Dive Bombing in a World War 2 Aircraft U.S Navy Training Film - 1943
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2012
- "Before you leave the deck in that Dauntless, you'd better learn how to dive bomb properly. The US Navy pioneered dive bombing techniques after World War I and it shows in this informative film, produced by the Department of the Navy in 1943." Zeno, Zeno's Warbird Video Drive-In zenoswarbirdvideos.com See this film and more on our "US Navy Bombers" DVD: bit.ly/HW5LVa
You'll learn everything from the basic theory of dive bombing to how to put your egg on a real target, including ships at sea. Navy SBD "Dauntless" dive bombers delivered fatal blows against the Japanese carrier force at the battle of Midway using the same techniques you'll see in this film. A must for history buffs and virtual combat pilot's alike.
You gotta love those old instructional films that seem to have been narrated by the same guy
Agree
I used this on warthunder and it really helped me a ton. lol Thanks, US Army.
This might be good for war thunder players
When the game is so weak on instructions you have to watch WWII training videos to figure out how to play
Exactly why i'm here XD
Helped me in bombing.
It actually solved me some doubts I had and gave me acknowledge about other things didn't even knew, so yeah, it is.
this is why im here
I love the straightfoward, talk-to-me-like-I-know-nothing style of classic instructionals. It's extremely helpful and can definitely clear up some misunderstandings.
I guess im "authorized"
I get so caught up in reading about the battles in WW2, that I forget that all these people had to be trained first.
That is one of the most difficult, important and amazing parts of the war. The US took serveral million men and turned them into gunners and sailors and pilots and radar operators and mechanics and engineers within a couple years, and started getting them into combat in a year. They even managed to send enough of the already trained men overseas to start fighting while they were still training the many times as many new soldiers to follow them. It was perhaps most impressive with the US because we started late and expanded the fastest, but every nation faced the same problems. And it had major impact on the ones who couldn't spare the veterans to train the new ones properly. One reason the allied aces have much lower scores than the Germans is that they pulled the most successful pilots out to train new ones (and because it would be a major morale blow to lose them), while the Germans tended to leave them in combat. They racked up huge kills, but they ran out of trained replacements quickly. Same for Japan, but that was also because all the trained ones were killed. The Soviets took the route of "sink or swim" expecting to just take the losses while the survivors became veterans. But the US training and logistics apparatus was huge, and we spent billions on it. We were the only ones who could take equipment that wasn't quite top of the line and make it into training equipment, while others were using whatever they could get their hands on. Before the war, buying 100 bombers was a huge order. During the war we were setting aside hundreds of B-25 and B-26 bombers to use as trainers (partly because we could build planes faster than we could train crews on them). The Army bought a whole bunch of SBDs and then just used them as training and liaison planes, for example. Plenty of M3 and M4 tanks never left the country and were used to train on. We built robotic trainers and gunnery simulators, built whole schools. As well as building whole highways. No wonder a lot of money was made.
My Father was a gunner on a SPD Dive Bomber during WWII. He was a Marine and fought in the Pacific Islands. He told me went they went into a dive the air brakes scream would scare the Hell out of the Japanese.
Did you mean to type SBD?
+R281 yes I believe so thanks
Brave man. I wouldn't even want to pilot one of those.
+R281 Is it bad that I only know what you're talking about because of a video game?
+STFUImBigBoned not really that was a long time ago
im glad i found this i play war thunder a game where you use planes, tanks, and soon boats from ww2- cold war. I like to use the dive bombers alot more than fighters and in simulator mode i would be in too steep of an angle and crash or my bomb would be too short. so this taught we how to do it properly. Thanks history.
So much education in Applied Physics and Mathematics a pilot must master before becoming an expert and experienced ace.
Midway brought me here
Same here, and warthunder did as well. Y'all gotta try to dive bomb in war thunder.
@@MrBlackcat1990 shit’s so fun to do
One to the best channels here in you tube!!! thank you very much for sharing all this amaizings documentaries!!!!
Keko C.R '=
You're welcome!
Zeno
Actually the aircraft in this film doing the dive-bombing looks like a Kingfisher reconnaissance aircraft. It is certainly not a Dauntless. The Kingfisher was primarily a float plane but also had a land model with mixed main-wheels. The undercarriage looks fixed, whereas a Helldiver had a retractable under carriage. The Helldiver also had a larger and more distinctive tailplane. The Kingfisher could also carry a pair of small (100 lb) bombs under the wings.
You are correct, Its the land based version of the Kingfisher , which was used for patrolling, ASW & training.
@@ZenosWarbirds Was SBD quite "new and improved" as of the time it won the Battle of Midway? Replaced something else that couldn't quite get the job done?
And did they end up diving at a steeper angle than the maker of the plane specified (harder on the airframe,more danger) but more accurate?
Who said it was an SB2C? Anyway it wasn't a recon plane, it was a scout/observation/utility plane, not quite the same. And there wasn't a "land model", the undercarriage was interchangable. But in reality most of the OS2U fitted with wheels retained them full time.
Friend: Why did you watch this old boring training video?
Me as a War Thunder player: _"My goal is beyond your understanding"_
I just watched midway, and seeing dive bombers in action, damn it's scary... Diving while getting shot.. Salute to those brave bombers..
one hell of a machine the SBD, thank you for the video
Thank you for posting this refresher!
I'm always interested in things like this... They entertain me the most. I'm like a kid listening to the making of candy right now.
amazing i just have no words to say how happy i an in se those videos thx alot =)
You're welcome!
ZenosWarbirds If I understand correctly the rationale in Naval dive-bombing was that horizontal bombing was useless against a maneuvering ship, so the dive-bomber had to get as close as possible before releasing.
What I have been trying to figure out for years is how they actually performed the dive bombing. Like how they transition from level flight into the dive. I read the Stukas would flip inverted and then pull into the dive. I see photos of SBDs banking off in echelon claiming to be going into a dive. Here I see them straight pushing forward on the stick. So I still don't know for sure. Maybe there were different techniques.
From what I understand, the Stuka pilots hated that plane. I guess it was really hard to fly… especially with the ram air siren.
Should've had the camera mounted at the pilot's point of view and show the view a pilot would see thru the sights.
Okay, I have been wondering how they correct for side to side deflection for years. Good to know.
USN Pioneered and were the first to accept dive bombing. But it was the British to first use it in world war I, though never officially adopted due to expected casualties of such steep diving attack.
The US considered it very useful and a potential deadly maneuver which they instead adopted and use from the inter-war era and up until the end of world war II as part of it's doctrine.
The A-mericans were not the first to dive bomb, that was the British in October 1914.
British too developed the first dedicated dive bomber, the Sopwith Salamander in 1918.
Following that the Sweden arm of the German company Junkers in the 1920s built the Junkers K47, development of that aircraft led to the Ju 87 Stuka first flight 1935, it was flying combat missions in the Spanish civil war in 1937 and went on to devastate Poland in 1939.. and continued combat missions until 1945.
on what planet did the Yanks have anything to do with pioneering dive bombing ?
The Stuka was developed while fighting in the Spanish civil war and by the time it was used in Poland it was fitted with an auto pull out at a pre set height even if the pilot blacked out, it also had explosive charges on the undercarriage so they could be blown off to make a belly landing incase they were damaged.. what part of that did the yanks have an hand in.. they were not first to try it, not first to build a dedicated dive bomber, they were not first to use dive bombers as part of a coordinated attack with ground troops, this make it up as you go history from the A-mericans is getting quite tiresome.
@Gail Raby
However, we were the first to officially accept it and widely teach it
Also, it’s a training film for and by Americans. Every military tells their people they have the best equipment and the correct ideas.
Why would you expect this film to be any different?
I thought gravity was 32ft/s squared. Where does the square come in if it is a linear addition of 32ft/s each second?
Like what you see? Your DVD purchases at our store make this channel possible.
www.zenosflightshop.com See this film and more on our "US Navy Bombers" DVD: bit.ly/HW5LVa
We need your support! Zeno
Honestly. Just imagine being in the cockpit of one of these ur gunner just closed his window for you to make ur dive. Ur going 250mph in what is basically a go-kart towards an aircraft carrier shooting about 30 AAA per second and ur basically choosing the angle to launch a part of your plane at it at the correct angle to hit it then pull up and fly off all the while still avoiding triple a and CAP. What a fucking trip
Re the US Navy pioneering dive bombing. Watch the movie "Hell Divers," shot way back in 1932. The Luftwaffe studied American techniques, which they put to good effect with the Stuka.etc. Same for the Japanese.
British were the first to dive bomb.. October 1914.. first dedicated dive bomber was the British Sopwith Salamander in 1918.
junkers K47 was next in the 1920s, that developed into the Junkers Ju 87 (Stuka) in 1935, seeing combat in the Spanish civil war in 1937..
Time to time-travel n' get on a Stuka.
now im ready for warthunder ranking
The problem comes in when the target is not stationary as in the battle of Midway and other Naval engagements.
"The US Navy pioneered dive bombing techniques after World War I and it shows in this informative film."
Wait what? What are they drunk on. xD
I wonder what the vertical speed of the bomb was when it hit the carrier deck? I would think a torpedo would be more lethal, as the hydroshock breaks the keel of the ship and water gushes into the hull.
Sir: to answer your question would depend on many variables such as aircraft speed and dive angle (vertical speed), Release altitude (time of flight of bomb) and aerodynamics of the bomb (coefficient of drag, density of air etc)
For instance, the gravitational pull is 1G which is about 9.8 m/s per second (M/S squared). if a bomb is released with a vertical speed (Not horizontal speed or aircraft airspeed) of say 200 MPH, at 2000 ft altitude it will accelerate until it strikes in about 6 seconds reaching a velocity of around around 140 M/S. Given the same scenario but release at an altitude of 5000 ft, it would take around 11 seconds to fall while reaching a velocity of around 200 meters/second.
The problem with WWII torpedo planes were two fold in my estimation. one, same as dive bombing, they had to be aimed at a moving target, anticipating where the pilot thought the ship would be, the torpedo was slower (time to impact) than a bomb dropped from an aircraft which gave more opportunity for a ship to maneuver.
The other problem, at that time was not only the slower speed of the aircraft but they had to fly very low and very slow before release which made them sitting ducks to CAP aircraft and ship antiaircraft weapons. An example would be the torpedo squadron decimation at the battle of midway (cannot remember the squadron)
@@jimd1944 ...and, it didn't help that when no less a luminary than Albert Einstein stated that the magnetic fuze on the torpedoes wouldn't work, but the Admirals ignored him, because what did HE know about Physics??
@@drpoundsign Love your humor sir. There was definitely a problem with the Mark 13 torpedoes' with only approximately 25% running true.
However, I think you are confusing the magnetic actuators, which were on the Navy's submarine Mark 14 torpedoes, with the aerial Mark 13 torpedoes which used contact initiators only.
Both torpedoes were developed during the depression and were not properly operationally tested and both had horrifying characteristics until multiple improvements were made.
The Aerial Mark 13 was notorious for failing to ignite and going dead, veering off course, running deep, sinking and often breaking up (or being damaged) on impact which is one of the reasons the Avengers needed to fly almost at stall speed and at around 50 ft AGL. It took years to correct but various changes were eventually made and became an extremely reliable weapon by wars end. First they created wooden wood drag rings (I think they called it a pickle barrel) on the nose which created Drag and broke off upon impact with the water. they then created a ring shroud which reinforced the tail fins to help it run true and, incorporated a wooden shroud for the tail (similar to what the Japanese used at pearl) which broke off on impact but protected the tail fins from damage. They also solved the tendency to arm while still in the air which caused some to prematurely detonate.
After these modifications they found the torpedo could be dropped at altitudes above 2000 ft and speeds in excess of 200 knots (no longer needed to weapon to enter the water in a flat trajectory) During the battle for Leyte Gulf they proved their usefulness.
The Magnetic initiator you mentioned was used on the Mark 14 (a much larger torpedo) by submarines and had a REALLY horrendous (actually scandalous) failure rate. The first problem IDed was the depth control which caused the torpedo to "fly" well below the set depth which negated the magnetic initiator. once that was solved, they found the magnetic initiator was faulty which (once the depth problem was solved) caused most torpedoes to detonate prematurely. Once they decided to not use the magnetic initiator they found the kill rate still did not improve as the contact initiator was faulty in 90 degree hits (optimum) as the impact damaged the firing pin. It was scandalous. The navy had never operationally tested these systems due to the cost during the depression and "dummy rounds" did not mimic the real rounds packed with explosives.
@@jimd1944 Yet...with all THAT...the USN subs managed to sink most of the Japanese Merchant Marine.
I‘m watching this to get better in War Thunder
more fun than being a Grunt in the foxholes...but, more dangerous, too
Side wise. He keeps saying it
You mean...the Military LIES?? Oh no - how can I sleep now?! ;)
Great vid - a nice piece of history. Thank you!
A-6E's, A-4M's ruled. The A-7 must have been good too.
The old Stukas would really scream when they dove too. Then the Germans added sirens to increase the fear factor.
Stukas did a lot of damage to the anchorage at Naples. Dive bombers were lethal, and the SBD's had the best platform of any of the combatants in WWII. Fantastic aircraft!
The SBD was FAR from the best, infact, it was outdated in 1939. However, the plane did get naval kills than any other.
More naval kills*
Divebombing must be one of the hardest things a human being can do. I have tried in the realistic simulator IL-2 Sturmovic and it is extremely difficult also without feeling the G-crafts the real pilots had to stand.
weightless during the beginning of the dive?
5:24 "since two forces, gravity and forward speed..."
ummm... speed is not a force. (physics101)
+HaroWorld1 they probably mean resisting force, but they said it wrong
+HaroWorld1 either that or they are kinda stoop
+HaroWorld1 not everything is to be taken literally
Like this comment right?
+HaroWorld1
He meant forward acceleration I'm sure. Which combined with the mass of the plane would lead to a force in the forward direction. This added to the straight downward force caused by gravity would create a changing resultant force that when charted would show the trajectory. This would be a parabola. High School Physics rocks. lol
I want to buy a WWII plane after I become a commercial pilot. If I ever got a B-17 (I know I have barely any chance) could I fly it wherever there isn't a no fly zone??????
you should land that thing on Catalina Island.
you can buy the planes that your military isn't using now anymore. Sorry for bad english.
i found it much accurate if you dont pull up right away, i usualy give it like .5 sec after dropping the bomb i always hit my target specialy the tanks and attack boat on hainan resort but sometimes the engineers would be lucky and hit my plane with an rpg
Of course this is in the real world and you're talking about play-world.
I watched this to help me in world of war planes
Why the fuck are you playing that piece of shit? you should play war thunder, far better and more realistic
***** Yes, War Thunder is much more better and realistic than Word of Warplanes, but in the end it's still an huge crap.
flying planes in battlefield 4 is pretty fun too.
Um, isnt that a Helldiver? (not a dauntlless?)
Er, nobody said the planes in the film are Dauntlesses. :-) They are not Helldivers either. I did some research on it a while a go but can't remember the name of the aircraft. Some obscure version that was relegated to training.
ZenosWarbirds
you sure its not a helldiver? sure looks like one. go looka tsome picks of them side by side. I was just commenting because, your description says 'before you leave the deck in that Dauntless' -didnt mean to be snide or anything. nice video btw. go look though, it sure looks like a helldiver to me, or a prototype for it.
ZenosWarbirds
Also, look at the antenna in front of the cockpit, and the rear canopy integration to the tail, i'm almost sure, thats a helldiver man.
D Hall Its the land based version of the Vought OS2U Kingfisher, which was used for patrolling, ASW & training. There was also a float plane version.
Very interesting! +1
as someone who plays war thunder thanks
Funny but a Kingfisher was not designed to be a divebomber
Get lined up to start with, it's like throwing a ball at a dunking booth clown, you either can hit or you can't.
If you didn't get killed ( ahem ... "minor" point ), it must have been exciting as hell.
Boming?
Only in training. They weren't the first to use it in combat.
they were not the first to do it in training..
first dedicated dive bomber was the British Sopwith Salamander in 1918.. the German Junkers K47 was built in the 1920s, that aircraft developed onto the Ju 87 in 1935, saw combat in the Spanish civil war in 1937 and went on to devastate Poland in 1939.. where were the A-mericans?
I'm just waiting to see Goofy piloting the plane ....
Japanes officcer in WW2 : This is too hard why not just drive into it.
Japanese were great at dive bombing and you mocking them shows ur desperate to impress ur American colonizers
From a time when pilots apparently flew and "fought" from the seat of their pants. No nanosecond computer calculations here... pilot in complete control of all aspect of his machine and its intent (destroy other machines/kill enemy). Lovely film, exhilarating. In an age of which godless hacks and Democrats who make war on unborn babies rather than mature enemies, and even cower at viruses that might cut their lives in this fallen land a minute short (in eternity give or take) I can only watch these videos of wondrous ages of American heros.
Boy this comment really got out of hand lol
Some
Serious technical errors
Note that the pronouns used here are all "he," his," and 'him" rather than the grammatically incorrect 'they" "their" or "them." Yes, there were woman pilots but divebombing requires sustaining heavy G forces and that demand the pilot be in top physical form.
Russ G I know this is a five month old comment but are tout implying that no woman would be able to be in the requesite physical condition?
And a mustache
@@Romanov117 First off, you don't know what the hell you're talking about but I'm sure that never stops you. "Higher hormones"... yeah, sure professor! Women had only 15 years before even been given the right to vote in this country so their "limitations" were wholly dictated by what 'white men' determined they were based on their own prejudices (kind of like you I suspect), not because they "weren't physically fit for combat".
@@Romanov117 NEWSFLASH!! There ARE women in the Special Forces today and when it comes to the "Brains" requirement you're not fit for KP so don't hurt yourself with the heavy-lifting required to have a valid opinion. You may also want to research exactly what "hormones" are. They're not something measured by volume.