OT SBD Dogfight

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

You may be right about the SBDs not being on CAP after Coral Sea... SBDs did fight with Japanese when the Japanese were attacking USN carriers, but usually it was because returning flights of SBDs ran into the fight, or were on ASW "inner" patrol and ran into trouble that way.

Thats right. After the losses suffered at Coral Sea it was quickly realized that the better answer lay in more fighters shipped vs. using Scout bombers as ersatz fighters.

If the History channel wanted a famous "Dogfights" event, there was a real odd one in Volume II on Oct 9th between some F4F's and some F1M2 "Pete" floatplanes. 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)

That would have made a good story for "Dogfights" [:D]

[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.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

I've been watching those, but I must have missed that one. And SBD taking out three Zeros?!?

Must have been after the "bonus" expired.....[:D]

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.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Wasn't it a flight of SBDs that shot up Sakai?

No, it was TBFs. He saw the silluette and thought they were Wildcats. He zoomed in on the tail end charlie and found out too late that he made a mistake and his prey had rear turrets.

Here are a couple of sites about Swede's fight:
http://aviation-history.com/airmen/coralsea.htm
http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eaglebios/04bios/vejtas04.htm

Early in the war it was standard doctrine to use SBDs as back up CAP over carriers. The predominance of the Zero soon changed that practice and the Navy increased the size of the fighter squadron on carriers soon after. A few SBD pilots were moved to fighters when they proved adept at dog fighting. However, the results were mixed. Some were killed fairly quickly in fighters. Swede was one of the successful transitions.

BTW, I checked the pilot database and he is in the game.

Bill

Most USN carrier pilots were competent in fighters.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005



Yorktown and Saratoga both I believe. I think the practice was discontinued after Coral Sea because the results weren't very good.

i seem to remember (from Lundstrum) they prolonged the practice a bit after that (i could be wrong) - the SBDs were pretty much murder on Kates, but Zeros returned the favor for the SBDs.

You may be right about the SBDs not being on CAP after Coral Sea... SBDs did fight with Japanese when the Japanese were attacking USN carriers, but usually it was because returning flights of SBDs ran into the fight, or were on ASW "inner" patrol and ran into trouble that way.

In WWII, there was no guarantee that a carrier-launched strike would be accompanied by fighters. Even today, USN attack pilots are expected to defend themselves competently if bounced.

[Terminus]

Well, yeah... But today, there's no such thing as a USN "attack" pilot. There are "strike fighter" pilots, and they fly the various marks of F-18, which is very capable of defending itself.

I remember a story from Gulf War I, where two USN F-18 were rolling in on a target with bombs when a pair of Iraqi fighters attacked them. They shot them both down with Sparrow missiles and then proceeded to bomb their target.

[YankeeAirRat]

Before the war most USN and USMC aviators received initial training in what were considered the three big fields of Naval Aviation, that is Fighters, Bombers, and Patrol aircraft. It was only after graduation from flight school and assignment to a fleet command is where they would concentrate their experience. However, that wasn't always the case either, according to what I have read. Due to limitations place on the number of Naval Officers that could be pilots, one of the thing the United States Navy Bureau of Air (aka BuAir) used to do was shuffle people around to fill gaps in other commands so at times fighter pilots might become float plane pilots for cruiser scouting squadrons, or bombing pilots might go and fill patrol billets. One of the other tricks that BuAir to get around limit on Navy pilots used was giving enlisted personnel Naval Aviator wings. These folks were designated Naval Aviation Pilots and VF-2 use to be full of Chief Petty Officers and that is how they earned their nickname, "The Flying Chiefs".
 
Most of what I have read is that Vejtasa was flying anti-torpedo plane patrol with three other SBD's from VS-5 the day after major strikes during the Battle of Coral Sea when they were jumped by 8 A6M's. The Zero's were able to splash Vejtasa's wingmen and that is how he was stuck in a 1v3 engagement with an SBD.

[Przemcio231]

[:D]I remeber reading about an SBD that flew alongside a Kate and the gunners were shooting one another[:D] the result was preatty clear from the beggining 2x 12.7mm vs 1x 7.7 and no armor[:D]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, yeah... But today, there's no such thing as a USN "attack" pilot. There are "strike fighter" pilots, and they fly the various marks of F-18, which is very capable of defending itself.

I remember a story from Gulf War I, where two USN F-18 were rolling in on a target with bombs when a pair of Iraqi fighters attacked them. They shot them both down with Sparrow missiles and then proceeded to bomb their target.

You know you have the enemy out matched when fighter bombers don't bother to eject their load before going after intercepting fighters.

With the F-18, the Navy finally has what it has wanted for decades: an all purpose fighter bomber that can do just about everything. With most of the aircraft all one type, it makes maintenance a lot easier as well as adds flexibility of mission. If the carrier is under threat, most of the wing can fly CAP. When there is air supremacy, most of the wing can fly strike missions.

Bill

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

[:D]I remeber reading about an SBD that flew alongside a Kate and the gunners were shooting one another[:D] the result was preatty clear from the beggining 2x 12.7mm vs 1x 7.7 and no armor[:D]

Who had the 12.7mm? The only 12.7mm (aka .50 calibers) on the SBD were the cowling mounted ones the pilot fired. The SBD-3 and earlier were delivered from the factory with a single .30 caliber (7.9mm) in the rear. Between Coral Sea and Midway all carrier borne SBDs were modified in the field to have a pair of .30s in the rear. The SBD-4, 5, and 6 came with the dual .30s factory standard.

It took an incredibly big and strong guy to hold a pair of hand held .50s on the target. Even a single hand held .50 was too much for many gunners. Waist gunners were usually bigger and stronger than most of the rest of the crew on US heavy and medium bombers.

My father was a combat photographer attached to different bomber units. He had to qualify at every position on the plane so he could take over for a wounded gunner. He said the turret guns were no problem, but when he tried firing a hand held .50 from the waist position on a B-17, he fired a short burst at the target and the gun barrel slammed into the upper corner of the window.

He was a crack shot too. He qualified as expert with most single shot infantry weapons in basic. Someone warned him not to let anyone know about that or he might get transferred from the Signal Corps into the infantry as a sniper. The kick from a .50 startled him.

The only installation of paired, hand held .50s I know about were in the waist positions on the YB-40, which was an escort version of the B-17 bristling with fire power. The YB-40 proved to slow to keep up with the bombers on the return trip, so the project was canceled. I believe they combed the 8th AF for the biggest and strongest gunners for the waist positions on the YB-40s.

Bill

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, yeah... But today, there's no such thing as a USN "attack" pilot. There are "strike fighter" pilots, and they fly the various marks of F-18, which is very capable of defending itself.

I remember a story from Gulf War I, where two USN F-18 were rolling in on a target with bombs when a pair of Iraqi fighters attacked them. They shot them both down with Sparrow missiles and then proceeded to bomb their target.

You know you have the enemy out matched when fighter bombers don't bother to eject their load before going after intercepting fighters.

With the F-18, the Navy finally has what it has wanted for decades: an all purpose fighter bomber that can do just about everything. With most of the aircraft all one type, it makes maintenance a lot easier as well as adds flexibility of mission. If the carrier is under threat, most of the wing can fly CAP. When there is air supremacy, most of the wing can fly strike missions.

Bill

The USN operated that way in 1945. Essex carriers had a large (54 F4U) fighter air group that could also bomb, and two smaller attack groups, one with 15 SB2Cs and the other with 15 TBMs. What the USN was moving towards was a balanced airgroup with interceptors (F8Fs), fighter-bombers (F4Us), and attack aircraft (A1Ds). The F9Fs and FJ-1s quickly replaced the F8Fs and F4Us in the early 1950s, and there were a couple of generations of jet interceptors and jet fighters, leading to F4s, F5s, A7s, and A6s in the 1960s. With the introduction of AA missiles, the concept became stand-off interceptors (F14s), fighter-bombers (F4s and later F18s), and light (A7s) and all-weather (A6s) attack aircraft. The F18s were then adapted to the light attack role in the modern period.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

[:D]I remeber reading about an SBD that flew alongside a Kate and the gunners were shooting one another[:D] the result was preatty clear from the beggining 2x 12.7mm vs 1x 7.7 and no armor[:D]

Who had the 12.7mm? The only 12.7mm (aka .50 calibers) on the SBD were the cowling mounted ones the pilot fired. The SBD-3 and earlier were delivered from the factory with a single .30 caliber (7.9mm) in the rear. Between Coral Sea and Midway all carrier borne SBDs were modified in the field to have a pair of .30s in the rear. The SBD-4, 5, and 6 came with the dual .30s factory standard.

It took an incredibly big and strong guy to hold a pair of hand held .50s on the target. Even a single hand held .50 was too much for many gunners. Waist gunners were usually bigger and stronger than most of the rest of the crew on US heavy and medium bombers.

My father was a combat photographer attached to different bomber units. He had to qualify at every position on the plane so he could take over for a wounded gunner. He said the turret guns were no problem, but when he tried firing a hand held .50 from the waist position on a B-17, he fired a short burst at the target and the gun barrel slammed into the upper corner of the window.

He was a crack shot too. He qualified as expert with most single shot infantry weapons in basic. Someone warned him not to let anyone know about that or he might get transferred from the Signal Corps into the infantry as a sniper. The kick from a .50 startled him.

The only installation of paired, hand held .50s I know about were in the waist positions on the YB-40, which was an escort version of the B-17 bristling with fire power. The YB-40 proved to slow to keep up with the bombers on the return trip, so the project was canceled. I believe they combed the 8th AF for the biggest and strongest gunners for the waist positions on the YB-40s.

Bill

The Japs had the same problem with their escort version of the Betty. All its guns, ammo and armour made it too slow to keep up with its cousins once they'd dropped their bombs.

Cool story about your dad. Sounds like he had an eventful WWII...

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Wasn't it a flight of SBDs that shot up Sakai?

No, it was TBFs. He saw the silluette and thought they were Wildcats. He zoomed in on the tail end charlie and found out too late that he made a mistake and his prey had rear turrets.

Here are a couple of sites about Swede's fight:
http://aviation-history.com/airmen/coralsea.htm
http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eaglebios/04bios/vejtas04.htm

i'll stick with Lundstrom's analysis - he checked records on both sides, recorded what each claimed, and what actually happened (based on who returned to base, etc.) and a synthesis of what he figured went on based on all data.

IIRC - the Zeroes didn't lose anybody in that particular fight (the low-level attack on the US carriers) on that day.

Lots of stuff floating around on the original claims of the participants in WW2 - you can visit websites, or even memorial for USN subs that have claims of all kinds of sinkings, and then check actual postwar credit and find out 1/10th of it is true.

Alas, i wish "Dogfights" would stick with verified events instead of what people thought might have happened at the time... it would enhance their credibility instead of shooting it in the foot.

[Terminus]

But think what would happen to the sellers of foot-bullseye paint and foot-shooting ammunition! Think of the small businessman![:D]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

But think what would happen to the sellers of foot-bullseye paint and foot shooting ammunition! Think of the small businessman![:D]

[8|] [:'(] [:'(]

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Wasn't it a flight of SBDs that shot up Sakai?

No, it was TBFs. He saw the silluette and thought they were Wildcats. He zoomed in on the tail end charlie and found out too late that he made a mistake and his prey had rear turrets.

Here are a couple of sites about Swede's fight:
http://aviation-history.com/airmen/coralsea.htm
http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eaglebios/04bios/vejtas04.htm

i'll stick with Lundstrom's analysis - he checked records on both sides, recorded what each claimed, and what actually happened (based on who returned to base, etc.) and a synthesis of what he figured went on based on all data.

IIRC - the Zeroes didn't lose anybody in that particular fight (the low-level attack on the US carriers) on that day.

Lots of stuff floating around on the original claims of the participants in WW2 - you can visit websites, or even memorial for USN subs that have claims of all kinds of sinkings, and then check actual postwar credit and find out 1/10th of it is true.

Alas, i wish "Dogfights" would stick with verified events instead of what people thought might have happened at the time... it would enhance their credibility instead of shooting it in the foot.

I'll go with Lundstrom also. Victory claims on all sides were grossly inflated. Kind of hard to tell who did what to whom when your whole focus is on not getting killed!!!

Chez

[Miller]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

[:D]I remeber reading about an SBD that flew alongside a Kate and the gunners were shooting one another[:D] the result was preatty clear from the beggining 2x 12.7mm vs 1x 7.7 and no armor[:D]

Who had the 12.7mm? The only 12.7mm (aka .50 calibers) on the SBD were the cowling mounted ones the pilot fired. The SBD-3 and earlier were delivered from the factory with a single .30 caliber (7.9mm) in the rear. Between Coral Sea and Midway all carrier borne SBDs were modified in the field to have a pair of .30s in the rear. The SBD-4, 5, and 6 came with the dual .30s factory standard.

It took an incredibly big and strong guy to hold a pair of hand held .50s on the target. Even a single hand held .50 was too much for many gunners. Waist gunners were usually bigger and stronger than most of the rest of the crew on US heavy and medium bombers.

My father was a combat photographer attached to different bomber units. He had to qualify at every position on the plane so he could take over for a wounded gunner. He said the turret guns were no problem, but when he tried firing a hand held .50 from the waist position on a B-17, he fired a short burst at the target and the gun barrel slammed into the upper corner of the window.

He was a crack shot too. He qualified as expert with most single shot infantry weapons in basic. Someone warned him not to let anyone know about that or he might get transferred from the Signal Corps into the infantry as a sniper. The kick from a .50 startled him.

The only installation of paired, hand held .50s I know about were in the waist positions on the YB-40, which was an escort version of the B-17 bristling with fire power. The YB-40 proved to slow to keep up with the bombers on the return trip, so the project was canceled. I believe they combed the 8th AF for the biggest and strongest gunners for the waist positions on the YB-40s.

Bill

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?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Wasn't it a flight of SBDs that shot up Sakai?

No, it was TBFs. He saw the silluette and thought they were Wildcats. He zoomed in on the tail end charlie and found out too late that he made a mistake and his prey had rear turrets.

Here are a couple of sites about Swede's fight:
http://aviation-history.com/airmen/coralsea.htm
http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eaglebios/04bios/vejtas04.htm

i'll stick with Lundstrom's analysis - he checked records on both sides, recorded what each claimed, and what actually happened (based on who returned to base, etc.) and a synthesis of what he figured went on based on all data.

IIRC - the Zeroes didn't lose anybody in that particular fight (the low-level attack on the US carriers) on that day.

Lots of stuff floating around on the original claims of the participants in WW2 - you can visit websites, or even memorial for USN subs that have claims of all kinds of sinkings, and then check actual postwar credit and find out 1/10th of it is true.

Alas, i wish "Dogfights" would stick with verified events instead of what people thought might have happened at the time... it would enhance their credibility instead of shooting it in the foot.

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?


Leo "Apollo11"

[niceguy2005]

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.

Yes, I believe he was interviewed on the show. I missed the first few minutes, but there was an old man saying, I did this and I did that.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

I've been watching those, but I must have missed that one. And SBD taking out three Zeros?!?

Must have been after the "bonus" expired.....[:D]

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.