Which was better? SB2C or SBD...?

[PRB]

This is a good question, if not already beat to death over the years. But the discussion up in the "main" board above got me interested in bringing it up again. And, unlike the B-52 vs B-25 discussion going on here, this question is one that makes sense! They both flew in about the same numbers in WW-II. They mostly flew during the same time period. The SB2C flew higher faster, carried more ordnance further, and was newer. That said, I would say the SBD. It was there when the need was there. Midway, Coral Sea, the Solomon Islands campaign. The SB2C was a great plane, no question about it, but what can be said about a plane that was not there when the critical fight was taking place?

Keep it polite!

- Paul

[Talon]

Let's take a look at the Marianas where both planes were used 277 planes tookoff and attacked the IJN,51 were SB2C's and 26 were SBD's.Of all the planes the SBD had the shortest range.A total of 79 planes were lost from the attacking force,17 to combat the rest to running out of fuel of these 43 SB2C's (84% ) and 4 SBD's ( 4% ).The SBD also showed it was more accurate hitting the target.This was also the last time the SBD was used from the carriers.

I agree the SBD was there when needed and fought in most of the crucial carrier battles.It served from December 1941 to June 1944 ( 2-1/2 years ) while the SB2C served form November 1943 to the end of the war.Therefore the SBD was not flown from the carriers for only 14 months of the war.

[Willy]

Also the SBD was used by the Marines until the end of the war and the USAAF (A-24) for a few years after. Not to mention foreign usuage by New Zealand and Mexico.Unfortunatly for the SB2C, as the war came to a close, fighters like the F4U Corsair were able to carry nearly as much bombload and then do the fighter thing after dropping them. And with the newer attack aircraft like the AD-1 Skyraider coming on line, the Helldiver was rapidly obsolete.

[officered]

The SBD was a durable, forgiving pre-war aircraft with well-established maintenance, operational and training standards. The SB2C was huge and a handful for young navy pilots. The SB2C had many technical problems which delayed entry into combat and haunted it throughout its service life. It was actually one of several planes known by flight crews as a widow maker. The SBD, once void of its bomb-load, was better able to perform if attacked by enemy aircraft; often able to hold-its-own in a dogfight.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Going by the maxime

"if it looks good, it must fly good"

gimme a Dauntless any day.:)

If it has props and forward firing Guns, i ll fly it.:icon29:

[mississippi]

If it has more thin one set thin it's to big geve me a vorsair in day . :) :sheep:

[fliger747]

The SB2C did have two foward firing 20mm Canons, a usefull punch.

It is hard to make a comparison at the Battle of the Phillipine Sea about the losses from running out of gas. Gas/payload tradeoffs were a common exchange. Sometimes this would be determined by where the planes were spotted, how much fuel was used up in forming the group, where the planes were in the overall strike scenario etc. Undoubtedly the SBD's were flown by very experienced crews, another factor in their favor.

The crews were willing to go to the mat to achieve the range, and Admiral Mitscher was willing to go all out in turing on the lights to bring them back on board.

[HundertzehnGustav]

If it has more thin one set thin it's to big geve me a vorsair in day . :) :sheep:

MWAHAAAAA... your writing has me ROFLOL efritim i rid it. wundaful styl :costumes:

keep that up, not proper spilling but roxxxxxx:costumes:

[Pen32Win]

There were two SBD Dauntless squadrons remaining in TF 58 at that time: VB-16 on Lexington and VB-10 on Enterprise. Both squadrons were nearing the end of their combat cruise, hence were well experienced.

Adm. Mitscher considered retaining the SBD's after PS but logistical problems shot the plan down.

I'll take the SBD.

[Ivan]

Dunno if this thread is a zombie yet, but here goes:
The SBD was liked by its crews but had fairly poor performance overall. It should have been easy meat for opposing fighters but was not and in fact could make a pretty good adversary if well flown. It's bombing accuracy was such that it was responsible for destroying more Axis shipping than any other aircraft.

The SB2C was designed to fit in a specific sized box (more like a carrier's elevator) and was shaped in a rather screwed up manner with a ridiculously short aft fuselage. The Navy asked for it and Curtiss built it. The operators hated the Beast and there was much talk of stopping production. The plane carried a larger bomb load but could not place it as well on target.

No question in my mind that the SBD is an easy winner in this competition.
- Ivan.

[Cazzie]

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p>"Oh Mother, dear mother, take down the blue star.<o:p></o:p>

Replace it with one that is gold.<o:p></o:p>

"Your son is a Helldiver driver; he'll never be 30 years old.<o:p></o:p>

"The people who work for Curtiss are frequently seen good and drunk.<o:p></o:p>

"One day with an awful hangover, they mustered and designed that old clunk.<o:p></o:p>

"Now the wings are built with precision, the fuselage so strong it won't fail.<o:p></o:p>

"But who were the half-witted people who designed the cockpit and tail?<o:p></o:p>

"The skipper hates Helldiver drivers and he doesn't think much of that clunk.<o:p></o:p>

"Each time we fly aboard his carrier, he prays that his ship won't be sunk.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

"My body lies over the ocean; my body lies under the sea.<o:p></o:p>

"My body lies under the ocean wrapped up in an SB2C!"<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Author: Anonymous<o:p></o:p>

</o:p>

[HundertzehnGustav]

:costumes: that was nasty....:costumes::costumes::costumes:

[Ivan]

Oh Yeah, forgot the obligatory screenshot last time.
- Ivan.