Semi OT : Son ofa Bi&$% - 2nd Class

[Macclan5]

End of June 1943

USS Lexington CV2 in harbour at Pearl takes first delivery of the first squadron of Curtis SBC2 Helldivers.

The infamous S-O-B 2nd Class airplane.

<< PDU Off >>

From various sources of books at home and even on wikipedia the SBC2 had a poor reputation by every account.

I was curious as to experienced players think and their opinion of the SBC2 ...

Does the game model:

~significant operational losses ?
~ no noticeable impacts ?

[bomccarthy]

I didn't find the early versions all that terrible in the game, and the SB2C-4/5 that come later in the game are great (better service rating and excellent payload for a single-engine plane). You need to be careful when upgrading, however, since production of the SB2C-5 is cut off in the stock scenarios before the war ends, leaving the USN with no dive bomber production in the second half of 1945.

I recall that the plane's negative reputation was built on the initial version's foibles. Bill Olsen will have much more knowledge to add in this area, but Curtiss spent much of the war developing the plane.

I have a fondness for the Helldiver, mainly because it was my first model airplane, received as a gift on my 7th birthday. I think it was an MPC, which in the early 70s offered rebranded Airfix models, mostly. I still remember that mine could be built with or without the propeller spinner and with the wings folded (they also had 20mm cannon). My dad built most of it, but he let me glue a few things together.

[BBfanboy]

bomccarthy, I think Macclan5 is referring to the biplane version of the SBC2 which arrives early in the game but is not really a front line aircraft. I have never used mine for anything but training.

The difference is just transposition of one letter/number, but an SB2C is quite a different animal from the SBC2.

[wdolson]

It's actually SBC-2. The Navy's lettering system was weird. The first one or two letters were the primary mission, Scout Bomber in this case. Then the last letter is a code for the manufacturer, C = Curtiss. If the plane was the first of a type from that manufacturer, there was no number, but a number was added for everything past 1. The SBC was the first scout bomber from Curtiss, and the SB2C was the second. Different marks came after the dash and during the war there were sub-marks too like the TBF-1C and the SB2C had some sub-marks too.

Bill

[Macclan5]

Sorry gents the in exactness issue is mine.

Lex just took on SBC2 - 1 which is the carrier based monoplane - not the biplane.

Its late June 43.

<< edit I have that 1st VMF squadron of the Biplane Helldivers at work in the Shortlands. They appeared on map in early mid 1942 at Los Angeles as I recall. I have neither impressed nor unimpressed. They attacked and sank some xALs transiting to Rabul with good fighter coverage but additionally they did have a number not ready even though air support in base was more than sufficient >>

In reading my old "Encyclopedia or WW2" as well as wiki and other old books I note the plan (the carrier based monoplane) had a very poor reputation. Hard to fly - unloved by pilots.

In fact 40 odd were lost in the Battle of the Philippine Sea possibly due range (controversial some indicate pilot error).

I am not sufficiently versed in the "plane ratings" service ratings to fully understand the impacts.

So I wondered if such a plane unloved and with a poor reputation experienced more operational losses and downtime.

Is this reflected "only in the plane data" by one integer; or are there a variety of effects ?

[BBfanboy]

I am still confused as I cannot find any SBC2-1 in the editor in Scenario 1

Here is the editor's listing for aircraft starting with SB :

[Macclan5]

Okay - I have to go back and check tonight... I will get the correct model in

[wdolson]

There was never any such thing as an SBC2-1. There was a SB2C-1 and SBC-1 as well as an SBC-2, but SBC2-1 is an invalid USN designation.

By the dawn of WW II the only SBC still around were the last mark, the SBC-4. The first SB2C Helldivers are represented by the SB2C-1C.

Bill

[Buckrock]

And you can only get the famous nickname from the correct designation - SoB 2nd Class.

[Macclan5]

Gentlemen:

It is indeed the SBC2C-1C Helldiver - replacing (I think - no previous save to compare) TBF1 - Avengers.

And my apologies for being loose with the designation. [:(]

As I say June 43 and docked in Pearl ~ the Original Lady Lex took on these Helldivers as replacements.

<<The next Carrier designated Lexington has been renamed Appomomattox>>

The other Carriers in the TF did not upgrade although pools are not big enough yet. I will start to examine the upgrade path a little more closely.

Because Lady Lex survived this must be the automated upgrade path for her squadron.

All Carrier Squadrons are "Take Replacements ON" and "Automatic Upgrades ON" in addition to Auto Pilot Replacements on Trained > 50

<<Game Setting is PDU Off>>

--

More to specifics of the question I admit to being too newbish to fully appreciate the full aircraft statistics impact on the game.

Service rating esp. I did read the manual but....if someone has a specific paragraph I should re-examine - most open to advice.

I think the service rating will ultimately affect number of planes available.. but does it also model "operational losses" ?

--

The reason it absolutely peaked my curiosity is I recalled the acronym S-O-B 2 C and further I recall reading various books about the battle of the Philippine Sea.

The reading was of course the comparative analysis about posture i.e. between Halsey and Spruance.

But a hidden gem in the battle is 40 odd Helldivers were lost for running out of fuel at the BofPS. I cannot be assured they were specifically SBC2C-1C; just "Helldivers"

They seemed to have less range and were unpopular with their pilots hence the knickname.

I cannot really adjust this in my first go around but I will be mindful as I obviously intend to play in future at harder levels and/or PDU on.

--

Is the Helldiver and specifically the SBC2C - 1C likely to experience higher operational losses for example due to its rating?

Is it our experienced opinion that I should be even more circumspect with a Air Combat TF will Helldivers such as the SBC2C-1C ?

I have actually had significant naval success with American torpedo bombers against raiding floatilas arranged by the AI; compared to real life a 180 degree difference.

Thanks for you patience.

[Lecivius]

The SBC2C-1C Helldiver replaced the Dauntless, not the Avenger [;)] It's benefits included a bay for the primary weapon, better range, and better protection. It had teething problems like any new platform. Add to that, the Dauntless by then had most of it's bugs worked out, and was a very respected Navy bomber for it's time.

The reason so many aircraft were lost at the Battle of the Philippine Sea were not necessarily due to problems of the Helldiver, but rather the fact that they were launched at extreme range, and very late. This caused the returning force to return in Bingo condition to a carrier force at night. Challenging conditions in the best of times, which these were not. Many men owe their lives to a simple, but damned brave phrase "Turn on the lights".

<edited 'cause I can't spell worth squat>

[BBfanboy]

I haven't looked up the game's stats on the Helldiver vs Dauntless SBD-3, but I am pretty sure the SB2C-1C was faster than the SBD-3, plus it carried two X 250 lb bombs in addition to the usual 1000 pounder. The extra speed would make it more difficult to intercept, which means better survivability.

I am pretty sure the navy would have given higher priority to survivability and striking power over maintenance rating. Carriers were supposed to be a "strike and retire" weapon which would give the maintenance crews time to ready the planes for the next mission. As it turned out the CVs ended up spending a long time in action, but mostly for fighter CAP, not air strikes.

[rustysi]

<<The next Carrier designated Lexington has been renamed Appomomattox>>

Just an FYI, this was not a rename it is the carriers' real original name. In WWII the US renamed building carriers for those which were lost (fleet one's anyway).

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

<<The next Carrier designated Lexington has been renamed Appomomattox>>

Just an FYI, this was not a rename it is the carriers' real original name. In WWII the US renamed building carriers for those which were lost (fleet one's anyway).

One too many "o"s in that CV name McClan5![:)]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Gentlemen:

It is indeed the SBC2C-1C Helldiver - replacing (I think - no previous save to compare) TBF1 - Avengers.

And my apologies for being loose with the designation. [:(]

As I say June 43 and docked in Pearl ~ the Original Lady Lex took on these Helldivers as replacements.

<<The next Carrier designated Lexington has been renamed Appomomattox>>

The other Carriers in the TF did not upgrade although pools are not big enough yet. I will start to examine the upgrade path a little more closely.

Because Lady Lex survived this must be the automated upgrade path for her squadron.

All Carrier Squadrons are "Take Replacements ON" and "Automatic Upgrades ON" in addition to Auto Pilot Replacements on Trained > 50

<<Game Setting is PDU Off>>

--

More to specifics of the question I admit to being too newbish to fully appreciate the full aircraft statistics impact on the game.

Service rating esp. I did read the manual but....if someone has a specific paragraph I should re-examine - most open to advice.

I think the service rating will ultimately affect number of planes available.. but does it also model "operational losses" ?

--

The reason it absolutely peaked my curiosity is I recalled the acronym S-O-B 2 C and further I recall reading various books about the battle of the Philippine Sea.

The reading was of course the comparative analysis about posture i.e. between Halsey and Spruance.

But a hidden gem in the battle is 40 odd Helldivers were lost for running out of fuel at the BofPS. I cannot be assured they were specifically SBC2C-1C; just "Helldivers"

They seemed to have less range and were unpopular with their pilots hence the knickname.

I cannot really adjust this in my first go around but I will be mindful as I obviously intend to play in future at harder levels and/or PDU on.

--

Is the Helldiver and specifically the SBC2C - 1C likely to experience higher operational losses for example due to its rating?

Is it our experienced opinion that I should be even more circumspect with a Air Combat TF will Helldivers such as the SBC2C-1C ?

I have actually had significant naval success with American torpedo bombers against raiding floatilas arranged by the AI; compared to real life a 180 degree difference.

Thanks for you patience.

Most of the Helldivers at the Battle of the Philippine Sea were SB2C-3, I believe a couple of the newest squadrons had SB2C-4. The Navy retired the SB2C-1s from front line service as soon as they could. They had a lot of problems that were solved on later marks.

They had better payload, better range, and better protection than the SBD, but the SBD was a much better diving platform. The SBD was the smoothest diving dive bomber ever built, it was very easy to hold on target. The lack of swiss cheese flaps on the early SB2Cs caused buffeting, but so did the turtle back at the rear gunner's position.

The Stuka and Japanese dive bombers had fence type flaps under the wings which inherently caused more buffeting than the SBD's swiss cheese flaps. The Japanese and the Stuka pilots had to dive to lower altitudes to achieve the same accuracy the SBD could achieve.

No SBDs were lost on the strike at dusk in that battle, there were many Helldivers lost. This has been chalked up to the experience of the squadrons. The two SBD squadrons in the battle were among the most experienced dive bomber squadrons in the entire USN and they're pilots were very experienced in fuel management. For a large number of the SB2C pilots, this was the longest over water flight they had ever made and quite a few didn't run lean enough and ran out before getting back. It was also well known the SBDs had the shortest legs of all aircraft on the strike, so they were launched last and spent the least amount of time loitering over the carriers forming up.

The TBF was replaced after the war with SB2C-5s which had the capability to carry torpedoes, but the SB2C got quickly phased out when the Skyraider became available. The USS Midway had torpedo trained Helldiver crews when she was worked up, but she was just a bit too late to see any action. The TBF carried on in the fleet as an anti-submarine platform after the war until purpose built ASW aircraft became available. It also served as the first COD aircraft.

Bill

[BBfanboy]

Were the Skyraiders used in Vietnam carrier-based or land-based? All the pics I have seen of Carrier Ops during the Vietnam War showed jets.

[wdolson]

One of my professors in college was the CO for the first Skyraider strike in Vietnam. Flying from the USS Constellation. Later a USS Midway Skyraider dropped a toilet on the North Vietnamese. The pilot reported the plane did not handle well with the toilet on a shackle, but it was a good morale booster for the deck crew. The captain had a different opinion.

The USN Skyraiders were phased out fairly early in the conflict.

Bill

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Most of the Helldivers at the Battle of the Philippine Sea were SB2C-3, I believe a couple of the newest squadrons had SB2C-4. The Navy retired the SB2C-1s from front line service as soon as they could. They had a lot of problems that were solved on later marks.

Were you referring to the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June '44 or the later invasion of the Philippines (Leyte Gulf)?

According to the official accounts of TF 58 for the Battle of the Philippine Sea action, all the Helldivers mentioned being used were of the
SB2C-1C type. And in the concluding part of the official Task Force 58 report of the battle is also the recommendation that the SB2C-1C be
immediately replaced for front line carrier operations. So it may be that the Philippine Sea Battle was the swansong of that version of the
Helldiver.

[wdolson]

It appears I misremembered exactly when the -3 came into service. In any case the -1C did have a lot of problems and that probably did light a fire under the supply chain to get the -4s into service as quickly as possible. I would expect some -1Cs were probably still on carriers at Leyte Gulf. It isn't reasonable to expect all the dive bomber units could get upgraded to the new mark in only a couple of months. The two SBD units at the Philippine Sea were near the end of their rotation and both were rotated out immediately after the battle.

I'd have to dig out some of my reference books to work out the exact timeline of the SB2C deployments. The Osprey book is pretty good with dates and models for each deployment.

Bill

[Buckrock]

Though it doesn't quite match up with AE, the -3 is listed in USN official returns as already aboard the Hancock and Ticonderoga in June '44 while they were working up in the West Indies. And the Franklin had already replaced her -1Cs with the -3 when she arrived to join TF 58 a week after the Battle of the Philippines Sea.

The transition to the -3 for the other TF 58 CVs appears to have been rapid, the Lexington replacing all her SBDs in July while those TF 58 CVs with the SB2C-1C were beginning to operate a mix of the -1C and -3 within weeks of the end of the battle. The USS Bunker Hill seems to have been the last of the TF 58 CVs to rid herself of the -1C, unceremoniously dumping the last of them over the side at Ulithi on October 5th to make room for her 34 new SB2C-3s.