SB2C Helldiver, which the USAAF found totally unfit for combat, WWII Evaluation Report Results
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- The US Army Air Force was quite impressed with the German Ju-87 Stuka dive bombers performance and desired a dive bomber to add to it’s fleet. They evaluated the 3 modified Navy dive bombers for suitability for attacking land targets. They were all considered ineffective due to vulnerability to both ground fire and enemy aircraft attack. The video focuses on the only promising model the Curtiss A-25 Shrike which is a land version of the SB2C Helldiver. They would need a fighter escort during sortie missions, had limited bomb load capacity, and the existing USAAF models outperformed the NAVY derivatives. The Army Air Force dive bomb model program was cancelled in mid-1943.
I appreciate how you always list declassification of documents.
Great explanation why the Navy used dive bombers after the Army had abandoned them.
Because they were willing to accept the planes getting shot down they knew would happen if it meant they could sink some ships
@@verysurvival Dive bombers did far more damage to Japanese shipping than did torpedo bombers, especially in the early part of World War 2. Our bombs were as dependable as our torpedoes were undependable.
@@Mustapha1963 Until mid 1943, after studies on what actually happened when you dropped a torpedo from an airplane were completed. The results of these studies greatly expanded the drop envelopes of the Mk 13 torpedo, in both height and speed, from 100' / 150 mph to several thousand ft and 350 or so mph.
The percentage of reliable runs was raised to over 90%.
If you want to understand the effectiveness of US Torpedoes later in the war check out the losses of the Battleships Musashi and Yamato.
@@peterstickney7608 Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but weren't the torpedoes used by aircraft the same ones used by submarines?
The reason I ask is that I know submarine captains upon returning from the first war patrols reported that their torpedoes were malfunctioning almost all of the time and that those reports were pretty much completely ignored by the Bureau of Ordinance.
@@Mustapha1963 You're essentially correct. The aerial MXIII was modified with a wooden shroud on the tail. The submarine MXIV was modified to use a contact exploder. Both gave good service from 1944 on, even though they never matched the speed and range of the Japanese "long lance."
this is awesome content! this sort of info is immensely valuable for understanding the full context of aircraft development and selection, as well as use. This sort of thing never gets discussed by others.
A nit-picking of your incredible deep-dive into history: The seven volume book of The Army Air Force in World War 2 was formally released beginning in 1948, although some volumes were released after that, as the authors completed their task. The 1984 printing date is a reprint of those earlier-released versions. I highly recommend the USAAF's role in WW2 ! I have the entire set, Six of the seven I found have the 1948-1952 printing (although the volumes were released as they were printed, and at least one volume was released out of numerical sequence) printing date and only one of mine bears the 1984 re-printing mark. The series is the most complete WW2 history of the Air Force I have ever read. When I first learned of the volume series, I had slight hope of locating all seven, but they were actually quite easy to find from antique booksellers, and at very reasonable prices. My personal interest in the Army Air Force history is due to my father's role in that time. He had been in the 91st bomber group of the USAAF 1st Division for the entirety of the war in Europe, 1942- 1945 as a pilot; he flew 52 of his required 25 completed missions and was lead pilot for the 91st for the raid on Schweinfurt, when the 91st suffered nearly 80% casualties. His military career lasted 25 years, WW2 and Korean War, but after he retired form active duty as a colonel, he was a civilian employee for the Air Forces at the Pentagon. I bought the book series to better understand just what my father endured in his military and civilian service, as he very seldom wanted to talk about his military career, much less his combat experiences.
The army air force while impressed by the stuka were a bit short sighted in their evaluation. The stuka's successes in the early war period , were feasible due to the luftwaffe having air dominance .By 1940 in the battle of britain , after unsustainable losses it became apparent that they were too vulnerable to be deployed in heavily contested airspace . They were operated till war's end but their glory days had long since passed .
And the allied forces didn’t have dominance of the skies by 1944?? USAAF dive bombers would’ve had an absolute field-day on the Western front had they pressed ahead with employing them. Land-based Vengeances had an outstanding record in the Far East campaigns and the Aussies couldn’t get enough of them.
@@neilturner6749 And yet the air force discarded dive bombers for the same reasons the luftwaffe had curtailed their usage. The far east campaigns over Burma and Papua New Guinea were to the allies in aircraft as they were to tanks on the ground , they could usefully deploy what came their way . The matilda tank and the bristol blenheim light bomber , well past their useful life in the europe or even middle east but in the far east they were still able to kick ass.
Horses for courses.
@@neilturner6749 Fighter-bombers with rockets were perfectly adequate when attacking ground vehicles, and they can shoot down any enemy aircraft they encounter along the way. If you mainly need them to knock out fortifications, dive bombers make sense.
The Ju 87 was misemployed during the BoB. It was meant to operate at most about 20km from the front line supporting the German Army only as long as it took to bring forward heavy artillery. Crossing the English Channel was a step too far.
-From 1942 onwards the disappearance of the Stuka in dive bombing is not so much related to its vulnerability but the appearance of the StuVi 5B slide bombing sight with BZA computer which allowed a Ju 88 to enter a 22 degree dive from 8000ft and pull-up by 5000ft and be as accurate. The sight had moving cross hairs that continuously computerd the impact point. The Lotfe 7 which worked like the Norden allowed very accurate bombing below 12000ft. The Me 210 and Me 410 also carried the Stuvi 5B and were meant as the true successors of the Ju 87.
-While the Me 210 was delayed the test squadron EK210 developed bombing methods using Me 110 as accurate as the Stuka. I believe they used a special reflector sight with a second set of cross hairs. The pilot set the angle in the second set of crosshairs according to tables depending on planned release altitude speed and angle. At the desired altitude a barometric alarm sounded and a pull-up conducted and bombs released as the first set of cross hairs crossed the target. Ju 87 became gun ships from 1942/43 and then very successful night attack and harassment aircraft.
Stukas were very useful at the start of the Kursk battle. However, 3 days in, too many were lost to have the same impact.
If the Helldiver had met promise and schedule, it would be attractive to deploy.
Good understanding of the strategic difference in the needs of the navy vs army. Glad to see it actually.
Well..the problem was the Helldiver.
😆
But seriously…
The info regarding results as opposed to losses is spot on.
If you have birds like the A36 & the P47? Why do you need a dedicated dive bomber?
They are vulnerable as hell, even with a tail gunner.
Just ask the 7th Fleet!
Great vid mate!
Thanks!
We needed more aircraft - Helldiver was not what we needed !
I'd say the problem was not so much the Helldiver. The problem was Curtis
@@mpetersen6 And Brewster, and Fleetwings - Curtiss, which had been the leading combat aircraft developer in the U.S. in the 1930s, basically lost its mojo about 1940. Brewster had some good concepts, but detail work, correcting problems, and a work force that seemed to be working for the Other Side did them in.
Fleetwings never had the resources to play with the Big Players.
Support for even the Navy abandoning the dive bomber comes from my dad's combat career. An F6F-5 pilot with VF-19 aboard the USS Lexington, he put a 500 lb. bomb through the flight deck of the IJN Zuiho on October 25, 1944 during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, materially helping to sink that ship. When his combat tour was over, he was reassigned to VBF-150, flying F4U-4 aircraft, and specifically designated as a "Bomber-Fighter" squadron. They didn't see combat before the war ended, but were training for the invasion of Japan. The Corsairs remained quite satisfactory fighter planes, as well as their intended use as dive bombers.
that is really something, my dad was a f4u pilot, he spent most of his time flying close air support. he took me to 'midway' when it was at the theater and would point out different people who he crossed paths with. he had a lot of respect for our navy pilots
@@saralee9091 I believe it was either at Iwo Jima or Okinawa that the F4Us went into battle without retracting their landing gear. They were that close to the enemy lines.
@@rsgwynn1 my dad was dropping napalm at peleliu with his wheels on their way up ;)
Pops was in the rear seat ( radioman/gunner ) in an SB2C during the war. Served in VB-16 and VB-75
Love that obscure information, excellent
Really enjoy your videos, please keep them coming. I believe the USN designator for the Helldiver was SB2C. I remember reading that many of their aircrew were unhappy with its performance compared to the SBD, so they nicknamed her, "S.O.B. Second Class".
Thanks for the input, the title has been revised to fix the error.
He does a great job on these videos. Hard to believe they built 900 of these useless monsters before they canceled. But that’s the government
Try to understand that one of the driving forces in WW II was production. Crank out more and more aircraft.
Weird that they consider the Dauntless not very maneuverable. The Navy used them in CAPs when out of Wildcats. The Dauntless had a pretty respectable record against Zero's.
the navy didn't have their CAP aircraft loaded with bombs, though.
@mfrsr Dauntless flew CAP sorties when there was shortage of fighters during operations. Normally towards the end of engagement.
@@patrickradcliffe3837 my point being that an aircraft directed to CAP duties isn't going to be carrying a full attack load. Regardless of type or designation
and The Dauntless was judged as not very maneuverable when loaded to max weight.
SBDs for CAP was nobody's Good Idea. However, when you don't have the fighters, any CAP is better than no CAP.
Whether the SBD was good at it or not, an incoming raid still had to deal with whatever CAP was there, which would thin out the number of incoming raiders actually getting to engage the ships.
@@mfrsronce free of it’s Bomb load it was very maneuverable! Along with it,s 2 50’it was very capable of fighting off Zeros, and was more heavily armed than Japanese dive and torpedo bombers. WHITCH were only lightly armed!And they could engage and destroy!
The USAAF ruined the Vengeance by changing the incidence of the wing (the pitch angle relative to the fuselage). The Vengeance was carefully designed for neutral lift in a pure dive, which kept the fuselage pointing at the target. However, the Vengeance had to fly in a nose-up attitude the rest of the time, which had a drag penalty.
With the change to a positive incidence, the Vengeance now wanted to drag its nose around when it was aimed a target, which undercuts the point of a dive bomber.
Most Navy dive bomber pilots who had flown both types preferred the Dauntless over the Helldiver. The reasons are too many to list here lol.
One thing i have often wondered about is if there was any advantage due to the fact that the Helldiver had folding wings - could more fit on a carrier thereby? I know the Helldiver was a lot heavier than the Dauntless.
Yes, that was a factor in the Navy wanting them. However, the main advantage for the USN that the Helldiver had was its faster cruising speed. The SBD's couldn't keep up with the newer TBF's and Hellcats in a strike package. There was a reason the Dauntless was nicknamed "Slow But Deadly".
Cargo --- or -- towing targets ! Holy hell , what a huge waste of money and men ! Damn it ,
The mistakes made in WW2 were… too many . We did have some amazing equipment !
TIL the Dauntless didn't have folding wings. WTF. And I'm a plane nerd. I shoulda known this.
@@dave.of.the.forrest But i know the Dauntless had smaller proportions so maybe it didn't make too huge a difference. Paul's point about the higher cruising speed of the Helldiver perhaps might have been a bigger consideration anyway.
Incidentally, i think Truman gained most favor among the leadership of his party for his investigations of waste in wartime spending prior to him being selected to be FDR's 4th term VP - and/or maybe some in congress thought he would do 'less damage' as VP? LOL
I wonder if he was selected as the VP candidate so he would not look into the Manhattan Project.
Fascinating and informative presentation.
Thank you. Great presentation.
Even after WWII the US Navy was slow to move away from dedicated dive bombers / attack aircraft. They didn't really embrace the fact that fighters could replace dedicated attack aircraft until the F-18. The carrier air group is now much more flexible as a result.
which is odd and ironic since the F4U was the Navy's best dive bomber in WW2.
Yes and no, the F4U and F6F are good examples of the navy doing a dual purpose fighter bomber. Same with the phatoms, they strapped alot of bombs to them. However It was hard to replace the A-6 for some 40ish years because it did a far superior job to any fighter as a designated all weather attacker up until the 90s.
I respectfully disagree. There was a big difference between the WW2 Dive Bombers and the late war / post war attack aircraft.
When the Navy prematurely retired the F-14 and A-6, going to All F-18s in All Jobs, All the Time, a lot of capability was lost, and has not been regained.
@@Spudmuffinz the F6F was never a very good fighter bomber.
@@peterstickney7608 There is a big difference in the aircraft, but not in their combat effectiveness. An F4U could drop more bombs and drop them about as effectively as an SDB. The USAAF did without dive bombers almost completely.
Leave the temporary era of cold war all-weather attack out of the discussion, we are talking about light attack bombers like the SDB in WWII and the A-7 in the cold war. The A-7 was a waste of deck space.
And bringing up replacement of the F-14 as a fighter is a completely different issue. The issue here is dedicated attack aircraft vs fighters, not fleet defense fighters.
The RAF evaluated the land based Helldiver for operations. After going through a thorough flight test program, they handed the aircraft back with a long list of shortcomings, not the least of which was it's appalling handling characteristics.
Pretty bad when it can't even serve as a target tug.
Thanks, another great video.
Great content, makes a good change from heavy bombers
I wish Curtiss Wright still made planes. Im a huge investor in their company right now.
The presentation listed the P-38,P-47 and P-51 as low level attack planes with a 2000 pound bomb load,however this heavy ordinance reduced the aircraft’s effective range considerably. An excellent video as always!
Everything is a trade off. More ordinance means less fuel. More fuel means less ordinance.
This video was informative and enjoyable
super interesting vid, thank you sir. Makes perfect sense with that background and explanation.
Given the conclusions presented here, I’m surprised that development of the A-1 Sky Raider, started in the mid 1940s, continued and resulted in a plane that saw service for 20+ years,
The Navy wanted to Helldiver or the Douglas Destroyer (which evolved into the Sky Raider). Both were too late.
There was a known need.
These aircraft were faster than the Stukas, range was far greater, and the Helldiver had slightly better defense armament. The Douglas Destroyer was in another league (much more powerful engine).
The A-1 received an even more powerful engine which really improved the plane.
Spot on comment MrM1729! The "flying dump truck" gained fame in VN, but was also used in Korea & and would have attacked Russian ships, if needed, during the Cuban missile crisis.
The AD Skyraider, and the Martin AM-1 Mauler were developed to provide an airplane that performed much better than the multi-seat Dive Bombers, thus better able to keep up in a strike with the Escort Fighters / Fighter-Bombers, and carry a heavier punch than the Fighter-Bombers could, without over specializing. They carried bombs of all stripes, rockets, torpedoes, and, once they became available, Tactical Nukes. They were big enough to be adapted to other duties that the Fighter-Bombers couldn't provide, like Electronic Reconnaisance / Electronic Countermeasures, and as Airborne Radar Platforms - the precursors of the E-2 Hawkeye.
Always loved your in-depth videos for not just the info but also all relevant documentations being featured.
Would it be possible to make a video about D-Day Invasion Stripes? When were they envisioned, why black and white stripes, why the variations on where they were painted, when and why they were stopped being painted, how effective they actually were, etc.
Dauntless dive bomber was very good aircraft !
The Army version was a flop. The Army Air Force found out quickly that the fighter-bomber were more useful. The Dauntless in naval service was primarily tasked with attacking shipping.
At least they didn't try the Brewster.
Brewsters were obsolescent by 1938. Usable at high pilot losses. Expert and aggressive pilots did succeed in Finland. New Zealand and Australians fared less well against the Zero.
I meant the attack aircraft they proposed. The Buccaneer.
@@GordonKley-nz4qm While the Buffalo was on the lower side of fighter performance in 1942, the biggest issue with its combat performance was that it was always on the receiving end of incoming raids, with no proper Early Warning and Command and Control Networks. When your opponents are A6Ms coming in at speed, and, if you're lucky enough to have gotten off the ground, they're diving in on you with tons of energy, while you're struggling to get the gear up and climb.
It doesn't matter in that situation what you're flying - Buffalo, Wildcat, P-40, Spitfire, even. With that sort of disadvantage, you're toast.
Great video per your usual offerings. The Navy even had to do a lot of modifications before they felt it was ready and they still had issues with the aircraft.
The A.A.F. seemed to have the right of the inadequacies of dive bombing ground based targets by this time. The Navy was willing to risk higher loss rates on the probability that sinking an enemy capital ship was worth that loss rate. At that time skip bombing a battleship or carrier would not do anything bur superficial damage. You had to deliver armor piercing bombs at high angles or hit them with a few large torpedoes, also not a low risk attack, to sink a big ship. Against ground targets there was not the possibility of the huge payout and most targets did not even need a dive bombing profile.
If only the Douglas A-1 Skyraider had made it in time for the war.
Even the Navy found the F6F was quite suitable as a fighter bomber.
I have just stumbled across this channel and am really enjoying the content! Interesting on how & why the Army discarded dive bombing vs the Navy. I would be interested in a review of the techniques involved in skip bombing as used in the southwest Pacific. Hope you can get around to it someday....
The Helldiver had 20mm in the wings and twin .30 cal in the rear gunner’s position. I wonder why these weren’t noted as modifications in the USN to USAAF document.
The initial batch of Helldivers had two .50-cal MGs in each wing. This was subsequently changed to a single 20mm cannon in each wing for greater firepower.
I think at the time of the USAAF evaluation, the Helldiver was still largely in its development phase even for the Navy and a “standard” spec hadn’t really been confirmed.
Interesting! I've always wondered why the USAAF never had a dedicated dive bomber, since everyone else did from the late 30s. "They looked at it and decided it sucked" makes perfect sense.
From what I read the reason that the Army had less success with the SBD than the Navy was because the Army tactics employed shallower dive angles. The aircraft were more vulnerable to AA.
My impression of the SB2C is that it was the victim of the specifications it had to meet for the Navy. For example the plane had to fit carrier elevators resulting in the short fuselage.
great video thank you
I'll never remember where I read it. Maybe deep in the internet one night, but one Maverick planner said that hundreds of dive bombers or fighter bombers could do equivalent or greater damage to German targets compared to the B-17 with its inaccurate area bombing. A small speedy fighter bomber would have greater chance possibly of evading German fighters that were able easily catch the 200 mph b17 and b25. Wherever I read this, it says that the institutional grandiosity of the bomber commanders would never allow. This, would never allow there big majestic bomber fleets to be usurped by the fighter Force
Thanks for the kind donation. I have not heard of that comparison. Fighter-bombers would need to carry a mix of external tanks and likely just a single 500 lbs bomb vs a B-17 could carry 12 500 lbs.
@@WWIIUSBombers Welcome - that was a mind expanding thing to read, Even if it was only a thought experiment. If I find it I'll send it to you.. Could be that a well trained P-47 or lightning pilot could hit a smokestack with a bomb with much higher accuracy than a bomber could if I was the general in charge I would have tested the idea I would have put men in harm's way and test the hypothesis
The pilots name for it was sonofaniitch 2nd class. Sailors aboard the jeep or carrior escorts (CVEs) was combystible volatile and expendable.
A RA-5C B/N that I used to know started out as a gunner in the SB2C at the tail end of WW II. He called them "SonOfABitch To Control"!
Great video as always. I believe your title would read better if it said "found totally unfit" rather than "found it totally unfit", though!
Thanks for the note, the title has been corrected.
@WWIIUSBombers >>>
Great video...👍
Thanks
Does anybody here really want to fly at A-36 or a P-51 Mustang as a dive bomber? The achilles heel is the liquid cooled engine. One of the reasons ace Bud Anderson made it through the war was that he never screwed around with the P-51 on the deck.
A small frontal area, and the radiator buried in the fuselage structure. As a fighter bomber, it held its own.
What amazes me are the folks who run down the Mustang, but buy into the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest as fighter-bombers. The same frontal area as a P-47 (Big), and almost all of it radiators and oil coolers.
The key, I'd say, is less "Does it have a radiator?" and more "How fast does it get in and out?", minimizing both warning time and exposure time.
To be fair, the Navy was not particularly enamored with the SB2C Helldiver either. It was a rather horrible plane. And by 1945 they were reducing the number of Helldivers on carriers in favor of more Hellcats and Corsairs. The Navy needed a dive bomber for the one key role that the USAAF reports leaves out. Bombing a ship under power at sea. None of the USAAF bombers could reliably do that. But like the Army, the Navy found as they got closer to Japan, and more of their missions involved ground attack, the utility of the Helldiver in this role was greatly surpassed by the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair fighters and the TBF/TBM Avenger Torpedo Bomber, which had a great deal of Utility in a number of roles. So much so that most Avenger pilots rarely saw actual torpedo missions. Spending most of their time doing close ground support bombing and rocketry, anti sub patrols with depth charges. Or everyone’s favorite nightmare, napalm. Operation Ten-Go, the last Banzai charge of the IJN to try and rush the Battleship Yamato to Okinawa was really the last core mission for the Helldivers. And for most Avenger pilots, the last time most of them carried a torpedo.
They probably dumped them on the Marines. I know a lot of Air Wing Dauntlesses had been built as A-24s. The Marines didn;t need tailhooks for land-based operatiions.
Dive bombers won the Battle Midway. That and we were reading the Japanese mail.
Yeah. Good thing we didn't dive bomb the their mail! 🐿
Come to think of it. Imagine if one day you notice the enemy is accurately bombing most of your assets. Meanwhile, your com-stations remain intact.
Might be a clue.
The preceding torpedo attack brought the zeros down to sea level , thus leaving the dive bombers unharassed to make their attack , all but one torpedo bomber was lost . Their sacrifice made the successful dive attack possible .
@@garyhooper1820 critical to the success of the mission was the inability of Japanese AAA to reach the vertical angle of the Dauntless on approach. This persisted throughout the war.
Even with the intercepted coded messaging of the fleet, their location remained unknown until patrol aircraft were able to make visual contact with the fleet. PBYs on grid search alerted our forces to the attacker's proximity, code books be damned.
the army air corps was clueless when it came to ground support. the navy was hitting ships with those aircraft
I think it's funny how they explicitly said "stop immediately .. well, not literally, the half completed ones could still be useful, use your judgement." These days, I'd imagine, that would be obvious.
Great story about a shipment of A-25's heading to the Philippines Dec 7/8 had to divert to Australia. Thy were used for pilot transfers and cargo mostly.
Those would be A-24s, there being no SB2Cs or A-25s at that time. They were diverted to the Netherlands East Indies, where they were, like all other Allied Airpower in the area, completely overwhelmed.
Big balls to do that job
The Stuka was inspired by a Curtiss dive bomber- not the other way around.
The Dive Bomber concept for Germany was inspired by Ernst Udet seeing a single-seat Curtiss Biplane dive bomber demonstration at the U.S. National Air Races. This led to the Henschel Hs 123 single-seat biplane Dive Bomber.
The Germans then developes the Ju 87 from that.
The SB2C had nothing to do with the Stuka, as far as derivation or development - it was right on track with U.S. development in the period.
Perhaps the confusion comes from the U.S. Army's interest in Dive Bombers - after Poland and France, there was a lot of publicity, not least from the Germans, but also Brits and French who'd been on the receiving end in 1940, about the Stuka (And the Panzers). This provided an impetus for the U.S. Army Air Corps to get into the Dive Bomber game.
the USAAF also used the A-36, arguably the single best dive bomber of WW2 (close competition with the F4U for that).
Any REALISTIC combat review of P-38? I saw many unrealistic with nonsence kill ratio.
Yeah those 1943 figures seem to overstate the effectiveness of the fighter-bomber types. Probably the AirForce blowing a bit of smoke up its own backside and just not wanting to buy Navy designs. Eg I’m not sure how many air to air kills the A36 ever got and what its kill/loss ratio was?
Always interested in additional information on the WWII "A" (Attack Bombers) series of planes. Were the A 20 and A 26 the only ones deployed in large numbers ?
There were other A- designated Light Bombers, but they didn't see a lot of U.S. Service. Aircraft built for the British under Lend-Lease - the Lockheed Hudson (A-29), Martin Baltimore (A-30) stand out. The aircraft were produced under USAAF Contract, under USAAF specifications, and since they were in the system, they got USAAF designations.
@@peterstickney7608 And then also there was the B-25. While not officially an attack aircraft the modified B-25 strafers(the addition of 8 fixed cal. .50 M2 machine guns in the nose or in some models a 75mm howitzer and four more in cheek mounfings) were turned into attack bombers.
U.S. Navy carrier-based pilots in WWII expressed serious dissatisfaction with the Curtiss Helldiver's performance. I have never seen any such expression by them about the Helldiver's predecessor, the Douglas Dauntless dive bomber. The Ju-87 Stuka of the Luftwaffe, though an excellent dive bomber, was so slow and vulnerable to fighter attack that it was withdrawn by the Germans from the Battle of Britain, but it did continue to be used as an infantry support weapon for the destruction of tanks and ground troops, at which it performed very favorably.
Do you think maybe the reference to the A-26 as a light bomber referred to the original A-26 which was renamed to the B-26 when the plane we know today as the A-26 entered production? I could be wrong but I don’t think that A-26 served during WWII. The B-26 of course did, e.g., “Flak Bait.”
No, 'A' was always the designation for Light Bombers - not necessarily specialist attack aircraft. A-26s served late in the War, in bot the European and Pacific Theaters - ironically, replacing Martin B-26 Medium Bombers.. The confusion comes from the Great Redesignation of 1948, after the USAAF had become the entirely separate USAF.
All multiengined bombers, regardless of weight class, were designated 'B'. By that time, the Martin B-26 Marauders were long gone, and the Douglas A-26 Invaders were redesignated as "B-26"s. SIngle Engine Light Bombers received 'F' designations - there were a few A-24s in the inventory as Hacks and such, which were redesignated as "F-24"s. At the same time 'P' for Pursuit became 'F' for FIghter, 'A' for Light Bomber became 'A' for Amphibian (SA-16, for example) 'F' for "Fotographic" became 'R' for "Reconnaissance", 'R' for "Rotorcraft became 'H' for "Helicopter".
1:15 is that a depth charge, or a British bomb?
Interestingly, Marine Corps SBDs provided close air support to Army ground forces retaking the Philippines. To be fair, though, there was little threat from Japanese fighters.
Theaters are really different. Navy @Pacific and Army @Europe. But how could they produce so many (900) planes?
Both saw action in the two theaters.
Enterprise: Give me back my Dauntlesses.
That's the paper trail but the Navy had a dedicated Air Force that was not trying to separate itself from the Navy. the Army Air Force on the other hand wanted nothing to do with the army so aircraft types that were dedicated to support the army were politically sabotaged by the Army Air Force brass. This is still the story of the A-10. They never proved that those other mechanisms were as accurate as a helldiver they just stated it because politically they wanted it. Same as they stated that the Norden bomb site was far more accurate than it was in reality. If they lose 5,000 interceptors doing ground attack they state it's inevitable so it's a price worth paying. If they lost 100 dive bombers doing the same thing the brass would declare it as a calamity and proof that they didn't need to have direct Army support aircraft. Breaking out of Normandy was exponentially harder than it should have been because instead of dedicated Army ground attack aircraft they had the interceptors, escort Fighters and strategic bombers that the Royal Air Force and the US Army Air Force wanted for political reasons. But it is fascinating to see their excuses thank you for digging it up.
The Norden sight did just what it was supposed to do. Neither more nor less. The only people claiming ridiculous accuracy was a war-time journalist who asked its accuracy and got a silly answer as its accuracy was not for public consumption at the time, and that journo's followers.
The technical manuals and service/calibration manuals for the Norden are now in the public domain. Read them and you will find factual information on how it worked, what it could do, and how its accuracy was checked..
@@keithammleter3824unfortunately they use the same lie with the politicians to get funding for their bomber Fleet
Removing the folding wings sounds like a waste of engineering time,
I knew it was a dud. I didn’t realize how bad it actually was
I have not read of my much use of dive bombers during the Normandy landings. It seems that they could have been of use
By that time, fighter bombers could do everything dive bombers could do. Dive bombers made sense when single-engine planes couldn't lift big bombs, but those times were gone by 1943 or 1944 at the latest.
Look for information on the activities of RAF 2nd Tactical Air Force and 85 Group on D-Day. They were tasked with supporting the allied landings and spearheads.
Agree- in fact Ive not read any reports of USAF fighter bombers being used for actual “Dive-bombing” (ie high-angle high-accuracy) as opposed to low altitude Level bombing or shallow-angle bombing and strafing. Given the pin-point accuracy of both German and Naval dive bombing by all sides, I think the USAAF really missed-out here with a misguided verdict. Actually, it was the GIs out in the field who missed-out in terms of direct air support.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005well fighter bombers couldn’t do “proper” high angle dive-bombing, for one thing!
@@neilturner6749 Not entirely true. The Corsair had a reputation for being as good a dive bomber as the Dauntless and Helldiver. But its landing gear was designed to be extended as dive brakes, and maybe other fighters came down too fast.
It was a troubled design at best. The navy ditched it as soon as the war was over.
This not true. The SB2C remained in active postwar service in active-duty US Navy squadrons until 1947 and in Naval Reserve aviation units until 1950.
@@stephenmarshall4414 That still reflects the navy getting rid of it as fast as was possible in the framework of government bureaucracy. Of course they had to have something to replace it with.
👍
The first four versions or so of the SB2C were terrible--there's no argument. However, a vast array of modifications made the late models nearly new designs that flew well, had excellent performance, and turned in sterling combat records.
The USAAF was evaluating early models, of course.
If that were really the case, they'd have kept them for as long as the Navy kept the TBMs. When the war ended, and the Navy was replacing Dive Bomber and Torpedo Bomber Squadrons with Attack Squadrons, they replaced the SB2Cs with ADs and AMs as quickly as they could build them, then started replacing the TBMs.
ODD. Yes the Helldivet had some issues. But they did the job for the navy. Unlike using P51s for ground attack....How many were lost in combat. Air Force used a liquid cooling fighter for ground attack. How big of a load. Six 50 can mgs. Navy Corsair, after WWII had four 20mm mgs. Used for ground attack. The Helldiver could carry a good load. Was armed with 20mm mgs. Air Force had so many P51s....My first supervisor in the Air Force told me how his very first job was cutting up P51s into scrap. Fields filled with brand new fighters. Told me how they used a cutting torch to cut off the wings at the root. Then section the rest. Too slow. Came up with placing charges at wing roots, around the body and " wired" several at one time. Set off the charges and clean up.
Then I guess the RAF failed completely at Ground Attack and Close Air Support, relying entirely on Hawker Tempests and Typhoons, with some Spitfires mixed in, all powered by liquid-cooled engines. Not only with liquid-cooled engines, but carrying a massive area of radiators directly in the nose, where they'll be the first thing hit by the target's AAA.
@peterstickney7608 Oh NO. BRITISH GROUND SUPPORT WAS GREAT. Super aircraft. My point was how the P51...That radiator UNDER the fuselage. One hit from ground fire.
Honestly, I think the Helldiver was a bit of a garbage aircraft. I talked to 2 pilots back in the 70's who had flown both Helldiver's and SBD's. Neither one of them liked them; one transferred back into an SBD squadron and one became an SBD instructor pilot.
The Vultee A-31/A-35 was not ever a Naval aircraft. It was derived originally from the Vultee V-1 single-engined airliner, then into a series of light bombers that resulted in the 100 or so V-11 and V-12 light bombers exported to China. the A-31 was a follow-on version, however, its marginal flying characteristics and utility as a weapon resulted in major design changes, thus the A-35. By the time the A-35 was available, it had been realized that Fighter-Bombers could do the tasks that a Dive Bomber was intended for with better effectiveness, survivability, and operational flexibility.
900 fixes for the SB2C
The Luftwaffe never could have developed a fleet of heavy bombers, Germany lacked to resources in terms of the massive amounts of aluminum, fuel and air crews. Nor did they have the needed supercharged engines. Trying to make and operate such a huge aerial force would have required massive cutbacks in other military efforts that Germany could not afford. And Britain had a superb air defense system.
More importantly, when Germany was building its Air Force in the 1930s their strategic outlook didn’t require anything resembling a long range bomber. Mid range light/medium twin engine birds were all they needed. From an industrial perspective, it made more sense as well. By the time a heavy bomber became marginally required, the opportunity to develop and produce them had passed. The Germans were fully capable of building about anything from a technical perspective. I.e., single and multi engine jet fighters and bombers.
something to satiate the algo-deities of the tube'y'all
A Like and a Comment Entry for the UA-cam / AI Algorithm.
Every time "usage" is usaged is incorrect. Please usage a dictionary to determine when to usage it.
The plane was a piece of CRAP
Terrible airplane. 🤪