting the discussion to 1944 we can forget SBD's that could have been shot down at Midway as was mentioned in one post simply because "would have's" and "could have's" don't count. Further, it was said the SBD was left off the poll as the pollster did not want the vote tainted by the results from Midway. Okay fine, no Midway, in fact, no 1942 or 1943, or 1945, nor any land-based, for that matter.

Also I think we can dispense a posted comment regarding SBDs being jumped by Wildcats as I am pretty confident that would not happen. But what about air-to-air confrontations in 1944 with SBD's and SB2C's running into Japanese air opposition?

Of the 3468 combat sorties flown by SBD's, 1.4% or 49, involved engaging a total of 50 enemy aircraft. In the course of these engagements, 2 SBD's were lost. That works out to 4.08% of air-to-air engaged SBD's or 0.06% of combat action sorties. In the same year, SB2C combat sorties involving aerial engagement numbered 195 against 236 enemy aircraft, or 1.7% of SB2C action sorties. In these 195 engagements, 14 SB2Cs were lost, or 7.18% of air-to-air engaged SB2C's or 0.12% of combat action sorties. Presuming equal skill and aggressiveness on the part of the Japanese, it would seem that, just in terms of action survivability, SBD's came off better than the SB2C's.

In these same actions SBD's were credited with 5 enemy aircraft shot down for a 2.5 to 1 exchange rate. SB2C's credits were 38 enemy planes for a 2.7 to 1 exchange rate. SBD's credits included 2 of the 47 fighters with which they were engaged, 4.3%. SB2C's fighter credits 26 of the 202 with which they tangled, 12.9%. So it would appear that though their exchange rates were about the same, the SB2C was a better fighter killer than the SBD.

Results for survivability in exposure to AA fire were more pronounced. In 1944 carrier based SBD's encountered enemy AA fire in 71.4% of their combat action sorties, a total of 2526 sorties. In the course of those encounters 147 SBDs were hit and of those 147, 16 were lost. That translates to a 0.6% loss rate for all SBD's encountering AA fire and 10.9% of those hit. SB2C's, on the other hand, encountered AA fire in 9328 of its combat action sorties, 75.6%. Of the 586 SB2C's hit by AA fire, 162 were lost. The percent of SB2C's encountering AA and lost was 1.7% almost double the SBD rate. Worse, at 27.6%, the percent of SB2C's hit and lost was 2.5 times the rate for SBD's.

Ordnance, SBD's and SB2C's delivered 8,757 tons of bombs, 1,529 and 7,228 respectively. The SB2C had a maximum bomb load twice the maximum load of the SBD, but was carrying a 2000 lbs bomb a common practice? Not according to the statistics. In 1944, the average SB2C in carrying out 78% of the carrier VB combat action sorties delivered 82.5% of the bomb tonnage, but the average SB2C delivered but .62 tons (1240 lbs) per attack sortie. What the oft presented lists of capacities often fail to mention is the trade-offs between speed, range and ordnance hauling ability. The conclusion might be that SB2Cs were hauling more 1000 lbs than 500, but probably not too many 2000 lbs bombs, but the 1945 data, below, suggests a slightly different picture. And the SBD, well, in delivering 17.5% remaining balance of bombs dropped by US carrier dive bombers in 1944, the average SBD carried .43 tons per attack sortie, 864 lbs. This might mean that most SBD's were hauling 500 lbs bombs, but one might draw a different conclusion from 1942-1943 data, below. While the actual break down of bomb types carried by these aircraft in 1944 combat action sorties is not available, data is available for the 1942-43 period for carrier based SBD's and for 1945 for the SB2C. So, breaking my promise to stick to 'just" 1944:

In the 1942 - 1943 period, carrier based SBD's delivered:
Ordnance -- Tons -- Percent
100 lbs GP -- 38 -- 4.0%
500 lbs GP -- 167 -- 17.5%
1000 lbs GP -- 640 -- 67.0%
SAP and AP -- 91 -- 9.5%
260 lbs Frag -- 3 -- 0.3%
Depth Bombs -- 16 -- 1.7%
TOTALS -- 955 -- 100%

Carrier based SBDs flew 2,356 combat action sorties in 1942 and 1943. The average weight of mission ordnance, then was 40.5 tons, 810 lbs; somewhat less than the 1944 type total. Note that in terms of actual pieces of ordnance, the 1000 lbs GP usage was almost 2 to 1 over the 500 lbs GP.

Carrier based SB2C's, in 1945, delivered
Ordnance -- Tons -- Percent
100 lbs GP -- 6 -- 0.15%
250 lbs GP -- 747 -- 18.55%
500 lbs GP -- 2,344 -- 58.21%
1000 lbs GP -- 573 -- 14.23%
500 lbs SAP -- 25 -- 0.62%
1000 lbs SAP -- 202 -- 5.02%
Armor Piercing -- 28 -- 0.70%
260 Frag -- 102 -- 2.53%
TOTAL -- 4,027 -- 100.00%

Note that there were no 2000 lbs GPs delivered and note further the preponderance of 500 lbs GP. During 1945 carrier based SB2C'a flew 6,555 combat action sorties. With 4,027 tons delivered, that means the average weight of ordnance per sortie was .61 tons, or 1,229 lbs, a less than 1% difference from the 1944 bulk tonnage data.

The obvious conclusion, though, is that, as it relates to combat operations, the ability of the SB2C to carry a 2000 lbs bomb - which, incidentally, would not actually fit in the plane's bomb bay, the doors of which would have to be closed on the bomb itself for take off and, according to the manual, once airborne, the doors were to be set to the open position and not closed until after the weapon has been delivered - becomes somewhat of a red herring. The 1945 preponderance of 500 lbs GP bombs in SB2C missions, roughly 8 to 1 ratio of 500 lbs GP to 1000 lbs GP delivered tends to belie the supposed use of 1000 lbs GPs with greater frequency theory as well. If the load pattern for the carrier based SBD's in 1944 were similar to those of 1942 and 1943, then the SB2C's advertised ability to carry the 1000 lbs GP rates but a "so what" when compared to the ordnance actually carried.

All in all, IMO, in actual combat, the SB2C was not all that much of an improvement, if any, over the SBD.