Curtiss Helldiver vs Ju 87 Stuka

[Ricky]

Hopefully a juicy 'vs' thread will get everybody talking again - this is the best I could come up with at short notice, so enjoy!

Curtiss SB2C Helldiver:
http://www.classicbirds.ch/images/imagejpg/sb2c.jpg

Junkers Ju 87 'Stuka':
http://www.brunssum.net/~mousetra/historie/ebenemael/ju-87.jpg

[Red Admiral]

The SB2C Helldiver is one of the few aircraft that was worse than the aircraft it replaced.

[ChrisMcD]

What has always baffled me is that there were better choices available

Ju 87 - He 118

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/He118/He118.htm

And Vultee Vengeance and Brewster Bermuda - or even the A 36

I think that the Vengeance has had a very bad press. The RAF were ideologicaly against dive bombers and only took them on under pressure - at which point they shipped them out east. The Vultee had a poor start but did very well once the crews (particularly the Austalians) worked out how to use them. It took longer than it should to improve the Vengeance, but the later models were superb.

The Brewster Bermuda appears to be further proof of Brewster's inability to sort out problems, but looks at least as capable as the Helldiver

http://generalaviationnews.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=9676&-token.src=index&-nothing

As for the A36 it has to be politics because it was years ahead of it's time

http://www.dive-bombers.co.uk/Straight.htm

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD


As for the A36 it has to be politics because it was years ahead of it's time

http://www.dive-bombers.co.uk/Straight.htm




The A36 Apache has always intrigued me, here we have a dive bomber that in theory can take care of itself but very little was made of it outside of Italy.

[Kutscha]

Was not the Helldiver called the Beast and a couple of other not so nice names?

The A-36, powered by the Allison V-1710, flew with the 27th and 86th FBGs in Italy. The 311th FBG flew the A-36 in the CBI. They flew 23,373 combat sorties, claimed 84 e/a and lost 177 to enemy activity. It could dive to 390mph with 2 500lb attached. Iirc the Ju87 was limited to 350mph.

Should add that the P-51 also had 4 20mm cannons in one version.

[ChrisMcD]

There was a theory that, early in the 40's - while he was both building up the USAF and getting American industry up to speed - Hap Arnold had spent his budget on fighters, but was very keen to get Mustangs however he could.

So he persuaded North American to fit dive brakes on them and bought them under the dive bomber section of the USAF budget.

As soon as he could he switched them back to fighters.

The USAF still stayed opposed to dive bombers and the A-36's were never replaced. Mind you the German Flak probably meant that dive bombing was not a good policy against them.

Still, they performed well and should have had a better crit

[Romantic Technofreak]

There was nobody writing yet which one could have been considered better. And once again, the comparability is a bit doubtful.

- the Stuka never saw action as carrier-based plane

- the Helldiver never saw action as land-based plane (trials not considered)

- the Stuka was ready when the war started

- the Helldiver wasn´t service-ready before end of ´42

- with its retractable undercarriage and powerful engine, the Helldiver is the more modern plane

- the Stuka wasn´t criticized for bad flying charactersistics, but for slowness and lack of armour

- I don´t know exactly why, but the Helldiver was criticized for bad flying characteristics. Maybe only former Dauntless pilots where spoiled by their machine before and commented unproperly angry about the more demanding Helldiver.

Anyway, the concept of the unarmoured light bomber faded during WWII, in all air forces that used it. The Stuka was more and more replaced by FW 190 F-series fighter-bombers, while the USAAF refused to employ the Helldiver´s landplane version A-25. Only for bombing services on carriers, the light bomber kept its position, because there was nothing to replace it. I think the Helldiver was the better plane,be it only because it was the later and thus more advanced construction.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

I think that high diving speed for a dive bomber is less important than steep diving angle. In fact, high speed can actually hinder accuracy. That's why aircraft specifically designed for dive bombing usually had dive brakes. For this reason (i.e. a slow, steep dive) , I would place the Ju 87 ahead of the A-36 as a dive bomber only.

As to the Mustang with the four 20 mm guns, I have read that there were too many problems encountered with this configuration to make it worthwhile. I would think that the guns, being wing mounted, would have had recoil and ammunition storage/feed problems.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi ChrisMcD,

quote:There was a theory that, early in the 40's - while he was both building up the USAF and getting American industry up to speed - Hap Arnold had spent his budget on fighters, but was very keen to get Mustangs however he could.

So he persuaded North American to fit dive brakes on them and bought them under the dive bomber section of the USAF budget.

This is very similar to my understanding of events.

The early Mustang (called the "Apache" and the "Invader" in its A-36 configuration) was initially underrated by both the USAAF and the RAF because of its poor high-altitude performance. The former didn't really want the airplane; the latter had, at first, relegated it to second-line duty.

Without the Merlin engine, the Mustang would have been just another good low-altitude fighter.

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

The Helldiver is one of the last divebombers conceived and built.
I consider it a handsome aircraft and quite formidable. It had bombays and other refinements to bring it to the modern age.

The Ju-87 Stuka is a brutal looking airplane. It's sinister intention is excinuated by it's monstorous features such as a wind driven siren and angular lines.

Dive bombing was created by Americans and then adopted by our enemys.
We did a catch-up operation in regards to delivering bombs in that manner. The crowning achievment would be the unassuming little scout plane-divebomber known as the "SBC Dauntless". It was inevitable that it would be replaced. Maybe the Helldiver didn't have a long enough combat stint to make it's mark. I'll bet it was damn good airplane when the details of comparison are truthfully analyzed. I mean it did take a long time to get it into the war.

I've heard of the troubles with the Helldiver. I haven't a clue to what any of them are, however.

[Double T]

I have both the Helldiver and Stuka D-type in my collection. The Stuka is described as the best dive-bomber of the war. 'Course it couldn't defend itself even in 1940.
The Helldiver with internal bomb-bays, big radial and 4-bladed prop looks imposing. I like it's looks, but never understood how the rear gunner 'put-rounds' on anything but it's own tail. Pilots called it the 'big-arsed bird' if memory serves.
Both planes had 2-20mm cannon in the wings. I like 'em both, but give the nod to the Helldiver. It could carry a bigger bomb-load and had radar capability. The Helldiver never had a 'tank-busting' variation like the Stuka... but was a more contemporary design suited to waging war in the Pacific.

Tim

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

As to the Mustang with the four 20 mm guns, I have read that there were too many problems encountered with this configuration to make it worthwhile. I would think that the guns, being wing mounted, would have had recoil and ammunition storage/feed problems.


The British didn't seem to have a problem with the Spitfire, Typhoon, et al.

[Mark J]

Some Spitfire's had 4x20mm canon in the wings and from memory, these would 'flex' during firing, causing the cone of fire to 'spread' during a burst, not much but enough to effect long range accuracy.
It was also a problem on the 'C' wing, the one with 2x20mm canon and 4x.303 brownings but not as much.
The Typhoon had thick and strong wings that absorbed the recoil forces and the extra thickness allowed more room to fit and service the canons.

I would put my money on the Ju 87 Stuka as a dive bomber due to it's accuracy, automatic dive recovery system and sturdy construction. ( just as long as it had plenty of fighter cover :)

cheers

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

The Typhoon had thick and strong wings that absorbed the recoil forces and the extra thickness allowed more room to fit and service the canons.

But what about the Tempest?

Oh, and thanks for answering the original question also!:)

[Mark J]

The Tempest had different wings, semi eliptical and part laminarflow. The longer chord helped make up the difference in strengh lost with the thinner wing. New canons were installed in the Tempest, a short barrelled variety, I forget which model.
Perhaps Tony Williams can enlighten us :)
cheers