Overview of Dauntless vs. Val vs. Stuka
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2024
- During the 1930s, three countries, Germany, Japan, and the United States began to study at dive bombing as an effective weapon. Dive bombing had been tried during World War I by the British and the U.S. Army Air Service, and their experience was that it wasn’t worth the effort.
However, both the Imperial Japanese and the United States Navy saw dive bombing as an effective ship-killing weapon. The U.S. Marine Corps and the German Luftwaffe saw it as an effective close-air support tactic.
In the 1920s and early 1930s, as airplanes evolved from biplanes to monoplanes, it became evident that new technology needed to be developed to enable effective dive bombing. Germany, Japan, and the U.S. all began to design new dive bombers. Germany's Ju-87 was tested in combat during the Spanish Civil War. Japan created the Aichi D3A2 which we gave the code name Val, and the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps developed the Douglas SBD Dauntless.
This video takes the viewer through the different technologies and the tactical requirements that drove the design of these three dive bombers that were in front-line service on September 1st, 1939 and were still flying in combat when the war in the Pacific ended when Japan signed the surrender documents on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri (BB-63) on September 2nd, 1945.
marcliebman.com/
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 6](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CVUx09Rx0-M/mqdefault.jpg)
Interesting fact was the SBD had a 3 to one kill ratio against IJN aircraft mostly due to the twin rear firing 30 cal MGs. They had been modified to have a firing rate as good as the German MG 42.
The ground Marines would go over to the junk yard at Henderson Field and take the guns off of the damaged SBDs so to fortify their defensive positions around the base.
Yup. Both the Val and the Stuka were easy prey for a fighter. Many IJN pilots found that the SBD was not a fun bogey. It is interesting to note that the airplane versions of the .30 and .50 cal Brownings had a much higher rate of fire than those issued to their ground counterparts. The bad news is that if the gunner is not judicious with his ammunition, he will run out faster.
Take those kill ratios with a big grain of salt because there was significant overclaiming, especially early in the war. One SBD crew claimed 7 Zeroes during the battle of the Coral Sea when Japanese records examined post war showed they actually got none. That one engagement reduces the ratio to 2.8 and the real ratio is probably closer to 1.5 or even 1.2.
Actually I do. you have to use whatever numbers that are available. Gun cameras provided the best evidence, but there are others sources as well. What I try to do is be directionally correct. Best guess, going through a lot of documents is that the kills by fighter pilots on both sides are probably overstated by 15%, bomber crews by a lot more. @@danielstickney2400
@@marcliebman3847 Soeaking of: your rate of word fire is a bit fast. The quality, though, is great.
I can see how though the lightweight Japanese planes assures that if you hit it it most likely is going down although i'm sure there was plenty of planes that made it back that they reported as kills.@@danielstickney2400
Well done. The Hellcat & the Corsair were more-than-adequate replacements for dive bombers. My dad, flying an F6F from the USS Lexington during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, put a 500 lb. S.A.P. bomb into the IJN carrier Zuiho on October 25, 1944, which helped sink the ship. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Foresman_Schoch) When his combat tour and subsequent leave were over, he was reassigned to VBF-150 in January, 1945, flying F4U-4s. They trained for Operation Downfall (invasion of Japan) until the war ended and the squadron was decommissioned.
There's a reason why the main ground attack planes in the postwar period were the Skyraider and a specific ground attack variant of the Corsair.
Ground attack by US naval aircraft in Korea was done by AD-1's and F4U's. When configured for ground attack with draggy bomb and missle mounts the performance was similar, allowing them to fly mixed formations. Bill Bridgeman served as a Douglas production AD-1 test pilot, and in his book describes beating a USAFNG P-51 that was stupid enough to get in a turning contest with him.
The Ju-87 was replaced by ground attack versions of the FW-190, just as the SBD and SB2C were largely replaced by F6F's and F4U's.
Minor correction: the 40mm did not use a proximity fuse. The smallest projectile that could take it was the 3" gun.
Proximity fused shells were normally fired in a mix with time fused shells, so the gunners would know if they were generally on target. If a proximity fuse wasn't triggered, it would sail right past without exploding, giving no indication of how accurately it had been aimed.
The Bofors 40mm didn't get a proximity fuze untill the 1970s and in the L70 variant.
Its still the smallest gun caliber with proximity fuzed shells
I was under the impression that the JU 87 was used quite extensively in the anti-ship role in the Mediterranean theater, and up in Norway etc. not just during the Battle of Britain.
The Stuka was used against the convoys trying to reach Malta and against the ships evacuating the British Army from Crete. In Norway, it didn't have the range to get out to the Arctic convoys.
The Stuka was used both by Germans and Italians
Black Sea?
Stukas based in Norway and Finland did attack Arctic convoys, Usually when they were coming in to the Kola Bay heading for Murmansk.
Air Command North in Finland/Norway shows 3 staffel of Stukas dedicated to convoy attacks in 1942.
I'm also seeing Stuka units based on the Norwegian and Finnish coast all the way until December 44.
The carrier HMS Formidable was badly beat up by an elite Luftwaffe Stuka unit near Crete in 1941. The British carriers with their armored flight decks were famous for being tough, but the Formidable had to withdraw and eventually sail to the U.S. for extensive repairs. The War Damage Report compiled after it was repaired concluded the Stuka's had hit it with 1000 kg (2200 lb) bombs.
Did the U.S.Navy ever experiment with aids to help the pilots pull out of the dive after releasing such as the Stuka employed? Those pilots were some cool customers indeed to drown out all the flak and gunfire, and then have to concentrate on all the parameters and controls that made a successful bombing run. Nerves of steel indeed. Thanks so much for sharing!
Nice talk! One small mistake: the Ju 87 had slotted dive brakes under the wings like the Val. The ailerons and flaps were slotted, the famous „Junkers Doppelflügel“ = double wing which was a standard feature on older Junkers airplanes like the Ju 52. this has nothing to do with the dive brakes. The pull out automatic could be overruled and it was possible to exit the dive horizontally flying manually deep over the ground. Interesting to note are Eric Brown‘s recollections (British test pilot) who flew most dive bombers and said only the Ju 87 was a real vertical 90 degree diver. And: the Ju 87s were replaced by FW190s in the fighter bomber role. The surviving Ju 87 were used up in a night close support role without dive brakes and as tank hunters, also without dive brakes, as they couldn’t survive over the battlefield without strong fighter protection. In school I had a geography teacher, who was an ex Stuka pilot and was also converted to the FW 190, which was a lot faster, more rugged having an air cooled radial engine like the P 47 and after dropping its bombs or rockets could fight opposing fighters on equal terms.
You are correct, but that would have gotten me going down a rat hole on different kinds of flap systems. In reality, the JU-87 had the forerunner to what is known as the Fowler flaps.... But I digress. USN experience before and during the war suggested that 70 - 80 degree dives were "good" enough to achieve the level of accuracy needed. yes, the Stuka could dive vertically, but my research suggests that they flew mostly 70 - 80 degree dive profiles as well. Also, the automatic dive recovery system that would enable the plane to climb away put the already slow Stuka in a very, very vulnerable position. This is why the U.S. Navy preferred teaching pilots to escape by flying low over the water.
A-36A could also dive 90deg vertical, and were so accurate that they were allowed to make Danger Close drops to troops in contact, only Allied dive bomber permitted to do so.
@@SoloRenegade I hate to tell you but USMC SBDs, Wildcats and later Corsairs, all dropped ordnance "danger close" throughout the war. As far as the A-36, it was used by the USAAF in Italy with a success. However, most of their attacks were at 70 - 80 degrees, not 90 from the vertical. Coming straight down sounds better, but reality was that the pilots were slightly less than that.
@@marcliebman3847
G'day,
Um, actually...; Nope !
The Trailing Slotted "Double Wing" was
NOT
At all, ANY part of the
Dive Brakes.
The Ju-52,
Too
Had
Full-Span Slotted Flaps
And
Ailerons.
From 1992 to 2000
I had a fair bit to do
With the Prototype
Bailey-Moyes Dragonfly TUG.
(Tows Up Gliders),
Designed to Aerotow-Launch
Rogallo Hang-Gliders, with a
19 mph Stall & capable of Climbing 500 ft/min at 25 mph while towing a 400 pound Hang-Glider/Obese-Pilot (!).
It had
Full-Span
Slotted
Flaperons, which could be
Ground-Adjustable to
Trail at a Neutral ("Flaps-Up") Angle, to make Ferry-Flights at 55 mph...
Or to
Be both
30° Deflected Down at Neutral-Stick...
For Aerotowing at 25 mph with a
40 mph "Cruise".
The Double-Wing was a
Control at the Stall
Thing,
A
Relic of late 1920s/
Early 1930s
Aeronautical
Fashions....(!).
The Stuka had
Actual
DIVE BRAKES....; which were as good as anybody's
Dive Bombers ever
Possessed, and probabubblie
More
Betterer than the
Rest....(?) !
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao!
@@marcliebman3847 According to several accounts Stuka pilots disengaged the automatic dive recovery system and others outright pulled it out, since it made their trajectory predictable.
The Stuka wasnt much slower than other dive bombers, 30 or so Km/h slower than a SBD.
First time the Ju 87 ran into the FAA they downed a Fulmar and a Swordfish
This presentation may have answered a question I always had: Why did the IJN SOP specify steaming toward the enemy carriers? The Zero had the range to outreach the F4F, but apparently the Val did not have the Zero's range. The Zero's original development requirement was to be able to fly something like 10 hours at low speed to be used as a scout plane, which gave it a range of around 2000 miles with drop tank.
Also, from Buell's memoirs Dauntless Helldivers, the SBD was VERY slow with a bomb load. They could barely get off the carrier. I recall the speed being around 130kts. The USN split their SBD squadrons into bomber and scout, with scouting generally being the newer, less skilled dive bomber pilots, as Buell started as. Scout squadrons could and did dive bomb, however. Scout SBDs also did anti-sub patrol for the fleet and even Combat Air Patrol as late as Guadalcanal since there was a shortage of Wildcat fighters. This is what Swede Vejtesa was doing when he had his famous battle and victory over attacking Zeroes.
Finally, the German and Japanese explosive compound was better than the USN TNT used in USN bombs, early war, so you can't compare bomb strength just by weight.
Nice to have you back Marc.
This is an awesome video. I loved the amount of information you included . I had to pause your video several times to have a good read of the captions to the diagrams. Thanks!
Great video Marc !!!!!!!
Great learning opportunity. Thanks Marc.
Thank You for your service and taking the time to put this excellent presentation together...
So happy I found your channel mate, what a wonderful breakdown of these vintage war birds. You did a great job of breaking down all the aspects of each plane in such a way as the layman could understand. I’ve liked shared and subbed brother, keep up the great work and God speed !
Absolutely one of the best TH-cam presentations about dive bombers. Or really aircraft. Learned so much. Thank you
Excellent video, thank you.
Nicely done Marc. You are easy to listen to.
Thanks, your knowledge is incredibly rare.
Great job 👍
Thank you for the wonder video. I just found it and liked and subscribed.
That was excellent
Excellent historical perspectives. Thank you. I recall reading Rudel’s memoir “Stuka Pilot” when I was 9-10 and chuckling to myself for days about a remark made by his rear gunner. Rudel had pulled from his dive a bit late and there were branches stuck in the gear. His gunner remarked calmly, “We seem to have bumped into something, or other, Sir.” That kind of situational calmness has always been something I’ve strived for. 😂
Excellent
Great video, I've also always been intrigued by stories of skip bombing in WW2. Apparently the P-40 was great at it.
I think the F4U might have done some skip bombing as well. But it's so rare to hear any skip bombing stories other than 2-engine bombers.
@@SoloRenegadeMy Dad was originally trained by the Marines as a TBF pilot and trained in skip bombing in Corpus Christi. As the USN evaluations showed they needed fighter pilots more than torpedo plane pilots he was reassigned to VMF-121 when it re-equipped with Corsairs and trained up in Mojave CA before deploying to Pelilue right after it was invaded.
I know P-40s sank the destroyers Leone Pancaldo, Lampo, and damaged a German one off Cape Bon i. 42. No idea if they used skip bombing or not. AAC standard practice was glide bombing for fighters.
The SWPA stuff mostly mentions B-25s, A-20s, and Beaufighters being used for skip bombing. My guess is that most P-40s in the Pacific were needed for fighter duty. I would also bet that the loss of range from toting a 500lb limited how many targets were even in range.
Good presentation. Subbed.
Hello shipmate. Thanks for the video.
Good presentation, my old man was a Marine SBD maintainer on Midway in 1944 and spoke fondly of the much maligned ( by some ) Dauntless.
The Dauntless and the Wildcat (and the guys who piloted them) were the difference makers in the close-run battles that decided the course of the war.
You must have some great memories of talks with your old man.
My old man spent the war in Reno playing in the Army Air Corps band, but he was blind as a bat. He always said he was glad the two bombs were dropped, because otherwise he was slated for the invasion. And yes, he served with pride.
Your dad should have been proud of serving, it took all kinds to make a military . Funny you should say that about the a bomb., my dad said the same thing. They were all scared of having to invade Japan.@@kevinrussell1144
My dad was an AM aboard USS ENTERPRISE in '42, wounded at Santa Cruz. He told me that he was allowed to fly backseat on scouting missions--he even got some stick time to give the pilot a break!
'Speedy'/ 'Slow But Deadly' (seemingly contradictory, but both could be made from the SBD designator) were passionately loved by their crews. There is an account of one pilot, after landing aboard his carrier in the mad night recovery after the Battle of the Philippine Sea, threatened to shoot anyone who tried to shove his SBD overboard to clear deck space.
Did Dauntlesses attack in threes? I believe this was portrayed on one of the recent Midway movies.
I can't specifically answer the attack in threes question but can say that 1930s USN squadrons were typically 18 aircraft divided in to 6 sections of 3 aircraft. That was made obvious with the "Yellow Wings" livery's color coding of sections. I know the organization of sections changed during WW2, especially for fighter squadrons, but here at 03:19 in the morning any details beyond that refuse to be recalled.
@@scottfw7169 Good point. With those markings, the few color photo of 1930s squadron flights were spectacular!
The Royal Navy's discounting dive bombing also had a deleterious effect on RN AA gunnery. They designed their AA fire controls specifically to counter level bombing because they considered the challenges posed by dive and torpedo bombing too difficult to solve. If they'd practiced dive bombing they would have had a better understanding of the threat and may have put more effort into solving it. The US Navy also struggled with the problem but they put a lot more effort into solving it.
Despite their prewar disinterest the RN actually produced a decent dive bomber in the Blackburne Skua, unfortunately they thought it was a fighter.
The Luftwaffe's obsession with dive bombing prevented them from developing strategic bombers because they tried to turn everything into a dive bomber.
The US Navy's use of dive bombers for scouting proved to be the better approach because a pair of scouting dive bombers could (and did) mount an effective sneak attack while torpedo bombing required either a stationary target or overwhelming numbers.
Finally, skip bombing proved to be more effective and efficient then dive bombing, especially after they introduced low altitude bombing radars that automatically released the bombs at the proper combination of speed, range, and altitude.
Well said. What you left out was the development of the VT fuze by the U.S. Navy and faster moving turrets keyed to tracking radars that could follow the dive bomber as it plunged down.
The Brits more or less invented skip bombing but the U.S.A.A.F., particularly the 5th AF, perfected it. During the North African campaign, 12th AF B-25s and B-26s conducted skip bombing attacks on the convoys trying to bring supplies and reinforcements to the Afrika Corps. Pilots making skip bombing attacks use the barometric altimeter and the ship's bridge as a visual reference to keep from flying into the water. I didn't think they had radar altimeters or radars until after the war.
Very informative video.
Early variants of the Yokohama D4Y had that license built Daimler Benz and the workforce that was left to both manufacturers, Aichi and Kawasaki, after years of conscription stripped the workforce of skilled machinists capable of holding tolerance on the long V12 crankshaft, had big problems with the liquid cooled power-plants in both suppliers. That left the Val as operational even after attrition stripped the Kido Butai of most of the remainder of it's skilled veteran aircrews at the carrier battle of Santa Cruz in October of '42. Even after the D4Y became operational in March of '43 there were problems operating from smaller carriers that the D3A didn't share. So both remained operational on surviving Carriers for some time. It's the Aichi D3A that holds the distinction of sinking more Allied shipping than any other Axis aircraft and that list is pretty much confirmed. Not surprising considering it's opportunities with the wide ranging early war Kido Butai.
Finally both Yokosuka and Kawasaki replaced their V12s with tried and true variants of the Mitsubishi Kensai radial with much improved results in both the D4Y3 Model 33.and Kawasaki's Ki61 air-frame re-designated as the Ki100. It wasn't until Leyte Gulf that the Judy began scoring hits and sinking ships and probably most as fast Kamikazes. A later variant of the D4Y did have Armor, Bullet-proof Glass and some function of self sealing fuel tanks such as wartime raw material availability permitted.
Interesting.
My Dad was in the Coast Guard in WWII and his ship was part of the escorting force for a convoy into the Mediterranean Sea. The Naval Historian Samuel Elliot Morrison was aboard for the gunfight which lasted over an hour as the Luftwaffe engaged the convoy. The main German aircraft used was the JU-88, a twin-engined multi-use aircraft along with some Me-109's. The JU-88's were attacking as level bombers, dive bombers, torpedo bombers and strafing. One torpedo launched at the USCGC Campbell (later the amphibious force flagship for Dragoon), passed under them, right under my Dad's 40mm AA gun station.
Great story. The Ju-88s were used in the Med due to their greater range. The Stuka max range from home base was about 250 NM which doesn't give one much search time. Hence the Ju-88.
Hi Marc. Very interesting video. I had no idea that USN dive bomber pilots would Stuka roll as a matter of SOP, but it makes sense. One topic I'm also really interested in now is, what was the USN fighter-bomber bombing SOP? In particularly the Corsairs, since I know that you can't get enough of that bird and have a lot of expertise on it. Like, what angles would they normally use? How would they aim the bombs? Would really love to see a video on that topic.
P. S. Too bad you didn't use a single picture of D4Y, one thing that nobody could contest is that the liquid cooled version is an absolute beauty.
Great question. I think there are several factors. One is forward firing ordnance such as rockets. Another is improvement in gun sight technology. The Navy still teaches dive bombing but not at as steep an angle in the training command. It is still accurate way to deliver dumb bombs.
I think one important design differences is that the fixed gear decision on Ju-87 had a lot to do with practical availability rates from improvised, muddy airfields, stemming from the WW1 experience, so having a continous sortie rate was considered more important then speed, as the fighters were supposed to enable the air support planes regardless of speed.. I would assume that for the VAL that also might have been a consideration, but it did not matter for the Dauntless.
16:26 note: the flaps on the Ju87 are not the dive brakes, though those sit more forward on the wing. Engineeringwise, the automated dive recovery on the Stuka after release was also one of the big difference features in design requirements.
Cheers and happy landings.
Not sure I agree with you on the fixed vs. retractable landing gear issue. The primary reason was weight/complexity. Navy and Marine SBDs operated off muddy dirt runways throughout the war with few problems. Both the Stuka's and Val's lack of speed became major issues during the war. While the SBD was slow, it was far more capable of evading fighters than either the Val or the Stuka. As the war progressed, the Germans kept the Stuka's down low to minimize their exposure to Soviet fighters.
@@marcliebman3847 Dive bombers are maneuverable... for a bomber, all 3 had aerial victories, not just the SBD
@@trauko1388 Yes, true. Even a blind squirrel will find an acorn occasionally. Both the Val and the Stuka were easy meat when attacked by fighters.
@@marcliebman3847 So were the SBDs, when the USN tried to use them as low CAP against the B5Ns at Coral Sea the A6Ms disabused them of the concept.
A dive bomber was still a bomber, and were crushed by actual fighters in spite of isolated incidents.
You cannot take one instance or one battle and use it to draw conclusions. During the Coral Sea and even through the naval battles of Midway, Santa Cruz and Eastern Solomons, the USN was still experimenting on how to run coordinated strikes. In each one of these battles, the SBDs were often caught without fighter escort, yet they were still effective. If your remember, they pummeled Shoho and put Shokaku out of action for years. So your comment about the USN being disabused of using the SBD is simply not valid.
Second, the Vals that were sent to attack USN ships were decimated at both Midway and Coral Sea. Yes they got hits, but Add in that the Cactus Air Force routinely shot down whole formations of Vals in just a few minutes tells me they were not survivable against a competent fighter force.
on the@@trauko1388
Couple things, the Stuka was used quite well against the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean. It could also carry four small bombs under the wings, not just two.
Hs-123, Ju-87A-D, Ju-88A and even the dreaded He-177A were designed with dive bombing in mind; except Hs-123 they all had the "bench-type" dive brakes under the wings (the Luftwaffe was quite obsessed with dive bombing).
On a short notice: what you describe as dive brakes on Ju-87 is pretty much the same arrangement as on Ju-52; so this has other reasons than dive bombing.
Ju-87G and some late-war D-5 had the dive brakes removed; the former attacked ground targets at a much flatter angle, the latter flew mostly at night as low level bombers, much like the Russian Polikarpov U-2.
Fw-190F and G replaced most Ju-87 on daylight bombing missions. The overall situation demanded faster aircraft which stood a chance to survive a mission.
For anyone who wants to learn about training and flying the SBD in early WW2, read:
Dauntless Helldivers: A Dive-bomber Pilot's Epic Story of the Carrier Battles
by Harold Buell
German Stukas were used used effectively against convoys going to Malta in the Mediterranean Sea.
Excellent presentation. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on Udet’s fascination with divebombing as he tried to impose that specification on the JU88, DO17, and HE177 designs. Also, JU87s were used in the anti-shipping efforts against Malta.
Not just Malta, the thing that surprised me most in the video was the repeated reference to the Stukas anti-shipping role in the BoB. As far as I can tell the most famous anti-shipping missions for the type were the Malta convoys, the Mermansk convoys and suppressing the Soviet Baltic and Black Sea fleets.
The Ju 87 did have an automatic pull out. But units disabled it when the aircraft reached them as they discovered that it make all Ju 87s pull out at the same height, making aiming much easier for enemy flak.
Yup.
MIxed up Jill and Judy at the start of the presentation. Jill was replacement for the Kate torpedo bomber.
Good information, Marc. You should make your presentation easier to watch by avoiding just reading the slides. It's obvious that you have put a lot of work into this and you are a legitimate expert, so speak as an expert telling a story, not reading the script. I will subscribe.
Consider it an additional service. If the slides were not there, you would not know ”reading from papers”, to my opinion he chats in quite easy going fashion. Great video..
Marc, nice to discover you. With a passion for Aviation, the SBD is o0ne of my favorite airplanes. It played the pivotal role in the war in the Pacific at Midway when just a few squadrons destroyed the offensive arm of the Japanese navy as they literally ran bombs down their carrier decks. I would have enjoyed some other feats of the SBD like when Swede Vejtasa took out a AM6 by cutting off its wing with his wingtip after he ran out of ammo. There are plenty of other SBD heroics. Yes SBD's were built like a tank. My Dad was a leadman in Douglas prototype (El Segundo) from about 1943 through about 1965 and worked directly with Heinemann on many projects from the AD-1 to F5D, including the A2D, A3D, A4D, F3D, F4D and the D-558-1 and D-558-2.
Ed Heinneman was one of the best designers that ever lived and doesn't get the credit he deserves.
With regards to Vejtasa's claims at the Coral Sea- Japanese records show that they lost no aircraft in that engagement.
With all due respect, the IJN's reports of losses throughout the war were horribly understated for a variety of reasons. Most historians put the IJN's aircraft losses at between 69 and 90+. While most combatants have overstated their kill claims, the U.S.'s records have been the most transparent. Whether they were 100% accurate is another discussion, but for the IJN to claim they didn't lose any airplanes is ludicrous. @@manilajohn0182
@@marcliebman3847 Interesting. I read long ago that the Japanese tended to greatly overstate their victory claims in combat. But this is the first time that I've ever heard the claim that they understated their own losses to themselves.
As far as I'm aware, their after- action reports would reference the fact that some pilot would "body crash" or "crash dive" his aicraft due to battle damage. So while they might embellish the manner of his "battle death", pretending to themselves and their superiors that they hadn't lost aircraft which they clearly had is a first.
With regard to the number of Japanese aircraft losses which you cited, I've read the exact same. My statement regarding no Japanese losses refers to Vejtasa's specific engagement only, and not the battle as a whole.
Best regards...
@@manilajohn0182 Vejtasa's claims are probably accurate, as are other claimed knockdowns of A6M's. I remember well of one SBD driver ramming the tail of a A6M and chewing it off. SBDE's flew with battle damage, A6M's didn't, they were built light and flimsy relatively speaking. Hey, and don't forget the Marianas Turkey shoot with a score like 542 to 12. But by then the F6F ruled the sky. F6F's also had as many or more kills than the P-51 with more kills than any other American fighter, over 5,000. That is disputed by some.
Nice presentation! I'd quibble with the statew '340 knots' for D4Y max speed, unless it is diving... that would be level speed equivalent to an F6F, I didn't think the D4Y that fast!
The 340 knots is a not to exceed airspeed. Depending on its altitude, the Val's cruising speed with a bomb load was in the 120 - 130 knot range .
I liked your video and joined your channel. Keep up the good work!
Since this is first time I've watched anything by you I fully realize this question might be superfluous, but here goes anyway. Why not cover the IL-2 Sturmovik since plenty of people will be thinking of it in context of ground attack even if it does not match up aeronautically nor tactically with your selections? Meanwhile you have fulfilled one of the most i.portant requirements of a great expounder. You have collected some great commenters!
Fair question. I thought I laid out the criteria in the beginning of the video. Airplane had to have some innovative feature, be in production and used by frontline units throughout the war. The Sturmovik didn't make the list because it was primarily a ground attack airplane that delivered its ordnance in a shallow diving attack, nor did it have any innovative features.
A good subject and nicely presented. My understanding is the Stuka was not CAS but a near front line support intent for higher value targets. The SBD did not really do CAS either, it was more interdiction and near target opportunity. True CAS came latter in the war aka Corsair, Tempest/Typhoon and P-47 (other aircraft were used but not suited to it, aka P-51 and P-38 due to liquid cooled engines though the Allison could take more coolant loss than the Merlin.
My father was on the receiving end of the Aichi D3A Vals. His ship, HMS Dorsetshire accompanied by her sister heavy cruiser HMS Cornwall were spotted by a recon plane from the Japanese cruiser "Tone" as they headed south from Ceylon (Sri Lanka) on 5th April 1942 to rendezvous with the British Eastern fleet east of the Maldives as they plotted to ambush the Japanese "Indian Ocean Raid".
The two British heavy cruisers spotted the contrail of the recon aircraft at maximum range at 11 o'clock in the morning and hoped that they'd not been spotted, but 2 hours later a force of 50 Vals from the carriers Soryu and Hiryu fell on the two ships and within minutes BOTH ships had received 10 direct hits each with many near misses inspite of extreme evasive maneouvering at high speed. After the sinkings some of the Vals machine gunned the survivors, and my father said he never ever forgot the mustacioed face of one of the pilots who wore a rising sun bandana and waved to the survivors as he flew low over the scene. 10 minutes after the attack started both ships had sunk and 1050 men from a combined crew of 1400 were left floating hundreds of miles from land.
The men clung to flotsam for 33 hours before they were miraculously spotted by a RN Swordfish from Ceylon and rescued by an RN light cruiser and 2 destroyers.
Thanx for sharing. This is a wonderful story that shows both the skill of the IJN pilots and the barbarity of the way the Imperial Japanese forces waged war. At that time of the war, the IJN was at the top of its game as both the RN and USN found out.
@@marcliebman3847 Absolutely... Thankfully they were cut down to size as you know at Midway. As for dad, after narrowly surviving the worst the Kido Butai could throw at him, he then ended up onboard HMS Warspite and narrowly avoided death a second time at the hands of the Luftwaffe when she was hit by "Fritz X" bombs off Salerno in Sept 1943... "luckily" all he suffered was permanently damaged hearing, which is why he spent the last two years of the war onboard a submarine tender, HMS Adamant, in Perth Australia. Strangely dad never expressed hatred towards the Japanese while I was growing up. Unlike our next door neighbour who had been captured in Malaya before the fall of Singapore and survived 4 years in their camps including a spell at "Changi". Mum & dad told us as kids NEVER to speak to him about the war, as back then in the 70s (Yes I was a "late" baby!!!) we were fascinated with the stories of the all WW2 veterans we lived amongst, but dad told me that he had suffered terribly at Japanese hands... as did most who fell under their regime.
I very much enjoyed your great video, keep up the excellent work !!!
It would have been great to have included the Vultee Vengeance which served with distinction in Burma during WW2
There are several reasons for not including the Vultee Vengeance. First, it did not fit my criteria of a dive bomber that was developed before the war and served throughout the conflict. Design work on the plane started in 1940. Second, the Vultee didn't included any unique technology that advanced dive bomber design. Last, only 1931 were made which puts them, at least in terms of quantity, in sixth place or seventh, if you want to include the Soviet PE-2. In production numbers ahead of the Vultee are the SBD, Val, Stuka, Helldiver, and Barracuda.
Good presentation. The actual dive angle is somewhat shallower than the nose down pitch attitude due to the lift vector of the wing acting perpendicular to the pitch attitude. NAVCAD class 01-64.
True, but pointing the nose down close to the vertical is unnatural!!!!
The Ju-87 had a special autopilot to support 80 degree nose down dive attacks. The autopilot pulled 10g recovery triggered by bomb release. The design assumption was the pilot would be unconscious due to the g forces for 30 seconds after the recovery and the autopilot would keep the plane straight and level until the pilot manually disengaged it.
@@allangibson8494 I read the dive angle, however, I have a hard time with the 10g pull out. I don't know if you have ever pulled gs in an airplane, but even today, with g suits, raised rudder pedals, conditioning to minimize the effect of g forces and other techniques, it is very difficult for pilots to be "awake" beyond 7 much less 10 gs. Given the fact that the pilot had to trust the autopilot - that's an act of faith in itself - to make the pull out, retract the dive flaps and keep the airplane from stalling and/or spinning makes it hard to believe that the pilots would allow themselves to be unconscious for 30 seconds. If you have ever blacked out from g forces, during the first few seconds, 5 - 10 or more, you'd know that are confused and disoriented when you wake up. This extended period of a lack of consciousness would make the Stuka even more vulnerable to ground fire than it was.
This is why the U.S. Navy, Imperial Japanese Navy had their pilots pull out of the dives and fly low over the water to escape. A slow climb by a slow airplane like the Ju-87 makes you a sitting duck for AAA.
@@marcliebman3847 Making a steep dive attack is an act of faith in your plane in and of itself.
And that’s why the autopilot existed - to protect the plane from an unconscious pilot.
The Japanese and American dive bombers operated over the sea - the Ju-87 operated over land. Low level escape is a really bad option where barrage balloons and trees are a thing.
The current F-16 has exactly the same functionality in its flight control system for the same reason.
@@allangibson8494 So, I checked with a former F-16A/B/C/D pilot and here's what he said. he didn't remember an auto pullout feature from a dive. , "All (F-16s) have GCAS www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/autogcas.html which was originally designed to recover the airplane if the pilot is incapacitated or unconscious. Reading this article I think it would also work if he gets target fixation once it senses he will fly into an unrecoverable situation. Of course that’s not the same as using it as a normal part of the delivery as the German system seems to do."
I also checked with someone who has flown the F/A-18A/B/C/D and he said the Navy doesn't have anything like this. In other words, if you got target fixation, you could fly yourself into the ground. However, the F-35s have a GCAS - ground collision avoidance system - that automates the pullout.
So, if you are an F-16 "bubba," maybe you know something these folks don't.
I didnt know about rolling onto their backs to commence the dive, what purpose as opposed to just nosing over? Fascinating video thanks
The reason is that by rolling over and into the dive is that the maneuver enables the pilot to keep the target in sight throughout the attack. What one does is fly abeam the target and when it passes the leading edge of the wing at the wingtip, you roll and dive.
Given the steep dive angle - ~70 - 80 degrees, if you just nosed over, the target ship would have to pass beneath the nose of the airplane. This would cause the pilot to lose sight of the target which is now behind the airplane. To correct, the pilot would have to make a rolling maneuver during the dive as well as possibly shallowing or worse, steepening the dive angle.
@@marcliebman3847 Also, to keep the carb from flooding. A nose down would cause this, negative g's. A roll produced positive g's, negating this.
@@atomicwedgie8176 Actually, the R-1820 had a pressurized injection carburetor which didn't care if it was right side up or upside down. The Val had a traditional float carb that would either flood or starve the engines from fuel if it had less than 1g on the airplane.
@@marcliebman3847 Thanks!
In Dec 7th 1941, the Aichi D3A Type 99 Carrier Dive Bomber ("VAL") also dropped modified 16" AP rounds from the Japanese battleship Kongo. This was used against the US battleships that the torpedo bombers could not hit.
I think that was the Nakajima B5N Kate's. They had a bomb load of 1760 lb and that modified shell weighed about 1757 lb if wikipedia is to be believed. Kate's functioned as high level bombers in addition to being torpedo bombers.
Kongo's had 14" guns. 16" would have been from Nagato/Mutso class
Thank you for your service...
Thanx. 'Twas an honor and a privilege.
Thank you for that excellent perspective, informed by your long experience. In regard to various claims, I'm curious what your take is on the claims of vehicles destroyed by ground attack aircraft in WW2. Rudel's claims seem over the top. I could readily believe that a cannon armed Stuka could destroy a lot of thin skinned vehicles, wreak havoc on artillery emplacements, command posts, etc. Tanks can't do much without fuel and coordination. But it's a bit hard to believe, using a 37 mm round fired from a fast moving aircraft, that he could have destroyed armored vehicles at the rate he claims to have.
th-cam.com/video/aaQTc2YJ0nQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Ai0XEpNdB-l6geix
It is in German. At around 17:10 he explains, that the Luftwaffe knew that Rudel was overclaiming. But in his defence (kinda): that dude flew over 2.5k sorties....
Further more, when units reported their tank kills Luftwaffe staffs were dividing those numbers by 2 to get a more accurate situation report...
Not that I know of. Target fixation is a real problem. If you have never heard the term, when a pilot fixates on a target and ignores everything else, there is a high probability he will fly into the ground/water. The solution is education, training and lots of practice to get the pilots comfortable flying the profile. The syllabus started with shallow dives and ultimately the 70 - 80 degree plunge. On the way down, your scan goes back and forth between the target to the altimeter and back.
So, another note about flying in combat. When the bullets are flying around, you do what you are trained to do which includes evasive maneuvers. Then, at the right time and altitude, you release your ordnance and focus in getting out of Dodge, so to speak.
FYI, the F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F does not have a system to help the pilot pull out of a dive!!!! The F-35Cs do.
VT fuses for the 5" and 3" guns*
The 40mm did not get VT fuses during WWII.
Ju87 stuka was most famous ww2 dive bomber, the Japanese Val gained infamy for pearl harbor attack along with other battles in pacific like coral sea, midway, many were expended in kamikaze attacks, the American dauntless sunk 4 Japanese carriers at midway, and sunk the most Japanese ships in pacific during ww2. All these planes had great combat records
Agree. The SBD has an envious record as a ship killer mainly because the USN/USMC pilots who flew them knew how to use the airplane to put their bombs on the target.
@marcliebman3847 they performed a a miracle at midway helping sink the Japanese carriers and they sunk more Japanese ships in pacific than any other plane, im a big ww2 plane buff by the way, I may not know everything but I do know alot, my grandpa worked on planes when he was in air force 1950s
@@user-ho3dz1ft1r Lucky would be a better word than miracle. Dick Best and the other SBD squadrons did what they do best which was put bombs on target. The IJN's poor damage control and weapons handling procedures did the rest. And yes, the pilots of SBDs did sink more ships than any other airplane used in WW2. that's a testament to their skill as well as the excellence of the airplane in that mission.
@marcliebman3847 you know your plane stuff I know plane stuff also, my interest in mainly in ww2 planes, my grandpa worked on p51 mustangs as a crew chief when he was in air force 1950s
My favorite ww2 planes are p51, p40, b17 and b29
Most interesting thing was hearing the SBD had longer range than the Val. So used to hearing Japanese planes having longer range than anyone else. No armor, but lots of range.
It surprised me as well.
Japan sacrificed a lot in their designs to achieve the ranges they did. The A6M is really where the range association with Japan comes from though. But they were so light they weren't able to be upgraded much as the war went on.
Reconsider as IJN would not have procured the aircraft in the first place. Val responsible for more ship kills than any other Axis aircraft. Underestimated view of the not working out eh!
@@SoloRenegade Not true try again.
The lightness was driven by several factors. One was lack of power plants that early in the war could generate more than 1,000 hp. This was a fuel/technology/expertise problem. It was not until near the end of the war that the Japanese could refine fuels with octane number greater than 90. Second reason is that the lighter structure required less material to build. Remember, Japan had to import pretty much everything to build an airplane. What this led to was airplanes had little capability for what we call development. @@SoloRenegade
Cool video, lookin forward to the one about navigating at sea in the 1940s 🙂 There’s a piece of stock footage that’s been circulating forever that many claim to show Japanese planes bombing Pearl, when in fact it’s US SBDs. Seems kinda disrespectful, I wish more content creators would take the time to do it right.
Curious the 500 A-36 built didn't make the list and was in the war on many fronts by 1942. I get why they weren't included in general, but the production list of dive bombers throughtout WW2, many were built in fewer numbers and saw less combat.
I read that the WildCat had unlimited diving capability. I believe it was because of all its drag. It probably reached it max dive speed and just wouldn't go faster. In that case it would have made a great dive bomber! It never needed dive brakes ! lol
how did spitfires do dive bombing, because they did a lot of dive bombing after d-dag, my father flew in 331 squadron and told me, they rolled over on the back, dived - and stayed inverted, until they released the bomb, then the had to pull hard on the stick and finished in a sort of half loop - it was imperativ, that when they pulled the stik the airplane dove down past 90 degrees and then up, this way gravity helped them, as the bomb would always accelerate, no matter how fast the airplane flew, and it would hit the propeller otherwise .
Did they go out of the dive a 2000 - 1500 feet as the navy did ??
Error: 1:09 The Judy "replaced" the Val not the "Jill" and the Judy was not a variant, it was a completely different aircraft, similar in impact to the Curtiss SB2C "replacing" the SBD Dauntless for operations from large aircraft carriers with SBD and Vals still seeing service in more secondary operations. The Jill was a torpedo/level bomber which replaced the Kate torpedo bombers.
You are correct about the Judy vs. Jill. However, The SB2C didn't replace all the SBD squadrons until late 1944. SBDs were still operating off Essex and independence class carriers because of the maintenance and delivery problems with the SB2C. I believe Marine squadrons were still flying SBDs in combat roles until the war ended.
Did the dive brakes on top of the wings on the SBD also act as spoilers?
My late father in law had coworker friend at his engineering firm they were both employed at in Boston. I had a chance to meet his friend once. It turned out he had been a Stuka pilot at age 18 towards the end of WWII and was shot down in his second mission. He had an interesting accent with a combination of German and Irish accent as he learned English from his wife who was Irish and a catholic nun when he met her.
This is actually a cool story. Glad he survived the war.
The great Japanese ace Sakai, lost an eye from getting behind a Dauntless.
Great video thanks.
Was the Dutch Northrop 8a the forerunner of the Dauntless which Heinemann improved on?
And, just to nitpick a bit. The Fokker D21 fighter could follow any dive bomber into a power dive. 25:51
No. Ed took over the design of the BT-1 and turned it into the SBD. I suspect that the D.21, even with its fixed gear, would accelerate past an SBD in a 70 degree dive. Even airplanes with high drag counts - the Val and the Stuka - needed dive brakes to control their airspeed. To my knowledge, the Fokker D.21 didn't;t have dive brakes Extending the flaps wouldn't work because you'd exceed their design speed and they might come off with disastrous results fro the pilot.
@@marcliebman3847 it's been stated by several sources that the D21 could follow a Stuka in its dive because it had a terminal velocity of some 700 km/h.
It was thus easy to power dive on it's prey. The pilot didn't have to worry about any never exceed speed. The prop had something to do with it, it seems.
@@gerhardris Sorry, I find that hard to believe. 700kmph is about 397 knots which was the D21's never to exceed speed.. The prop doesn't play a role in how fast an airplane can or cannot dive. Could a D21 pilot chase a Ju-87 in a dive, yes. If he did, then he'd have to shoot and pull out before the control forces became so heavy, he couldn't maneuver the airplane. Could a D.21 follow a Ju-87 down from 10,000 feet to the bomb release altitude of around 2,500 feet? Color me skeptical.
@@marcliebman3847 I'll check my sources.
Please. @@gerhardris
With the SBD at the end of the outward bound search leg, why fly the crosswind leg up wind? Seems like their would be a range advantage to flying the cross wind leg downwind.
The longer you're on station the more likely you will see what you wouldn't if you were speeding downwind.
I think the D3A is more closely derived from the Heinkel He.118.
I have several sources that say it was inspired by the He-70 Blitz. The He-118 was developed from the He-70. Also, if you look a the wing planform of the He-70, it is almost identical to the Val.
Most Heinkel designs of that vintage are the work of the Gunter brothers, and feature an elliptical wing planform, but the He.118 (built as a dive bomber, and as a competitor to the Ju.87 in Luftwaffe trials) looks remarkably close to the D3A, save for the fixed landing gear. The Japanese purchased two He.118s as the DXHe in 1939, I believe it was. @@marcliebman3847
No. The D4Y is closely derived from the He-118.
👍🏻🏴
at 10,000, it takes 25 sec for a bomb to reach the ground, excluding effects of drag and terminal velocity, reaches 800 ft/s.
for an aircraft at 250 mph, forward advance of bomb is about 3000 yards.
A ship traveling at 25kt travel advances 350 yds,
Let's say the ship will maintain speed, and either continue on course or turn in either direction.
A 25kt ship should be able to turn about 60 degrees in 25 sec (90 sec for 180 at high speed).
So, the ship will be somewhere on an arc of perhaps 700 yds with various direction possibilities.
Assume the B-17 carries 4 x 1000lb bombs, (not sure the time between each bomb release).
Presumably, someone should have worked out how many B-17s in some formation is likely to score one or more hits.
The battleship dimension is approximately 600ft long, and 106 ft beam.
I am thinking for approach head on, fly in a v-formation,
for beam approach, several columns?
Notes: the old US battleships are about 30,000 tons, 30,000 shp, 21 kt
North Carolina and SD class: 35,000 tons, 120,000 shp, 27 kt
treaty cruiser 10,000 tons, 100,000 shp, 32kt,
destroyer 2000 tons, 50,000 shp - 35kt - really not going to hit a maneuvering destroyer, but not a target anyways.
my thoughts: a ship generating 100,000 shp is a lot of stress on the shaft and propellers (25,000 each). an armor piercing bomb has most of its weight in the steel case, only a small amount in the charge.
why not drop depth charges set to go off at some depth,
a number of near misses near the propellers should create enough stress to damage of the components.
this would force the ship to slow down, becoming an easier target for the second wave.
Joe, the U.S.A.A.F. tried hitting ships with B-17s and were successful in that all they hit was the water. In 1941, B-17s tried to bomb the Japanese invasion fleet off the Philippines and they managed to damage some anchored transports. At Midway, all they hit was water. The IJN, RAF, FAA, Luftwaffe and the USN all concluded that the best way to hit a moving ship was by dive bombing. That's why the Aichi Val and the Douglas SBD accounted for more ship sinking than any other airplanes. Those that are in second place aren't even close.
BTW, you left out the effect of wind, possible damage to the bomb fins which may or may not be aligned properly, and the arc in which the bomb falls. It doesn't go straight down from the bomber, but instead continues straight ahead and then as gravity takes over, begins to plummet straight down. I know the films showing the bombs coming out of the bomb bays look as if they are coming straight down, but they are in fact, at the moment of release, going the speed of the airplane.
@@marcliebman3847I am not trying to argue for the B-17, or which method is best. I am just saying someone should have worked out the formation and release sequence to create a desired pattern.
From the perspective of the bomber, as filmed by aircraft flying in formation, the bombs go straight down. From the perspective of a person on a ground, the bombs fall in a line with some spacing.
Also, I am not trying discuss the full method of bomb sight compensations.
Only this: a given formation, if all planes starting releasing at set interval, what is the best pattern.
If no one worked this out, then the Army Airforce are a bunch of idiots
Trust me, the Army tried and never figured it out. their desire to prove that they could do it so the USAAF could prove that there was no need for Naval Aviation, let them to all sorts of experiements, but they failed.
Physics of a bomb falling. What you see in combat camera footage is a camera (and cameraman) moving at the same speed as the bomber dropping bombs. When the bombs leave the airplane, they are moving at the same speed as the airplane even though they appear to be dropping straight down. For a short period of time, the bomb is flying "parallel" to the airplane. Then, as drag and gravity take over, the bomb eventually is going straight down. @@joechang8696
bomb path seen from ground should be a parabola. x-axis motion is linear in time, y-axis is time - squared, + drag influence. from the plane, it is down and then falls behind, but forward motion never stops. I suppose there are additional effects as the fins reorient bomb from pointed forward to down.@@marcliebman3847
also, factor in that Army Air was planning for the WWI era US BBs, about 30,000 tons and 30,000 shp for 21 kt. In the inter-war period, improvements in steam, higher pressure, super heating, allowed much more HP in the same space.
Hence, North Carolina class, 15% heavier than Colorado, was 27/28kt on 120,000 shp. it's not just the 6-7 kt extra speed, but also the time to turn. I recall a cruiser (10,000 tons, 70,000 shp , post-WWII, takes about 90sec to turn 180)@@marcliebman3847
Primary difference is that the Dauntless and Val were naval bombers, designed for extreme range. The Ju87 was designed for close air support and short range (the spatted undercarriage with horrible drag speaks to that). The Ju87 would never have the range to be a naval bomber, so it is fairly pointless to discuss it.
what books have you written?
The JU 87 looks suspiciously like the 1930's US Army Shrike (A10?)
Sort of. The landing gear of the early Ju-87 is similar to the A-10.
Did skip bombing replace dive bombing for the US Navy?
Like many Japanese aircraft manufacturers, the Aichi Aircraft Company ended up in the car business after the war when Japan's pacifist post-war constitution prevented the manufacture of machines that could be used to make war. The former makers of the D3A ended up making kei cars for the domestic market and was later absorbed into the Nissan conglomerate. The Nakajima Aircraft Company, whose products carried torpedoes into Pearl Harbour, became Fuji Heavy Industries which begat Subaru. And of course Mitsubishi, maker of the famous Zero, brought destruction to the American auto industry with their popular fuel efficient cars in the 1970s. Mitsubishi seems to be the only one that has remained in the business of making military planes - they produce the F-2, a fighter based on the F16.
This is a sad tale, but true. However, even by the end of the war, Japanese aircraft design had not kept up with what was happening in the U.S., U.K., Soviet Union and Germany. This was mostly due to their geographic isolation and lack of communication with their allies but also due to a lack of high octane fuel, raw materials to make alloys that could withstand higher compression ratios or make lighter aircraft. For example, we were already putting radars in small pods on the wings of F6Fs and F4Us and the Japanese were struggling to put them in the nose of two engine airplanes.
3:03 Banana wars? " When we were supporting various governments, was putting it rather euphemistically.
2 for the sea vs 1 for land?
what about british blackburn skua which was first o sink a major warship
True. but the Skua was withdrawn from service in 1941 and there were only 192 of them made. Criteria for the video was that the airplane had to be in front line service at the beginning and end of the war and include innovations that made dive bombing practical. The Skua didn't meet any of these criteria. FYI, I have been asked the same question about the SB2C Helldiver and the Vultee Vengance.
Why did the Ju87 have an liquid cooled in-line engine? That seems like an incredibly poor choice for a dive bomber.
A-36, Ju-87, IL-2, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, P-40, P-39Q, Mosquito, Whirlwind, and many more ground attack aircraft used inline engines. Ironically, the Ju87 and A-36 did the most accurate 90deg dives and were both inline.
We can make a long list of failed radial engine dive bombers as well.
What makes the inline engine a poor choice?
@@SoloRenegade they're a bit more vulnerable to damage while a fat radical offered a bit more pilot protection.
@@kenneth9874 "they're a bit more vulnerable to damage "
How so? the Allison V12 at least fared well in damage test using various weapons.
The P-47 has 2 large oil cooler radiators right below its engine, just like the P-40 does, and a hit to either of those would seize the engine within 5min. F4U and others also had oil coolers in teh wings or near the belly.
A big radial provides a larger target to shoot at, as it dives in at you. And the A-36 having it's radiator at the rear meant you had to shoot through the engine, armored firewall, and more to reach it as it dove in on you, making it particularly safe.
The Engine offers little pilot protection as a result of brittle materials and geometry. The A-36/P-51 actually has far more armor protection than a P-47 does, particularly its armored firewall, which the P-47 does not have. It's also very hard to lead shoot a fast vertically diving airplane, which the Ju87 and A-36 were both capable of. A-36 would begin their dives at altitudes well out of reach of most low level AAA too.
Good job, captain. Are you saying the US dive bombers made their dives flying upside down?
No, it was more of a half or three quarters roll to bring the nose of the airplane in line with the target. You wanted to start your dive so you were upwind of the target so if the wind pushed you "back" you could adjust your dive angle. The other reason for this type of attack profile is that it allows the pilot to keep the target insight at all times.
@@marcliebman3847Thanks, captain.
Don’t like the silhouette of H.M.S.Hood as the target. My father narrowly missed being part of her complement.
A-36A and F4U were also excellent dive bombers in WW2, but understandably don't meet the criteria of this analysis and thus not discussed.
How did WWII Naval fighters handle the speed issue during a dive?
Flippant answer is that they didn't. Seriously, one of the issues with all the aircraft used in close air support was compressibility as they approached the speed of sound. As they approached the transonic speeds, either the pilots couldn't move the controls due to aerodynamic forces, or they had control reversal or if they could pull out of the dive, the airplanes came apart our if they were lucky, held together but were overstressed and a write-off.
So, what did they do? The advent of relatively accurate forward firing rockets enabled shallow diving attacks which kept the speed well within the limits of the airplane. Second, the advantage a P-47, Typhoon, Tempest, F4U, F6F had was overall speed which made them less vulnerable to AAA than a slower dive bomber in a shallow diving attack. Third, was better gunsights. And fourth, better pilot training.
The F4U was designed from the start to have dive bombing capability. A lever would extend the main ldg gear only and that would act as a dive brake. I have a reproduction of a condensed POH for the Corsair.
I would be worried about ripping the doors off if I tried to dive bomb in an F-4U with the gear down. I don't have much F4U-4 POH handy, but I would read that again. Someplace in the operating limits, there should be an airspeed restriction on the landing gear doors and probably the flaps.@@fazole
Since the B model, the Stuka could actually carry a 1.000Kg bomb, its on the actual datasheets for the aircraft.
With the D it went up to 1.800Kg.
And there is 6 years between the Ju 87 and SBD, that is a LOT in WW2 development time.
Too bad the Skua was so underpowered. It was the very first all metal, retractable undercarriage, folding wing monoplane carrier aircraft. The USN would not field a dive bomber with this spec until the Helldiver and the IJN until the late war Yokosuka D4Y.
True about the Skua.
You neglected the conversation on the fixed landing gear ! For the Val and the Stuka having to ditch the plane on land or in the sea was almost a death sentence as the wheels would catch and flip the plane on its head ! The SBDs could belly land no problem and would even float for a bit long enough to deploy the Inflatable raft
Actually, to be honest, I didn't think of that and I suspect, neither did Ed Heinemann. Retractable landing gear meant less drag which meant more speed for the same airframe/drag count/weight. keep in mind, the USN didn't start buying airplanes with retractible landing until the mid 1930s with airplanes such as the F3F.
The naval strike mission for the Stuka was an afterthought and it only got into that mission during the early stages of the Battle of Britain. So again, ditching wasn't a concern to Junker's engineers.
With the Val, it was all about weight given the horsepower restrictions of Japanese engines in the late 1930s. At the risk of being very cynical, I don't think any of the Aichi designers were worried about aircrew survivability when they penned the Val's design.
Why was there not a greater effort to upgrade the SBD at the end of 1942? Why were the Essex class not refitted at the inception of the F9F? The A-4 Skyhawk could deliver bombs in a dive accurately, but they would come back to the carrier looking like Swiss cheese. Did management miss the end of dive bombing in the early 60's?
These are all very good questions. Allow me to provide abbreviated answers. The SBD was updated although by the time the SBD-6 came out, the SB2C was in production. The Helldiver was, despite its teething problems that delayed its entry to the fleet by about 2 years, faster, carried a bigger bomb load, had greater range and was more heavily armed.
When jets were being delivered to the fleet, all the Essex and Midway carriers were modified to accept them. Later, the angled deck was introduced. Several of these carriers, Hornet, Yorktown, Bonne Homme Richard, Oriskany, Midway, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Coral Sea, Shangri-La and others to handle jets. Midway was still operational during Desert Shield/Storm.
Three things have pushed the USN and other services away from true dive bombing. One is the VT fuse developed by the U.S. Navy in 1942 which explodes when it senses the presence of an airplane. The other is radar controlled weapons 5", 3", 40mm guns that could track a diving airplane. The above two are what caused most of the aircraft damage early in the Vietnam War. And third, the introduction of standoff weapons. they were first used in Vietnam and now they are the predominant weapon used.
Hope that answers your questions.
@@marcliebman3847 the only thing the SBD lacked was folding wings, but it's statistics were solid. The SB2C had a serviceability issue going into the summer of 1943. The Essexs pre-Korea were mixing jet-fuel out of av-gas; they were forced to bunker J-4 due to the volume that the heavier aircraft were consuming. I can't imagine the 7th fleet untying from the dock so unprepared. I read John McCain's account of his shootdown. I spiral fracture is life threatening. The weapons designers could not get Walleye out to the fleet soon enough.
@@jamesbohlman4297 When I arrived in VN in 1970, carriers on Yankee and Dixie Stations still had both 115/145 avgas as well as JP-5 (the Navy does not use JP4) in their fuel bunkers. Even carriers with the all jet airwings had avgas because they had to refuel the C-1s.
I hate to tell you this, but the Navy was horribly unprepared for Korea and Vietnam. Early on, we learned ugly lessons. However, in Korea, there were still many WWII vets in the airwings and on staffs. Not so in the early days of VN. Fast forward to1991, and amongst the 5 carrier airwings and battlegroup staffs, there were only 19 of us who were combat vets. Thankfully, we had learned our lessons from VN and Desert Storm was a textbook approach on how to defeat an enemy.
@@marcliebman3847 I watched to much "Victory at Sea" as a kid, but I was aware of my uncle's frustration with the Navy, which led him to hire on with TWA. The history books in my collection have information that should have come out decades ago. The description of one of our future astronauts mixing oil into a tank full of avgas on the flight deck is not exactly "Victory at Sea". The glide slope of the Crusader left no room on a 27 Charlie for error; but the planes from World War II make an Essex look spacious. The idea that Pacific fleet could be beat by anyone on Yankee Station was a surprise; in particular the thought of an F-4 Phantom getting handled does not seem possible. But the Sea/Air control afforded by the 27 Alphas is thing of beauty; what is there not love about the air package? I appreciate the A-4F as a work of art. The idea of forcing the Russians to go back where they came from is an excellent investment.
Why did they roll into the dive why not just push the nose down?
He said it was to keep the target in view
Val = 250 kG bombload
SBD = 500 kG bombload
You said "pounds"
The Banana Wars "Where we were supporting various gouverments". Well only if the american industries count as gouverments
To commit the U.S. Marines to combat requires an order from the President that is handed down to, n those days, the Navy Department who then orders the deployment. Yes, the Marines were there at the behest of U.S. businesses, but that is irrelevant to the dive bombing story. As part of the conflicts, they experimented with dive bombing and learned valuable lessons.
Marc, don't speak from slides. It is annoying.
Did the dive brakes on top of the wings on the SBD also act as spoilers?
Yes. The pilot could choose to deploy them as flaps or as speed brakes.