SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#1

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 12 Oct 2014, 03:59

Have run across descriptions of the USN in 1942 supplementing its CAP over the carrier TF with SBD not used in strikes.

Are there any examples of the SBD actually shooting down any Vals, Kates, or other Japanese bombers?

Thanks for any information

amcl
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 30 Apr 2011, 04:11

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#2

Post by amcl » 12 Oct 2014, 15:02

Carl Schwamberger wrote:Have run across descriptions of the USN in 1942 supplementing its CAP over the carrier TF with SBD not used in strikes.

Are there any examples of the SBD actually shooting down any Vals, Kates, or other Japanese bombers?

Thanks for any information
How about Scouting Two on 8 May 1942? There's a rather "Boy's Own" version of events here: http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/coralsea.htm. Ens. Leppla's kills are mentioned in the citation here: http://projects.militarytimes.com/citat ... ntid=20632. Tillman & Lake's SBD Dauntless Units of WW2 has VS-2 at the top of the list of Dauntless units for a/a victories with 13.5. Of these, eight were on 8 May 1942, credited to Lt. Vejtasa & Ens. Leppla (three ea) & Ens. Neely (two).

Second-placed unit was VS-10, mostly as a result of victories claimed on 26 October 1942. Unlike VS-2's successes at low level on anti-torpedo patrol, VS-10's that day were during scouting missions. They were credited with seven Zeros & one Kate, as well as the two hits on Zuiho which put her out of action. Not bad for one morning's scouting.

Cheers,

Angus


Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#3

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 12 Oct 2014, 15:21

Thanks. Thats enough to start me in the right direction. Looking at the stats for the 20mm cannon it looks like the SBD had better killing power than the Zero, & while less manuverable than most interceptors it did have its tail stinger.

varsity07840
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 03 Feb 2014, 15:38

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#4

Post by varsity07840 » 13 Oct 2014, 01:35

Two .50s with a rate of fire slowed by sycronization were no match for pairs of 20mm and 7.7mm. Besides being alot less manuverable, the SBD was around 100mph slower. One also has to look at the possibility that there was some overclaiming in both actions. Pretty common on both sides.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#5

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 13 Oct 2014, 02:31

Yes memory did me wrong there. I'd thought it had two wing mounted 20mm cannon. Tho I cant see its upper speed of 220 knots, 400 km/h being 100mph slower than a Val or a Kate. & Yes I automatically divide by half the wartime credits for enemy aircraft downed.

amcl
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 30 Apr 2011, 04:11

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#6

Post by amcl » 13 Oct 2014, 02:35

varsity07840 wrote:Two .50s with a rate of fire slowed by sycronization were no match for pairs of 20mm and 7.7mm. Besides being alot less manuverable, the SBD was around 100mph slower. One also has to look at the possibility that there was some overclaiming in both actions. Pretty common on both sides.
Overclaiming was indeed a perennial problem, so was misidenfification. The VS-2 action is described in more detail in Lundstrom's First Team. There, most of the victims are described as Kates. That aside ...

The SBD was a fairly tough aircraft; the A6M wasn't; but being hit wouldn't be good for either of them. The aircraft in question at the Coral Sea were SBD-3s, but in the absence of detailed data for that aircraft, we can look at SBD-5 performance, for which see the charts in: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/sbd-5.pdf. For A6M2 figures from US tests, see: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... ct2342.pdf. Clearly the A6M outperformed the SBD, but at anti-torpedo patrol fighting altitudes (i.e. low to very low), the difference in max. level speed between an SBD-5 and an A6M2 was in the region of 40-50 mph.

But ultimately, the root of what went right for VS-2 appears to have been simpler yet: one Zero couldn't be in two places at once. And on that note, Lundstrom also covers the unsuccessful efforts of VS-5 and VB-5 at the same time. They were unlucky enought to be where most of the Zeroes were, and consequently came off second-best.

The events of 26 October seem to be, on the face of it, much harder to explain. I haven't read much about this, so hopefully someone who has may come along to enlighten me.

Cheers,

Angus

P.S. Many thanks to Carl for asking this question. It finally pushed me into buying a copy of Lundstrom's book of my very own.

Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#7

Post by Orwell1984 » 16 Oct 2014, 04:21

The following may be of interest.

Here's the report on Air Operations of Yorktown Air Group against Japanese Forces in the vicinity of the Louisiade Archipelago on May 8, 1942.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/shi ... lim.html#A
d.Anti-Torpedo Plane Patrol
At 0730, on May 8, 1942, launched 8 SBD's of VS-5 to form an Anti-Torpedo Plane Patrol on orders of Commander Air. This patrol attempted to intercept the enemy torpedo planes, but they were too fast for them. They were then attacked by a large number of Type 97 and 00 fighters. In the melee that occurred, they shot down five fighters and damaged eight more. In the engagement, four of the SBD's were shot down by enemy aircraft and the remainder returned badly damaged by enemy fighter gunfire. This was a splendid example of courage and devotion to duty, although outnumbered and opposed by faster and more maneuverable aircraft, they were not outfought.
f.Anti-Torpedo Patrol
Not having sufficient fighters for an Anti-Torpedo Patrol, SBD's were used as an expedient. The torpedo planes passed high over this patrol and at such high speed as to preclude interception.
Here's the USS Lexington after action report for the same time
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/shi ... Coral.html
17.The Anti-torpedo Plane patrol was on station at 2000 feet, but about 6000 yards out. This patrol always has a tendency to get too far out, probably due both to concern over AA fire from surface ships and an eagerness to intercept torpedo planes well out. From this position the enemy torpedo planes at high speed came in over them. Even so, the SBDs on the port side intercepted; shot down 4 VT with torpedoes, 4 without torpedoes, 1 VB and 2 accompanying VF. One SBD was shot down by enemy VF.
From Conclusions:
3.Anti-torpedo Plane Patrols must keep in close to the torpedo release point, at about 3000 feet altitude, to insure interception of either high or low approach torpedo planes. This employment of SBDs is a make-shift at best; the best defense would be to have sufficient fighters for both a high and low patrol. This condition will seldom be realized. In this particular attack, the Anti-torpedo Plane Patrol of SBDs was partially effective. They shot down nine torpedo planes, four with torpedoes aboard, four without, and one undetermined. They also shot down two fighters. One SBD was shot down by enemy fighters. The Anti-torpedo Plane Patrol on the port side of the formation made all the intercepts. It was in position 3000 yds. outside of screen at 2000 feet. If it had been at the designated altitude of 3000 feet, its position would have been more effective. It is considered that the Anti-torpedo Plane Patrol of SBDs is amply justified as better than nothing
5The ship was completely ready for the attack in every respect. A total of 11 fighters were in the air for defense against bombers, and 14 SBDs for defense against torpedo planes, in addition to planes in the air for defense from the Yorktown. All guns were manned and ready. Material condition Zed to meet the attack was completely set. Twenty-five to thirty knots speed was being made. All personnel were alert

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#8

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 16 Oct 2014, 04:34

Excellent. That report underlines how tactics, training and experience count for as much or more than hardware.

Thanks

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#9

Post by mescal » 24 Oct 2014, 09:25

Hello,

Lundstrom's analysis from correlating Japanese and American sources, claims, credits & actual losses estimates that the SBD got one dive bomber and five torpedo bomber. It seems that four of the five Kates were downed on by VS-2 while the Japanese were still on the way in to their release point - and thus did a pretty good job at protecting their carrier.

It's almost impossible however to know what caused the demise of the seven Japanese aircraft which had to ditch.


Globally, the deployment of SBD as anti-torpedo plane patrol was however erroneous.
It was based on assumptions on the speed and altitude of torpedo bombers attacks based on the behaviour of the Devastator and overlooked that the Kate was a far better plane. Moreover, if and when fighters were providing close cover for the torpedo planes, this put the SBDs at extreme disadvantage.

In the end it was a poor man's solution to the biggest problem of the early-war US carriers : the pitiful number of fighters of their airgroups (it was quite similar for the Japanese: the fighter needs were underestimated by everybody). As soon as the February raids by Halsey, it was clear that the VF needed to be greatly strengthened : the authorized force of 18 planes was inadequate to escort a strike force and protect the carrier - all the more when one takes into account the attrition by operationnal mishaps and accidents.

Lexington had 21 fighters & Yorktown 18 (and not all combat ready I think). For Lex to put 11 fighters into the air to protect her was therefore commendable.... but it was nowhere near enough to stop the incoming onslaught.

That's a lesson that was quickly learned by the USN : as early as Midway, the fighter groups were made of 27 planes.
And later, it still augmented : at the Philippine Sea there were 36 to 50 fighters per Essex-class carrier, and at the end of the war no less than 60 and up to 75.
Olivier

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#10

Post by Delta Tank » 27 Oct 2014, 15:13

Mescal,

Mescal wrote:
That's a lesson that was quickly learned by the USN : as early as Midway, the fighter groups were made of 27 planes.
And later, it still augmented : at the Philippine Sea there were 36 to 50 fighters per Essex-class carrier, and at the end of the war no less than 60 and up to 75.
I find this interesting, so at the end of the war, the attack capabilities of the carrier force was greatly diminished. The answer was a carrier based fighter bomber? Was the F6F or F8F or F4U capable or capable enough to be a fighter bomber? In this way you have attack and defensive capabilities. I know the F4U was a highly capable aircraft, but I don't believe in World War II many if any at all were based on carriers or at least fleet carriers.

Mike

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#11

Post by mescal » 27 Oct 2014, 17:00

Hello Mike,

The attack capabilities of the heavy fleet carriers (the CVL groups were around 24 fighters and 9 TBF for their whole wartime service) may seem to have been reduced compared to what it had been earlier.
But as you note, this was compensated by the fact that the late-war fighters could act in the fighter-bomber role (mostly the F4U, but the F6F-5 also did the job) - whereas I wouldn't try to load a 500lbs on a F4F.

Basically, the payload they could carry was far greater than that of early-war dive bombers (for example, F6F-5 and F4U routinely carried 1,000lbs bombs, while the Japanese D3A-1 could carry only one 500lbs bomb).

It's also of interest to note that by late war, there remained very few Japanese hardened naval targets (BBs), which requires very heavy bombs of torpedoes to sink.
Therefore the diminished attack capability was not critical.


With regard to the basing of F4U on carriers, IIRC the early variants had difficulties landing on carriers, which led to the assignment of F4Us to the Marine Corps.
Later, corrective actions (I can't remember what exactly the trouble was or how it was fixed) made it possible to operate the F4U from the Essex-class (or from the British carriers of BPF).

At the end of the war, it appears that the carrier air groups were transitioning towards 1 VF squadron (36 Hellcats) and 1 VFB squadron (36 F4U) (plus 30 SB2C + TBF).

See for example this OOB for the raids on Kure (24/28 July 1945) :
kure_2.jpg
kure_2.jpg (41.19 KiB) Viewed 2907 times
(Note that the cells in orange are only guesses, I've had trouble finding the full complement of Air Groups 85 and 87)
Last edited by mescal on 27 Oct 2014, 17:48, edited 1 time in total.
Olivier

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#12

Post by Delta Tank » 27 Oct 2014, 17:23

Mescal,

I do remember reading somewhere that the British figured out how to land an F4U on a carrier. Long sweeping left hand turn and then onto the deck. Apparently the engine was so big you could not see over??? it to land.??

Mike

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#13

Post by Delta Tank » 27 Oct 2014, 17:27

Mescal,

Check your math on the chart, US Sub Total is correct, but the total should be 1406 and not 2551.

Mike

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#14

Post by mescal » 27 Oct 2014, 17:49

Ooops,

sorry, I took the subtotal into account twice for the overall total.

I edited my post to fix the problem.

Thank you Mike.
Olivier

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#15

Post by phylo_roadking » 27 Oct 2014, 21:06

Delta Tank wrote:I do remember reading somewhere that the British figured out how to land an F4U on a carrier. Long sweeping left hand turn and then onto the deck. Apparently the engine was so big you could not see over??? it to land.??
Mike, don't forget that after all they also managed to work out how to land a Spitfire on a carrier...an aircraft that you couldn't see over the nose of to take off on grass, never mind land on a carrier...! :D

To go back to the issue of comparisons of the SBD and the A6M...what was the longest range (radius, not total) of a Japanese carrier fighter BEFORE the A6M appeared? I'm asking...because in the early 1930s the Air Ministry in the UK reckoned that carriers didn't need dedicated fighters out in deep ocean after all...and aircraft like the Blackburn Skua could be dual-role, and even the crap Skua could outperform a period carrierborne bomber/torpedobomber. It was only when they came in reach of landbased fighters that they suffered...

I always got the feeling that comparing the SBD as a fighter and the A6M was simply a meeting of slightly unmatched generations...and concepts. The two aircraft that were designed in closely enough the same timeframe were the SBD...and the A5M
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”