OT SBD Dogfight

[panda124c]

Think about it for a minute, an SBD was a dive-bomber designed to carry a 1000# bomb. Without that load it was fairly maneuverable and quick (as in fast acceleration). And it was designed with those big dive brakes and could slow down fast then close them and speed up quick. No match for a Zero but not a dog against a torpedo plane. IIRC the Japanese used the Val for a similar mission. It was a lot better than a TBF (Torpedo Bomber Fighter). [:D]

[Feinder]

As I recall from Ambrose's "Wild Blue", they said that basically the used your evals on dog-fighting, navigation, and formation flying, to slot you for your plane type.
 
dog-fighting = fighters
formation flying = bombers
navigation = patrols

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005




Most certainly. [:D]

Iirc it was May 42 and Swede was an SBD pilot on Yorktown. I missed what his mission was and why he was flying without other escorts...perhaps on patrol.

Swede used the fact that his SBD could take a higer G turn to continually turn after each pass of a zero to go head on with the next one. Swede pulled consecutive high G turns for 17 minutes before a zero finally made a mistake and swede got in behind it and downed it with a well aimed burst. However by this time a 3rd zero had joined the fight. After downing the first zero Swede caught another one making a high banking turn. He pulled his SBD almost vertical and before he stalled was able to shoot down the zero as it passed in front of him.

The final zero positioned itself for a head on attack and was closing fast. It was trying to ram him. Swede turned away at the last minute and his wing clipped the plane. It went down and somehow the SBD survived.

pretty amazing

Sounds like he was keeping his airspeed up. Turning slows you down, and flying slow against Zeros was lethal.

As I understand it he was turning as hard and fast as the plane was capable.

The tailgunner was pinned to the side by the G forces and couldn't swing his rear gun.

As long as he was keeping his airspeed up, the Zeros would have been in worse shape than he was.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
This fight was memorable in that the lowly Pete managed to down one of the F4F's despite the mismatch. (in exchange for 2 Petes including one that ditched due to battle damage)

Mein gott. Please tell more Nik. How on earth did it manage to do that?[X(]

[rtrapasso]

Thus, if we believe Lundstrom (and we Grognards should IMHO) the above decpicted Swede's dogfight was 100% pure fiction and, possibly, just war propaganda (that all sides used a lot and quite liberaly)?

Is this correct?

No, probably something ALONG the lines described happened, but the results weren't as claimed... maybe Swede shot up a Zero, and it spun out smoking, and it was presumed destroyed, and maybe he did clip a Zero and it went out of control, and he thought it was destroyed, etc.

But, the Zeroes probably recovered from a temporary setback and flew back to their carriers. Swede never saw this, and in good conscience made the claims (or someone made them for him)...

Happened all the time - the pilots weren't lying, they just didn't have omniscience about what happened in the fight.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
This fight was memorable in that the lowly Pete managed to down one of the F4F's despite the mismatch. (in exchange for 2 Petes including one that ditched due to battle damage)

Mein gott. Please tell more Nik. How on earth did it manage to do that?[X(]

Maybe a head-on collision... that would do it... [X(] [:'(]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Miller
IIRC the SDB-3 was produced with a twin 7.62mm mount. However at the time both -2 (with a single 7.62mm) and -3 were flying from the US carriers so it could have been either.

The TBD was originally fitted with a single 12.7mm gun but this had been swapped for a twin 7.62mm installation before the BOM. I wonder if this was an attempt to reduce weight?

If hang out on modeling forums, you end up exposed to a lot of arguments about minutae on aircraft. The SBD is well studied because of the excellent kits from Accurate Miniatures. The -3 came from the factory with a single .30 in the rear and all carrier borne SBDs were field modified before Midway. The Squadron book SBD in Action shows the details of the modifications.

I just checked TBD in Action and no TBD ever had a hand held .50. Some had a cowling mounted .50, but most had a single forward firing .30. A few days before Midway, Lt. Commander Waldron ordered all his TBDs to be modified like the SBDs. Extra .30s were drawn from stores on the Hornet and VT-8 got twin .30s for Midway. In the end, it didn't ammount to much since all were lost. His TBDs were the only ones to get this modification.

Modelers can go nuts trying to find the exact shade of paint on the original, or documenting this or that field modification. The arguments over minutae on some of the forums make the detailed discussions here appear global in scope. Do you really care if the pilot's fire extinguisher was on the left or right side of the seat and whether it should be 2.1 mm long or 2.2mm long in scale?

I like building models, but I don't go nuts about it.

Bill

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: pbear

Think about it for a minute, an SBD was a dive-bomber designed to carry a 1000# bomb. Without that load it was fairly maneuverable and quick (as in fast acceleration). And it was designed with those big dive brakes and could slow down fast then close them and speed up quick. No match for a Zero but not a dog against a torpedo plane. IIRC the Japanese used the Val for a similar mission. It was a lot better than a TBF (Torpedo Bomber Fighter). [:D]

The Navy doctrine befor the war was to use the SBD as a back up fighter. It was very well built and maneuverable.

I don't recall the Japanese ever employing Vals as ersatz fighters, though I could be wrong. A Val wouldn't fare well against most American bombers. The forward armament was only 2 7.7mm guns, which would have been nothing against US aircraft armor.

I think you were joking about the TBF meaning, but just for clarification, TBF stood for Torpedo Bomber Grumman. The Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics assigned a letter to each plane maker and those were the last letter of the plane's designation. When Grumman came along, G was already in use, so they got assigned F (G was assigned to a company called Great Lakes, which folded in the 30s). Hence the F4F, F6F, and TBF.

Bill

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
No, probably something ALONG the lines described happened, but the results weren't as claimed... maybe Swede shot up a Zero, and it spun out smoking, and it was presumed destroyed, and maybe he did clip a Zero and it went out of control, and he thought it was destroyed, etc.

But, the Zeroes probably recovered from a temporary setback and flew back to their carriers. Swede never saw this, and in good conscience made the claims (or someone made them for him)...

Happened all the time - the pilots weren't lying, they just didn't have omniscience about what happened in the fight.

Hub Zempke talked about the exaggerated claims in his book. Early in the war, a number of exaggerated claims slipped through because the US was looking for anything positive they could put in the papers back home. By the time the 8th AF was escorting bombers into Germany, the discipline for claims among the fighter people had tightened up considerably. After the war, he compared German losses to claims for his group and found that their claims were actually a little lower than reality. Many times "probables" or "damaged" claims were assigned when the German plane actually did go down.

Similar discipline among fighter pilots existed in the Pacific too. For a claim to be valid, it had to be backed up with gun camera footage, or an eye witness. These limits weren't in place in May of 42 though.

Zempke said that the claims by the bombers were wildly exaggerated. The gunners would claim a kill if the enemy plane was just hit. Many times gunners would claim the plane was on fire when they mistook a burst of exhaust from pushing forward the throttles. At least in the 8th AF, these claims were allowed to be recorded because, politically, the strategic bomber people were attempting to justify the use of the heavy bomber over Europe.

Gunners in the Pacific probably were not allowed to make such exaggerated claims. I believe the claims by gunners on bombers in the Pacific were far lower than in Europe. Though this may also be due to the level of air resistance encountered. By late in the war, US bombers often attacked Japanese bases and encountered no air resistance.

Bill

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Thus, if we believe Lundstrom (and we Grognards should IMHO) the above decpicted Swede's dogfight was 100% pure fiction and, possibly, just war propaganda (that all sides used a lot and quite liberaly)?

Is this correct?

No, probably something ALONG the lines described happened, but the results weren't as claimed... maybe Swede shot up a Zero, and it spun out smoking, and it was presumed destroyed, and maybe he did clip a Zero and it went out of control, and he thought it was destroyed, etc.

But, the Zeroes probably recovered from a temporary setback and flew back to their carriers. Swede never saw this, and in good conscience made the claims (or someone made them for him)...

Happened all the time - the pilots weren't lying, they just didn't have omniscience about what happened in the fight.

This is my understanding...one thing that bothered me about his recognized kills though was that I thought a kill had to be confirmed by another pilot.

I agree Swede probably thought he made the kills...perhaps there was some embellishment perhaps not. Just fending off 3 zeros is a minor miracle.

[TOMLABEL]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

The only "dogfights" I personally have seen (on history channel) are ones where they had the actual pilot telling the story. So in other words, he had to still be alive.

True, Swede was on the show telling his story in person.

TOMLABEL

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
This fight was memorable in that the lowly Pete managed to down one of the F4F's despite the mismatch. (in exchange for 2 Petes including one that ditched due to battle damage)

Mein gott. Please tell more Nik. How on earth did it manage to do that?[X(]

The fight occurred during a Tokyo express run that was being covered by a LRCAP consisting of eight "Petes" launched from Shortlands. A Cactus late afternoon strike was sent to intercept, covered initially by 11 F4F's but soon reduced to eight F4F's due to aborts. The Wildcats tangled with their nimbler but slower and lighter armed adversaries while the bombers went after the warships. During a bout of twisting and turning, one F4F finally got on the tail of one, only to shoot past it when the plane abruptly slowed. The Pete then stitched 7.7 fire into the engine and cockpit of the formerly pursuing Wildcat, damaging the engine and setting the aircraft on fire. The pilot, Mel Roach, broke off immediately but his engine soon seized and he was forced to ditch in contested waters.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
No, probably something ALONG the lines described happened, but the results weren't as claimed... maybe Swede shot up a Zero, and it spun out smoking, and it was presumed destroyed, and maybe he did clip a Zero and it went out of control, and he thought it was destroyed, etc.

But, the Zeroes probably recovered from a temporary setback and flew back to their carriers. Swede never saw this, and in good conscience made the claims (or someone made them for him)...

Happened all the time - the pilots weren't lying, they just didn't have omniscience about what happened in the fight.

Books such as Lundstrom and especially Shores are full of pilot accounts that describe planes being shot down or destroyed that in reality were not. Its not even limited to seeing smoke and flame. In more than place in Shores for example, Allied pilots stated specifically that they'd seen a Japanese aircraft (either their own target or the target of a fellow pilot) crash into the ground and explode. Yet on the Japanese side, records would show that all planes returned. An occupied mind in the thick of combat can think it sees alot of things.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Speedy

The fight occurred during a Tokyo express run that was being covered by a LRCAP consisting of eight "Petes" launched from Shortlands. A Cactus late afternoon strike was sent to intercept, covered initially by 11 F4F's but soon reduced to eight F4F's due to aborts. The Wildcats tangled with their nimbler but slower and lighter armed adversaries while the bombers went after the warships. During a bout of twisting and turning, one F4F finally got on the tail of one, only to shoot past it when the plane abruptly slowed. The Pete then stitched 7.7 fire into the engine and cockpit of the formerly pursuing Wildcat, damaging the engine and setting the aircraft on fire. The pilot, Mel Roach, broke off immediately but his engine soon seized and he was forced to ditch in contested waters.

Interesting. Thanks bud. I bet he got the p*ss taken out of him for a while[;)]

[DuckofTindalos]

Read in Bloody Shambles vol. I that some Pete pilots from the Chiyoda (IIRC) claimed to have shot down US fighters during the Phillipines campaign...