SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#16

Post by durb » 26 Nov 2014, 01:36

Usually bomber plane (be it SBD or any other) loses against fighter if the fighter catches it and manages to make combat combat. When it comes to speed, climb of rate and manouverability even the A5M4 (the best A5M) was superior to SBD. The common myth is that Japanese planes were to be shot down with few bullets. Well, they were light but not structurally weak. For example A5M fighter could take lots of hits from rifle-calibre gun like 7,62 mm rear gun of SBD and fly without problem unless some lucky hit does not kill the pilot or some other vulnerable area of the plane. Of course there is some chance - the famous Sakai story of being wounded seriously and losing one eye by the bullets of SBD rear-gunner is one example.

That Zero was vulnerable in some respects did not mean that it was easy to shoot down. Skilled Zero pilot could manouver his plane in such a way that it was (almost) impossible to get good hits on his plane. To shoot down Zero with the aims of SBD´s rear-gunner rifle-calibre gun was not easy if the Jap pilot was not a novice. More likely the Zero pilot shot enough hits to get the SBD down before SBD gunner had the chance to hit the Zero. And Zero could even take some rifle-calibre bullet holes and fly without any problem (unless pilot was killed by very skilled or lucky bullet).

When it comes to claims of bomber gunners, it is well known that they overclaim much more than fighter pilots (who also overclaim often). If one compares bomber gunners claims with the actual loss records of enemy units, one can see that many claims were very often the result of the combination of optimism and imagination (which does not mean that they were deliberately lying). Just check what 8th USAAF gunners claimed in WW2 and compare that with real Luftwaffe losses. From another theater of WW2 I know a case of certain bomber gunners overclaiming as much as 146:1. One bomber unit claimed that its gunners had shot down 38 enemy fighters, careful afterwar research showed they shot down 0 planes. The worst cases that I know are some claims made over places where in reality was no enemy aircraft activity at all.

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

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#17

Post by Delta Tank » 26 Nov 2014, 04:41

surb,

Source please!
Just check what 8th USAAF gunners claimed in WW2 and compare that with real Luftwaffe losses. From another theater of WW2 I know a case of certain bomber gunners overclaiming as much as 146:1. One bomber unit claimed that its gunners had shot down 38 enemy fighters, careful afterwar research showed they shot down 0 planes. The worst cases that I know are some claims made over places where in reality was no enemy aircraft activity at all.
Mike


durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#18

Post by durb » 26 Nov 2014, 20:56

Well, for starters something related directly to this topic: http://wilk4.com/humor/talbott_kill_claims.htm

When it comes to 8th Air Force and some other Allied bomber gunners claims related to Luftwaffe losses, here some sources:
Caldwell, Donald L. 1991: JG 26 - Top Guns of Luftwaffe.
Galland 1956: First and Last.
Jonhson, Johnie 1956: Wing leader.
...and there are plenty other sources both in literature and in websites discussing this (the complete list would be quite long). There is Youtube a History Channel document (sometimes they are OK) - in it 8th Air Force veteran openly admitted that the claims were exaggerated and that many of 8th Air Force men knew the grim truth: gunners claim records were far away of being accurate and it was extremely difficult to hit fast moving Geman fighters with the gunsights of that time - they spent lots of ammo without even firing near of the inteded targets. At one point US bombers had officially very victorious kill/loss -ratio against Luftwaffe fighters, because exaggerated claims were confirmed by 8th Air Force to balance the heavy losses of bomber units of 8th Air Force. Commanders knew that claims were wildly exaggerated, but it was a wartime and propaganda reasons created lots of misinformation in official wartime stats - it was important to show that enemy units had suffered more losses than the own ones. There were also logical resons for overclaiming due to combat circunstances causing lots of overclaim rates: http://wilk4.com/humor/talbott_kill_claims.htm

When it comes to probable all-time overclaim ratio record of 146:1 and unit claiming 38:0, it refers to the claims of Soviet bomber gunners during the Finnish-Soviet Winter War 1939-1940. Soviet fighter pilots did exaggerate their claims in Winter War, but managed to get overclaim ratio of modest 11:1, which is still about 13 times more accurate than the claims of Soviet bomber gunners. This is discussed partly in Red Stars. Vol. 7: The Winter War in the air by C.F. Geust 2011. I did check also the other side: Finnish claim records were much more realistic than the Soviet ones but when it came to claims of Finnish bomber gunners, I have not found confirmation from Soviet loss records to any of Finnish bomber gunners claims.

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

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#19

Post by Delta Tank » 27 Nov 2014, 14:31

durb,

Thanks for the reply and the explanation! I knew that a lot of claims were inflated, but when I saw 146:1, I was a little shocked!

Mike

flakbait
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 02:37

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#20

Post by flakbait » 28 Nov 2014, 05:21

Believe Sakai attacked what he THOUGHT was a section of SBDs from below but in fact the aircraft he jumped were TBF `Avengers` which each had an additional .30cal MG that at rather close range apparently shot his Zero up badly and critically wounded him. It was a wonder that he survived at all, let alone successfully landed his riddled fighter plane after a long flight home...there were apparently more than 1other Japanese pilot whom also made this fatal mistake.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#21

Post by Tim Smith » 26 Feb 2015, 13:33

flakbait wrote:Believe Sakai attacked what he THOUGHT was a section of SBDs from below but in fact the aircraft he jumped were TBF `Avengers` which each had an additional .30cal MG that at rather close range apparently shot his Zero up badly and critically wounded him. It was a wonder that he survived at all, let alone successfully landed his riddled fighter plane after a long flight home...there were apparently more than 1other Japanese pilot whom also made this fatal mistake.
No - Sakai thought they were F4F Wildcats, but in fact they were SBD Dauntless's. After being seriously wounded, Sakai identified them in his report as TBF Avengers - a mistake on his part because no TBFs were engaged with Japanese fighters that day.

On 7 August 1942, the TBF Avenger was still a new plane that had only entered combat for the first time at Midway. Since Sakai was a land-based Zero pilot, not a carrier-based Zero pilot, he had never seen a TBF. In fact, he had encountered very few US Navy aircraft at all up to this point, since as a land-based pilot, he was fighting mainly US Army, Dutch NEI AF, and RAAF aircraft. So it's not surprising he misidentified an SBD for a TBF, or an SBD for a Wildcat for that matter. The SBD wasn't much bigger than a Wildcat.

CharlesRollinsWare
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 23 Apr 2005, 22:15
Location: Windsor Locks CT

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#22

Post by CharlesRollinsWare » 22 Jul 2015, 17:18

Gents;

In relation to the SBDs performance against the A6M, there is no doubt that the SBD was not a fighter and was at a decided disadvantage against a fully armed A6M in a solo fight. That said, however, once it was equipped with armor, self-sealing tanks, and the dual .30 free gun mount and the crew was fully trained in defensive tactics, sans bomb (i.e., after release) the SBD could be pretty difficult to bring down.

At Coral Sea on 8 May, the SBDs had the armor and self-sealing tanks, but did not yet have the dual .30 cal free gun mount and, as that they were no burning excessive fuel in a climb to altitude in a fully loaded plane, had far more fuel (read weight) on board and thus were not as nimble as they would have been over an enemy Task Force.

The expectation that the returned search SBDs could help defend the Task Force was based on an assumption that they would attack fully loaded enemy torpedo planes with a performance similar to our own TBD. The B5N was no such animal. In the event, most of the SBDs lost that day were bounced by fully loaded A6Ms and shot down before they knew what happened. Most of rest, having survived the initial passes by luck or fate, managed to survive and return.

At Midway, with the crews fully versed in defensive tactics, and some KNOWLEDGE (gained at Coral Sea) of the abilities of the A6M, flying with the dual mounts in aircraft that were far below their fully loaded weight, NOT ONE SBD was shot down by A6Ms over Kido Butai or on the way home, and only a couple were lost in the attack on Hiryu.

The SBD was not a fighter and everyone knew it. The desire to use them to help the defense of the carriers at Coral Sea was based solely on the fact that the current 18-plane fighter squadron could not provide adequate defense for the carrier and the strike groups. By Coral Sea by carriers were over strength, having embarked the authorized three spares and incorporated them into the operation unit. In direct response to the 8 May battle, and because the first folding wing F4F-4 variants had reached the fleet, the carrier fighter squadrons were authorized to operate with 27 planes.

Immediately after Midway the carrier air groups were reorganized - the embarked torpedo squadrons, now equipped with the TBF-1, were organized as 15-plane squadrons and the fighter squadrons were increased to 36-planes, effectively doubling the fighter strength of each carrier a mere seven months after Pearl was bombed. This meant that the embarked dive-bombers could be used only foe their designed tasks (search, ASW defense, and bombing).

That said, it is interesting to note that the losses suffered by the SBDs during the Guadalcanal Campaign were decidedly lower than any bomber type used by the Japanese and SBD aircrew losses were even less. Further, the -5 variant of the SBD remained a fully combat capable combat type throughout the entire war and those included in the 20 June 1944 "Mission Beyond Darkness" the supposedly obsolete dive bomber performed better than its replacement did!

Whelp, that's my thoughts and I'm sticking to them :)

Mark E. Horan
Last edited by CharlesRollinsWare on 22 Jul 2015, 23:58, edited 3 times in total.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10055
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#23

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 22 Jul 2015, 20:35

Thanks

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#24

Post by R Leonard » 28 Jul 2015, 05:23

mescal wrote: See for example this OOB for the raids on Kure (24/28 July 1945) :
Below are the returns of the USN aircraft location reports. Generally filed on a weekly basis. the individual reports were compiled in BuAer in a single report. Each presents a snapshot of the situation roughly seven days before the date of the compiled report. For Task Force 38. which left Leyte on 1 July and made its first strikes on 10 July:

Bennington (CV-20)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 1 - 1 F4U-1D
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 1 - 1 F4U-1D
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-1 - 28 F6F-5; 1 F6F-5E; 2 F6F-5P; 6 F6F-5N
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-1 - 25 F6F-5; 5 F6F-5P; 6-F6F-5N
Rpt 7-7-45 VBF-1 - 27 F4U-1D; 8 FG-1D
Rpt 8-4-45 VBF-1 - 24 FG-1D; 3 F4U-1D
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-1 - 12 TBM-3; 3 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-1 - 3 TBM-3; 9 TBM-3E
Rpt 7-7-45 VB-1 - 1 SB2C-4; 14 SB2C-4E
Rpt 8-4-45 VB-1 - 1 SB2C-4; 13 SB2C-4E

Lexington (CV-16)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 94 - 1 F4U-4
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 94 - 1 F4U-4
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-94 - 30 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P; 4 F6F-5N
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-94 - 34 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P; 4 F6F-5N
Rpt 7-7-45 VBF-94 - 35 F4U-4
Rpt 8-4-45 VBF-94 - 31 F4U-4
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-94 - 15 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-94 - 15 TBM-3E
Rpt 7-7-45 VB-94 - 15 SB2C-4E
Rpt 8-4-45 VB-94 - 13 SB2C-4E

Hancock (CV-19)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 6 - 1 F4U-4
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 6 - 1 F4U-4
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-6 - 26 F6F-5; 4 F6F-5E; 2 F6F-5P; 4 F6F-5N
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-6 - 25 F6F-5; 4 F6F-5E; 2 F6F-5P; 4 F6F-5N
Rpt 7-7-45 VBF-6 - 36 F4U-4
Rpt 8-4-45 VBF-6 - 36 F4U-4
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-6 - 15 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-6 - 15 TBM-3E
Rpt 7-7-45 VB-6 - 14 SB2C-4E
Rpt 8-4-45 VB-6 - 15 SB2C-4E

Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 31 - See VF-31
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 31 - See VF-31
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-31 - 23 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-31 - 22 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-31 - 9 TBM-3
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-31 - 9 TBM-3

San Jacinto (CVL-30)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 49 - See VF-49
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 49 - See VF-49
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-49 - 23 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-49 - 22 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-49 - 9 TBM-3
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-49 - 9 TBM-3E

Wasp (CV-18) - (joined 26 July 45)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 86 - 1 F4U-4
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 86 - 1 F4U-4
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-86 - 30 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P; 4 F6F-5N
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-86 - 30 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P; 4 F6F-5N
Rpt 7-7-45 VBF-86 - 36 F4U-4
Rpt 8-4-45 VBF-86 - 36 F4U-4
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-86 - 15 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-86 - 15 TBM-3E
Rpt 7-7-45 VB-86 - 15 SB2C-5
Rpt 8-4-45 VB-86 - 15 SB2C-5

Ticonderoga (CV-14) - (joined 21 July 45)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 87 - 1 F6F-5
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 87 - 1 F6F-5
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-87 - 30 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P; 6 F6F-5N
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-87 - 29 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P; 6 F6F-5N
Rpt 7-7-45 VBF-87 - 34 F6F-5
Rpt 8-4-45 VBF-87 - 35 F6F-5
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-87 - 15 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-87 - 15 TBM-3E
Rpt 7-7-45 VB-87 - 14 SB2C-4E
Rpt 8-4-45 VB-87 - 15 SB2C-4E

Randolph (CV-15)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 16 - 1 F6F-5
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 16 - 1 F6F-5
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-16 - 27 F6F-5; 4 F6F-5P; 6 F6F-5N
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-16 - 30 F6F-5; 4 F6F-5P; 6 F6F-5N
Rpt 7-7-45 VBF-16 - 29 F6F-5
Rpt 8-4-45 VBF-16 - 31 F6F-5
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-16 - 8 TBM-3; 3 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-16 - 11 TBM-3; 4 TBM-3E
Rpt 7-7-45 VB-16 - 15 SB2C-4E
Rpt 8-4-45 VB-16 - 15 SB2C-4E

Essex (CV-9)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 83 - 1 F6F-5
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 83 - 1 F6F-5
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-83 - 30 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P; 5 F6F-5N
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-83 - 31 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P; 4 F6F-5N
Rpt 7-7-45 VBF-83 - 17 F4U-1D; 19 FG-1D
Rpt 8-4-45 VBF-83 - 25 FG-1D; 10 F4U-1D
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-83 - 5 TBM-3; 10 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-83 - 2 TBM-3; 13 TBM-3E
Rpt 7-7-45 VB-83 - 6 SB2C-4; 9 SB2C-4E
Rpt 8-4-45 VB-83 - 6 SB2C-4; 9 SB2C-4E

Monterey (CVL-26)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 34 - See VF-34
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 34 - See VF-34
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-34 - 24 F6F-5; 1 F6F-5P
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-34 - 24 F6F-5; 1 F6F-5P
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-34 - 7 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-34 - 9 TBM-3E

Bataan (CVL-29)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 47 - See VF-47
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 47 - See VF-47
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-47 - 24 F6F-5; 1 F6F-5P
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-47 - 24 F6F-5; 1 F6F-5P
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-47 - 5 TBM-3; 4 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-47 - 5 TBM-3; 4 TBM-3E

Yorktown (CV-10)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 88 - 1 FG-1D
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 88 - 1 FG-1D
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-88 - 29 F6F-5; 3 F6F-5P; 6 F6F-5N
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-88 - 24 F6F-5; 6 F6F-5P; 6 F6F-5N
Rpt 7-7-45 VBF-88 - 36 FG-1D
Rpt 8-4-45 VBF-88 - 36 FG-1D
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-88 - 14 TBM-3; 1 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-88 - 14 TBM-3; 1 TBM-3E
Rpt 7-7-45 VB-88 - 8 SB2C-4; 5 SB2C-4E
Rpt 8-4-45 VB-88 - 4 SB2C-4; 11 SB2C-4E

Shangri La (CV-38)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 85 - 1 F4U-1C
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 85 - 1 F4U-1C
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-85 - 17 F4U-1C; 7 F4U-1D; 2 F6F-5P; 6 F6F-5N
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-85 - 23 F4U-1C; 7 FG-1D; 2 F6F-5P; 6 F6F-5N
Rpt 7-7-45 VBF-85 - 11 F4U-1D; 25 FG-1D
Rpt 8-4-45 VBF-85 - 24 FG-1D; 9 F4U-1D
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-85 - 15 TBM-3
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-85 - 15 TBM-3
Rpt 7-7-45 VB-85 - 15 SB2C-4E
Rpt 8-4-45 VB-85 - 15 SB2C-4E

Bon Homme Richard (CV-31)
Rpt 7-7-45 Night CAG 91 - 1 F6F-5N
Rpt 8-4-45 Night CAG 91 - 1 F6F-5N
Rpt 7-7-45 VF(N)-91 - 35 F6F-5N; 1 F6F-5P
Rpt 8-4-45 VF(N)-91 - 35 F6F-5N; 1 F6F-5P
Rpt 7-7-45 VT(N)-91 - 18 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT(N)-91 - 17 TBM-3E

Independence (CVL-22)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 27 - See VF-27
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 27 - See VF-27
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-27 - 25 F6F-5
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-27 - 24 F6F-5; 1 F6F-5P
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-27 - 9 TBM-3
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-27 - 6 TBM-3; 3 TBM-3E

Cowpens (CVL-25)
Rpt 7-7-45 CAG 50 - See VF-50
Rpt 8-4-45 CAG 50 - See VF-50
Rpt 7-7-45 VF-50 - 22 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P
Rpt 8-4-45 VF-50 - 21 F6F-5; 2 F6F-5P
Rpt 7-7-45 VT-50 - 9 TBM-3E
Rpt 8-4-45 VT-50 - 9 TBM-3E

The total aircraft on hand on the carriers of TF-38 shown on the 7 July 45 report (which, remember, actually reflects the situation on 1 July) was 1167. The report for 4 August 45 (situation as of 29 July - and, I suspect, after some replenishment following the strike period of 24-28 July) shows a total of 1154 aircraft and shows some of the vagaries of the effects of combat/operational losses AND replacements received during replenishment periods (usually after about every 3 to 4 days of operations).

The diminishing size of the VB and VT squadrons had little effect on strike capability as both the F6F and the F4U could routinely haul 1000 pounds of ordnance with ease. One might note that not all the VBF squadrons were equipped with F4U/FGs, but were standard F6F equipped. Further, in spite of the F4U's reputation, the F6F was considered to be the better of the two for the bomb delivery job due to its greater ability to absorb damage.

During the final 36 days of operations off the coast of Japan in the summer of 1945 the TBMs of TF-38 were strictly bomb haulers, in level or glide bombing attacks; there was not a single torpedo dropped during the entire period.

Rich

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10055
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#25

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 28 Jul 2015, 12:13

& thanks

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

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#26

Post by mescal » 31 Jul 2015, 19:22

Thank you very much Rich.
During the final 36 days of operations off the coast of Japan in the summer of 1945 the TBMs of TF-38 were strictly bomb haulers, in level or glide bombing attacks; there was not a single torpedo dropped during the entire period.
There were not that many targets for a torpedo this late in the war.
At most it could have been envisioned for the Kure raids, but I don't know if it would have been useful :had the USN shallow-water capable torpedoes, and were the IJN heavies behind anti-torp nets ?
Olivier

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10055
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#27

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 31 Jul 2015, 19:51

During the final 36 days of operations off the coast of Japan in the summer of 1945 the TBMs of TF-38 were strictly bomb haulers, in level or glide bombing attacks; there was not a single torpedo dropped during the entire period.
I wonder if they were dropping from altitude, or were using extreme low level or 'skip bombing' techniques?

CharlesRollinsWare
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 23 Apr 2005, 22:15
Location: Windsor Locks CT

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#28

Post by CharlesRollinsWare » 31 Jul 2015, 21:34

According to the logs of two folks I know were flying VTs then - they were high speed glide bombing runs from altitude.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10055
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#29

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 01 Aug 2015, 01:03

AA density around the anchorages must have made the skip bombing technique to risky. Otherwise the torpedo trained pilots would have had half the skill set already.

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: SBD vs Japanese Aircraft

#30

Post by R Leonard » 01 Aug 2015, 02:30

Most of the ship killing work during the Kure strikes 24, 25 and 28 July 45 was done by VB squadrons in SB2Cs. TBMs and bomb haulers of the F4U and F6F stripe were employed in AAA suppression - not say that some did not take whacks at floating targets, just that the primary effort was from the VB community. Interestingly, the object was not to actually hit the targets, but to get as close as possible without hitting, this to create over pressure and open up hulls. Oh, and don't believe the extravagant losses one sees reported in print or re-reported on the web for these strikes. Yes, certainly there were losses, but not at the rates reported. Starts with a researcher or researchers not realizing what they were reading and others repeating with slight alterations, kind of like whispering a sentence into one person's ear and having them pass it down a line of 20 people, the message at the end is no where near the first sentence.

Hi Mark!

Rich

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”