Curtiss SB2C Helldiver: Impression vs Reality - Key Aicraft Series 1, Aircraft 10

[@Silverhks]

A modern equivalent would be the A-10 Warthog. Designed for CAS/tank busting role in the 60s but by the time its was deployed in mid-70s the threat environment had changed and the role was gone. Despite being a perfectly good airframe it struggled to remain active from the beginning. Edit: oh, and an interesting note. USN doctrine expected 1 in 3 divebombers to hit a maneuvering ship and was supposed to split their dives up accordingly on site.

[@princeoftonga]

Interesting point about the range of the SB2C I remember an article quoting a veteran where he basically said that by 1943-44 when he actually flew Helldivers they were mostly striking land targets where they would be very heavily loaded. He even said on one strike on Okinawa his plane was carrying so much that a Dauntlessd wouldn’t have got off the deck! If most of your experience with one plane is carrying one 1000lb bomb compared to a later plane where you’re carrying 4x500 lb bombs and some rockets then yeah you may end up with a bad opinion about the second planes range.

[@m0rafic1]

I propose the DE Havilland Sea Vixen as no-one else is going to

[@DrAlexClarke]

a gorgeous aircraft, absolutely beautiful

[@dongiovanni4331]

My favorite attack aircraft has to be the Skyraider.

[@GOPGonzo]

You hit it about being compared to greats. It had to follow the SBD Dauntless, and that is not something that any aircraft want's to to compare it's record to.

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

And when tere was increasingly less targets for an anti-ship dive bomber, a role which was incearingly done by rockets (against smaller ships, that is), contributing greatly to scarcity of targets needing 500lbs bombs to silence/disable/sink. Plus it was a less "user friendly" beast, than its predecessors.. Yes, not a winning position to start from.

[@baronvonfaust]

I loved this breakdown, truly appreciate listening to someone go into detail on such an interesting service introduction. Edit: I'd love to hear something on the early jet night fighters, like the Sea Venom and Sky Knight. Always fascinated.

[@jyzow]

A. This is a very pertinent time to do a video on the Helldivers 2. I mean, the second Helldiver. B. Regarding the naming confusions, be glad you don't deal in ground equipment too, as the F6F and the M18 have a bit of a collision there. C. I'm going to second the suggestion to cover the prop aircraft that entered service after the advent of jets.

[@20july1944]

I just resumed watching this and the volume here is GREAT, so the other thing that was way too quiet was due to the setup you mentioned.

[@cliffweinan3907]

Good points when comparing aircraft. USA was at war and they had to design and produce quick. Learning as they moved on. SB2C had carrier elevator size limits

[@MilBard]

The biplane Helldiver was the result of the 1927 fleet problems for a scout dive bomber with two fuel drop tanks and a 500lb bomb for long range search or a 1000lb bomb for cracking open a capital ship at closer range. Tracking interwar drop tank development in the USN is a rhymes with witch research problem.😢

[@DrAlexClarke]

Its an interesting topic certainly and one I will go into more detail when its the SBCs turn for a video in this series... it certainly was a plate which went through the hands of many chefs before it was served

[@MilBard]

The biggest unexamined issue with the SB2C is the ASB radar and follow on AN/APS-4 radars that came with it. Night fighter Hellcats got the latter, but much later. There were 26,000 ASB radars built between 1942 and 1944. These radars played really important roles in the effectiveness of USN carrier groups when Halsey swept the Celebes, Sulu and South China seas of Japanese merchant shipping with the 3rd Fleet before, during and after the Leyte & Luzon campaigns. The ASB also worked well with the YJ radar beacon on USN flat tops. [The same could not be said for the primary Hellcat night fighter radar the AN/APS-6. Which never got functionality with its associated beacon.] NAVAER AIR INFORMATION SUMMARY #19, "NAVIGATIONAL USES OF ASB RADAR" dated 2 August 1943 goes deeply into the navigation uses of the ASB to reduce operational losses from lost aircraft. ASB BLUF: Being able to determine wind direction via ASB was highly useful for navigating long range carrier strikes.

[@SuperchargedSupercharged]

Well thought out and presented. You have changed my mind.

[@ThumperE23]

I think the USN was also drifting away from dive bombing. The light Carriers and Escort Carriers didn't carry them, and the fleet carriers were reducing them to fighters. The night groups also didn't have dive bombers.

[@mathewkelly9968]

Could almost repeat this episode for the Vultee Vengeance , perfectly fine and serviceable does the job even , but emerges in a war that's moved on from the dive bomber and onto the fighter bomber and twin engines types like the Mitchell , Beaufighter , Mosquito , Boston etc etc etc .......... At least the Helldiver had the niche Pacific Carrier operations to fall back on

[@andrewcox4386]

Future suggestions: Sea Hawk, Sea Fury (that's probably already on the list), Sunderland, Catalina, Sea Master, Sea Dart, SRA 1, Shetland (last Hurrah of the Blackburn Blackburn design team 😂) (you can probably tell I like flying boats), Crusader 3, Missileer, the F111 as a joint USAF/USN concept, Spearfish (I also like the promising but cancelled prototypes), Avro Pike (I just love the name), Cubaroo (another great name), P1154, SR177.......... Would the Skyrocket count as it was a Navy project? 🤔 I hope you find a few ideas in there 😁

[@canuckled]

If you're doing the Oliver Hazard perry class the Sea Sprite could be a future key aircraft video, a small ship ASW helicopter to augment the Sea Kings, Trackers and Vikings. I'd also add the Skyraider for its versatility, and the Sea Knight/Labrador for its tactical lift and search and rescue service. For the question, not so much overshadowed as an aircraft but a mission would be the C1 Trader - delivering cargo and occasionally Marines keeps the carrier mission capable.

[@philwillams3582]

Would like you to do a talk on the buccaneer as the yanks said the pilots were scared of heights

[@DrAlexClarke]

Trouble is this has been true of royal navy aviation from the very beginning, it's just the Buccaneer believed it was a submarine

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

The F-14D and even the Super Tomcat and with them, the Phoenix missile became victim of the newer AMRAAM iterations and the Hornets' reliability and lower maintenance needs, in the era of "only wars of choice".

[@mathewkelly9968]

Key aircraft suggestions : Gannet , Skyraider , Tracer/Tracker , Skyhawk , Crusader , Etendard/Super Etendard , Skywarrior , I'll stop before the list gets too long

[@guidor.4161]

BTW, I really love this series and your objective approach. Never thought of it that way, but then I wasn't overly interested in the SB2C before...

[@nk_3332]

While not a 'bad' aircraft, the Short Sunderland was crucial fighting both the U-Boat and the Condor menaces. But it is overshadowed by the PBY/Catalina.

[@russellblake9850]

don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough". "straight" miles ? I guess you mean "statute" miles ? (yeah, the I-95 song ...) cheers

[@DrAlexClarke]

Straight miles was something the Bureau of Aeronautics used at a time bascially meant level flight no deviations... so I chose to use that phraseology, but yes it's statute miles in terms of distance...

[@russellblake9850]

@@DrAlexClarke thx for taking the time to reply (to a pretty facetious comment). How about the good ol' F4U1 (D if you must) ? it was a good (enough?) airplane after a tonne of development. And the RN figured out how to operate them from carriers (that should be good for a couple of jabs at the USN).

[@russellblake9850]

PITA ... "Key Aicraft" ? on the range figures ... Dauntless didn't mention any bomb load, whereas the Helldiver did.

[@andrewcox4386]

​@@DrAlexClarke So what we today we would call Breguet or Gross Still Air Range

[@andrewcox4386]

The Breguet comment reminded me of the "other" navies. Etendard/Super Etendard Breguet Alize (A Gannet by an other name would look as odd) Farman F160 (I would love to hear your review of this) Nieuport LN401 - kind of a spiritual kin to the Supermarine FAA fighter of 1938/39

[@cassidy109]

Well done video on an aircraft that probably gets undo criticism. On a related subject, it would be interesting to see data on the efficiency, affects and practicality of using unguided aerial rockets, e.g. HVARs, against a maneuvering ship at sea as compared to dropping a traditional bomb. I watched a video by a KZbin historian recently on the usage of unguided aerial rockets launched from aircraft against ground targets. IIRC, they were not a simple point and shoot weapon. The pilot needed to be in a particular flight profile, i.e. dive angle, speed, range etc., for them to have a decent chance at successfully striking their target. What was the hit rate of say an HVAR against a ship versus a bomb dropped from a SBD or SB2C. Additionally, I'd venture to guess that even a relatively simple merchantman could better shake off an aerial rocket strike or two than a 500 lbs or 1000 lbs aerial bomb. I'd also be curious to see data on how a SBD or SB2C compared to a Corsair or Hellcat in the antishipping role when dropping simple iron bombs.

[@michaelcouch66]

Potential Key Aircraft of the future: Some of the aircraft of the 50s/60s (the jets that flew between the "Propeller age" and the "Phantom age") - the ones that people don't really know much about (and indeed may never have heard of).

[@jamesb4789]

When you look at the years from 1937 to 1941 before the US entered the war, it is a period of very rapid aircraft development for all countries. In the USN case, they were rapidly developing aircraft at a time when no one really understood where things would head. The Spanish Civil war and then the Blitz of "39 and 40 added tot he questions. Taking a step back, the dive bomber development seemed to be high priority, but people are trying to make it linear: SBC to SWBD to AB2C. I think in truth, the SBC was a bi-wing because the UNS knew them and could start the design from a position of confidence to create an aircraft which cold create doctrine. I agree with Dr. Clarke that the SB2C was the heir to the SBC. But I think the USN launched the SBD development in a delayed parallel move to step into the all metal monoplane arena for dive bombers ASAP. The SBC had enough head start and was an easier transition for air crews, maintenance, and those developing operational doctrine. Sometime a radical big jump jumbles the doctrine. It created two development paths that both resulted in good aircraft. And their use in the field is also different. The SBD fought through the first years when many pre-war ideas crashed and burned, yet the SBD units improvised and and won. By the time Helldiver arrived insignificant numbers, the air war was in fact far more "rigid" in doctrine and practice. It was a piece of the picture whereas the Dauntless was the picture . Dauntless did things no one really thought would work and blazed a trail. Helldiver never had to plow green fields and create doctrine along the way. In every branch of the military, the early standouts who set doctrine are always praise. The successors who plod along following the doctrine are just OK in PR eyes. .

[@andrewcox4386]

I can't help thinking of the P47 as a comparison - those USAAF squadrons that flew Spitfires tended to hate them as too big & too heavy. Those who didn't fly Spits before loved them

[@juicysushi]

I wonder if part of the issue for the Helldiver was the Bureau of Ordinance. Early war USN torpedoes were hot garbage. Which meant the main strike option during those early glorious battles was the Dauntless. By the time of the Helldiver you’ve got fully developed Avengers with working torpedoes. Suddenly all the glory was no longer going to the divebombers. If the USN had a working torpedo bomber and so weren’t divebomber dependent during the early battles, the Dauntless might not be the hero plane it now is seen to be.

[@2whostruckjohn]

The Japanese made doctrinal choices to develop long range aircraft (many compromises made to get that range) and execute long range strikes. The USN had to either push the range and get a strike off at the edge of possible, or get no strike at all.

[@ph89787]

Weird fact. Issues with the early Helldivers (-1C model) got so bad. That after the Battle of the Philippine Sea. VADM Marc Mitscher considered reverting the VB squadrons back to the Dauntless.

[@DrAlexClarke]

and he could because they were available, but even he admitted some of the issues were morale, the fact was the dauntless was kind of like the swordfish, it was such an icon its own time, that it's successor didn't get the same confidence or love from it's crews until whole new generations had come through...

[@ph89787]

@@DrAlexClarke Oh definitely. Although I read that pilots from VB-20 on USS Enterprise between August - November 1944 loved the newer -3 models compared to the -1C they trained on. Although Seth Peridan and Bill Toti when they did their 2 parter on Enterprise for the Unauthorized History of the Pacific War Podcast. Said that Enterprise’s deck crews hated them due to how clunky they were compared to the Dauntless.

[@p.a_thomas661]

50 Minutes in and we hit the "Introduction" slide? Ohhhh, that kind of introduction.... :D

[@TheRacingmenace]

A lot of what you say about this aircraft in the first ten minutes actually reminds me of the Barracuda. A supposedly grossly inadequate, useless plane that somehow became the most produced British torpedo bomber type, and was widely used throughout the RN even if relegated to secondary roles not long after the war. Obviously in public opinion (even back then) it has to compete with two of the most successful torpedo bombing types of the war, Swordfish and Avenger. There is no contest: rumors spread that it was a type that snapped its wings off under any amount of stress, and of course mission profiles undertaken and adverse conditions it wasn't designed for prohibited the Barracuda's use throughout a considerable part of the BPF's actions in East Asia, denying it any opportunity to 'redeem' itself in the tail end of the war.

[@DrAlexClarke]

Thankyou - I'm saving the Barracuda for when I feel full of the St George spirit as I have a feeling the Dragons of it's Myth won't die down quickly or easily...

[@jackray1337]

29:36 ...Still watching 😄

[@badger2305]

Recommended aircraft: the Sikorsky 4-engine bombers - Ilya Muromets - from World War One.

[@TraytonPont]

Really enjoying this series. Please keep them coming. As to the end question: Supermarine Attacker?

[@jagsdomain203]

I like this series it's very interesting

[@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass]

I love this planes nickname

[@carlcarlton764]

The Helldiver 2 is a lesson in why it's so important to make a good first impression! The -4/-5 versions that saw a lot of combat in 44/45 were very reliable and capable multi role combat aircraft. The -3 version that saw a little bit of use in 43, when the USN was short of carriers was sort of ok, by comparison. The -1/-2 were utter CFs. They and the -3 were flow by pilots who came from the later versions of the SBD. No surprise the Son of a Bitch Second Class was despised. The new pilots who went straight from flying school to a -4/-5 really liked the planes. But damage to reputation had been done.

[@DrAlexClarke]

That's why I was drawing parallels with the Albacore... becuase just like the Helldiver, it suffered in comparison in it's early models with it's predecessor... it is the first impression, the first paragraph of history often writes the story for many...

[@paulamos8970]

BZ Doc, another very interesting lecture.

[@20chocsaday]

Suggestion, Hurricane overshadowed by Spitfire. Also, how can you order production en masse without a finalized design. Unless you hand-build each example. By the way, how can you claim ONLY 30% of anything.

[@Silverhks]

It was pretty standard for the US as we tried to build up the military. Many systems were ordered into production while still in the prototype stage. Don't were cancelled later, some after the factory was built or even producing. It was an attempt to shorten delivery times.

[@russellblake9850]

does the straight (unswept) LE give it some aerodynamic advantage ? I'd've thought a straight (unswept) Main Spar would be some manufacturing advantage ... it looks like the the spar is slightly forward swept.

[@DrAlexClarke]

In theory, weight of air frame prevented the earlier versions from really getting to use that, but the later ones had to power to lean into it

[@lesliemitchell4984]

Is this issue when designing a new weapon system your only point of knowledge is what has gone before? Helldiver was an okay plane, but needed a headline to give it a chance against the other "Great Planes" in the late war Carrier operation.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

Hi Alex, you find this a lot when people are comparing things; as for WW2, there a plenty of examples. Just because British [air defence] radar was probably the best, that doesn't mean German radar was bad (it worked sufficiently until D-day). Just because Spitfire was the more maneuverable than Bf-109, that doesn't mean the 109 was bad at it. And so on. For most of the time, people don't even compare contemporary or "about equal" things. By 1943 even Germany didn't do dive-bombing any more; something they were truly obsessed with in the first half of the war. And they also produced a fighter that could deliver the same amount of ordonance while standing a better chance of survival under more recent conditions. Not a flying thing, but Tiger I (and II) would fall under the category of "well done, but we don't need it any more". I wish you and yours a Happy Easter !

[@stephenrichards339]

Like the KG5'S they quietly did their job

[@talksinsentences]

Aircraft suggestion - Short Sturgeon

[@petehall8381]

BZ, thanks!

[@TheDoctorMonkey]

31:35 I like and am happy to consume any content on Key Ships and Aircraft For the Type 23 Frigates - use Wikipedia or a similar “open source”?

[@DrAlexClarke]

that is the plan, as said before whenever I do modern stuff, it doesn't matter what I know, I will use the wiki stats when discussing it.

[@mahbriggs]

​@DrAlexClarke I understand why, and while Wikipedia is decent for non- political facts. It is atrocious for anything with political ramifications!

[@DrAlexClarke]

@@mahbriggs ship & weapon stats only...

[@mathewkelly9968]

Even worse for the Helldiver the next US attack aircraft to be built in any kind of numbers is the Skyraider after having to fall back on Corsairs

[@MultiZirkon]

The last dive bomber: SEPECAT Jaguar? ?? (Dive test-bombing in 1976(?): "Why are we doing, this stupid, stupid thing!!" -- 1991, Irak: "Eh, the safest way to bomb now that the missile batteries are gone is ...dive bombing from 31000 ft"...

[@georgewnewman3201]

Why would I want a strike aircraft that has longer range than the fighters that are supposed to escort it? That just leads to unopposed enemy intercepts.

[@Silverhks]

The USAAC leaned that way pretty heavily during the interwar years. The Doc talking about the longer range of the SB2C versus the fighters is WITH a bomb load. Take the bombs off, add drop thanks and the fighters had equivalent ranges.

[@matthewkeeling886]

When you compare the Helldiver to the other scout bomber that flew from that round of specifications, the Brewster SB2A Buccaneer, its quality is easily apparent. The Buccaneer actually was utterly terrible, and never saw combat because of it. The Helldiver was competent and would be well remembered if it was in combat a year earlier. The Goodyear ASW blimps of WWII would be good aircraft to cover. They are not ignored because their counterparts were necessarily better, but rather they were "cooler". The blimps gave good service and have been rather poorly treated in the years since the war.

[@DrAlexClarke]

The brewster is an I've moved and know where all my books are project definitely

[@PaulfromChicago]

I'm not sure you can do that F-14 without doing the A-6 at the same time. Peanut butter and jelly.

[@DrAlexClarke]

I was thinking they'd be a good double feature for June/July

[@TannithVQ]

If you put a Mk 1 Spitfire into 1942 it isn't going to do well. The art of history is to look at things in the context of then, not now. Or I've learnt nothing from Doc C

[@jagsdomain203]

This is a situation where you are right perhaps technically but in reality for the people that are having to fly the thing you are completely 100% wrong they didn't want the plane because it wasn't nearly as good of a flyer as The dauntless was and these are the guys that are going to be using the plane every day to go after things so it's it's a engineer versus reality

[@kennethford1121]

Yes the AAF & Navy become Tribal, then I imagine Daring, and then they Battle. There I told him.

[@Silverhks]

I see what you did there... I have a shepherds hook with your name on it 😂

[@stephenrichards339]

F8 Crusader

[@guidor.4161]

I'm not sure which aircraft are on your list already, but i propose the FW Condor. It was an impromptu solution to fill an essential gap due to lack of viable strategy and doctrine of the KM in the 1st half of WW2. Obviously it is not directly related to a carrier role, maybe you can squeeze it in because it had to takeover roles which carrier aircraft or seaplanes from cruisers did in other navies. Does "lack of carriers" fit in with the year of the carrier? I think it sort of does..🤭🤓

[@robmarsh6668]

A british historian complaining about alliteration in aircraft names is pretty rich

[@DrAlexClarke]

Fancied a change from complaining about the weather...

[@petesheppard1709]

Show me ANYTHING that doesn’t have teething problems.

[@michalsoukup1021]

You missed golden opportunity for shameless book plug when describing USN and USAAC relationship.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

I'mI wouldn't saw it was a adequate aircraft. It's poor handling qualities doomed it be hated by pilots and crew. Squadron pilots preferred the Dauntless over the Helldiver, but someone in the Navy got their palms greased by Curtis to get them on flightdecks. The only redeeming quality was its higher speed and folding wings. They could get more Helldivers onboard then the Dauntless. I would also say that after seeing the Avenger as evolutionary design compared to the Devastator. The Helldiver was not evolutionary compared to the Dauntless. Most naval pilots had never flown a Curtis SBC so they never made that comparsion. I would postulate that if Douglas had came out the SBD-4 with folding wings the Helldiver would have never made it onto the flightdecks. Considering that Helldiver's first flight was less the six months after the Dauntless. I think this is most telling that the Helldiver was terrible platform that morphed into a barely adequate weapon by the fact that more of them could be squeezed on the flightdecks.