Dive Bombing: USN vs USAAF/USAF

[KJ_Lesnick]

Why did the USN seem to be fine with dive bomber designs such as the BT2D/AD-1/A-1 and BTM/AM's while the USAAF felt that they were not safe enough?

[Logan Hartke]

See my PM responses to your query on this very subject from two years ago.

Why did the USAAF afford so little training to dive bomber pilots?

The only obstacles is knowing how long you need to pull out of the dive and how many g-'s overstress the plane and black you out.

I'd recommend picking up a few of Peter C. Smith's books about Dive Bombing, especially the one on the A-36 Apache.  He does address it in various other books of his, though.

My best answer from totally non-scholarly research, though?  I think there's a few reasons.

First, that "only obstacle" is a rather deadly one.  The only air arms to really make long term institutional combat use of near-vertical dive bombing during WWII were the Luftwaffe, the US Navy, and the Imperial Japanese Navy.  The USN and IJN had to do it out of a competitive need for sheer survival and the Luftwaffe was able to do it because of the technical development of an automatic dive pull out device.  That allowed them to "gray out" or even "black out" and still stand a good chance of surviving the dive.

I think the danger and difficulty in pulling out of an extreme dive successfully made it a very deadly equation for most air arms.  Was the target's value, the target's lethality, and the target's difficulty to hit worth the risk to the pilot and the development of a dedicated platform.  In the USAAF, they did the math and said "no".  The USN did the same math and said "absolutely".  I'm not sure that either air arm was really wrong.  The USAAF would need to train pilots for that mission, obtain aircraft for it, and develop doctrine for employment of those assets.

Speaking of the aircraft needed for dive bombing, that was a good part of the issue.  The Luftwaffe had a history of close air support and operated over relatively short ranges.  Just look at the endurance of the Bf 109 compared to the P-40, an aircraft the USAAF considered to be short legged.  The USN and IJN needed smaller aircraft to fit on carriers and was willing to sacrifice speed to get it.  Why does this matter?  Well, the USAAF wasn't willing to sacrifice speed or range.  To get both, you need a bigger aircraft, generally twin engined.  Well, that's the first strike against dive bombing.  Multi engine aircraft don't generally take well to dive bombing.  I can only really think of two decently successful aircraft that fit that description, the Ju 88 and the Pe-2, and neither of those could really do what the Dauntless or Stuka could.  In other words, aircraft like the A-20 and A-26 weren't going to result in a dive bombing culture, nor were they intended to.  They weren't well suited to it because they weren't designed for it.

There's something else you really need to keep in mind.  For the USN and IJN, sinking ships was their bread and butter.  That's what they EXISTED for.  The best weapon for that job was the dive bomber, so that was a priority.  The Luftwaffe, likewise, was first and foremost designed to support the German Army, basically as air artillery.  Again, dive bombing was considered essential to that requirement.  The USAAF, by contrast, had half a dozen things it would rather be doing.  Air superiority, strategic bombing, interdiction of supplies, targeting infrastructure, and intercepting enemy bombers were all higher up on their priority list than close air support or anti-ship missions.  Dive bombers weren't required to do any of the main things that the USAAF wanted to do.  The same went for the RAF.

Eventually, though, the USAAF would need to drop a bomb in a pickle barrel.  They knew that.  Great, that's what dive bombers are for, so there you have it.  Well, there's another factor, too.  In the opinion of the USN and Luftwaffe, the only reliable way to get a bomb in a 10 meter circle to hit something small like a ship, a tank, or a bridge was dive bombing.  Until the advent of guided bombs, history would show that they were right.  In 1941, however, the USAAF thought they had a better way.  The Norden bomb sight.  At the time, it was thought that they would be able to hit a very small target from considerably greater height and speed than dive bombing required.  That would reduce the need for fighter escorts, allow for greater range, and decrease vulnerability to anti-aircraft fire.  It was a good idea, but technology just wasn't there yet.

When the USAAF finally admitted that the Norden couldn't put the bomb where they needed it as often as they'd hoped.  Fortunately for them, their existing fighter bombers could generally achieve the level of accuracy required to take out bridges using shallower dive bombing angles.  USAAF fighters could do air superiority very well and close air support alright, whereas a dive bomber could do close air support very well but no fighter roles.  If you have to make that choice, fighter's the way to go.  Interestingly, the USN came to the same conclusion.  They traded Dauntlesses in the scout and bombing role for more fighters that could drop bombs when necessary.  Heck, even the Luftwaffe did the same with the Fw 190.  You could even make the argument that the USAAF got it right.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,

Logan

Logan Hartke

I'd recommend picking up a few of Peter C. Smith's books about Dive Bombing, especially the one on the A-36 Apache.  He does address it in various other books of his, though.

I never even heard of this guy...

My best answer from totally non-scholarly research, though?

Go for it...

First, that "only obstacle" is a rather deadly one.

Uh, all combat flying is deadly... if you're a fighter pilot you're maneuvering all over the place trying to kill somebody and avoid getting the tables turned on you; if you're a dive-bomber pilot you are trying to put a bomb very precisely on a small target without getting shot by ground fire, and fighter planes and getting back up without blacking out and or hitting the ground; if you're a bomber pilot you're trying not to get blown out of the sky by hordes of fighters that are coming at you from every direction as you use massed formations, lots of dakka, some maneuvering depending on doctrine, and hopefully fighters of your own.

The only air arms to really make long term institutional combat use of near-vertical dive bombing during WWII were the Luftwaffe, the US Navy, and the Imperial Japanese Navy.  The USN and IJN had to do it out of a competitive need for sheer survival

And accurately putting bombs in ships...

the Luftwaffe was able to do it because of the technical development of an automatic dive pull out device.  That allowed them to "gray out" or even "black out" and still stand a good chance of surviving the dive.

And supporting troops on the ground...

I think the danger and difficulty in pulling out of an extreme dive successfully made it a very deadly equation for most air arms.

But fighter pilots did dive attacks all the time right?

The USN did the same math and said "absolutely".

The USMC seemed to say absolutely first.  I'm wondering why they said absolutely and the USAAC said no?

The USAAF would need to train pilots for that mission, obtain aircraft for it, and develop doctrine for employment of those assets.

I thought that's what all those attack planes they bought were for in terms of aircraft; as for training they were already training fighter pilots and bomber pilots and the skill set for attack planes is somewhere in the middle.

The USN and IJN needed smaller aircraft to fit on carriers and was willing to sacrifice speed to get it.  Why does this matter?  Well, the USAAF wasn't willing to sacrifice speed or range.

But attack planes don't have to be as fast as fighters.  I want to point out that the Luftwaffe wanted the speeds as fast as they could get 'em like the Army Air-Force; the USN wanted speed whenever they could get it -- they might have been willing to sacrifice speed but they didn't want to if they didn't have to.

Furthermore the SB2U and SBD were about as fast as the twin-engined A-14/A-18 and could carry half decent loads (SB2U: 1,000 lbs; SB2D: 2,250 some models)

There's something else you really need to keep in mind.  For the USN and IJN, sinking ships was their bread and butter.  That's what they EXISTED for.  The best weapon for that job was the dive bomber, so that was a priority.

So level bombing of ships was secondary and more defensive?

The Luftwaffe, likewise, was first and foremost designed to support the German Army, basically as air artillery.

Same for the USMC

Eventually, though, the USAAF would need to drop a bomb in a pickle barrel.  They knew that.  Great, that's what dive bombers are for, so there you have it.  Well, there's another factor, too.  In the opinion of the USN and Luftwaffe, the only reliable way to get a bomb in a 10 meter circle to hit something small like a ship, a tank, or a bridge was dive bombing.

Why didn't we realize that?

In 1941, however, the USAAF thought they had a better way.  The Norden bomb sight.  At the time, it was thought that they would be able to hit a very small target from considerably greater height and speed than dive bombing required.

What CEP's were they expecting just out of curiosity?

Interestingly, the USN came to the same conclusion.  They traded Dauntlesses in the scout and bombing role for more fighters that could drop bombs when necessary.

Yes, but they also developed the BTD and BT2D which could deliver more ordinance and the BT2D could carry 2,000 pounds of bombs 1,940 miles early on.  They also developed the BTM/AM Mauler which could carry positively obscene loads (probably short distances but still) -- needless to say it's a good thing Martin didn't develop a successor (A2M is a euphamism for donkey-to-mouth -- a rather bizarre sex practice LMAO!).

Interestingly, around the same time period the USAAF actually started looking into a single-engined dive-bomber, known as the XA-41.  It had no defensive armament, but it could do over 360 mph and could maneuver with a P-51B if not somewhat better.  It's range was around 1,600 miles with an unspecified load which seems to put it beyond the A-26 in range and speed (and maximum total payload: 6,400 pounds vs 6,000; 3,200 in the weapons bay; 3,200 externally and this could include torpedoes and bombs).  It was ultimately cancelled with the P-47 and P-51 holding the line.

The P-47 was actually pretty good as it was agile and could take a great deal of damage and keep on flying; the P-51 with an inline engine and a big-radiator that has "shoot me" written all over it didn't do so good.  The jet-replacements for it included the F-80 which was a good plane; the F-84 had poo-poo-loads of problems with it early and IMHO should have probably been cancelled (it was underpowered, not as maneuverable as the F-80 or later F-86 far as I know; it could fly far admittedly).

As for the US Navy, they were using attack planes mostly at first such as the AD and AM, though the F9F's were also used (and had an advantage in speed).  When nuclear strike became an objective the F2H's and even the F3H had developed some favor, but ultimately the A4D and A-6 turned out to be better suited as they were jet-planes and dedicated attack.  There was the F-4 admittedly, but the A-6 was actually more agile crazy as that seems.

Did you get my last message?

Did you get my last message?

Yes, but your method of chopping up a reply into a hundred different phrases makes it unsustainable to keep a conversation going.  Just stick to overall thoughts or throw out the less important sentences.

Peter C Smith is the leading authority on all things dive bombing.  If you have a few books on the Stuka or Dauntless, at least one of them is probably by Peter C Smith.  My father and I have probably a dozen or more books by him.  I highly recommend buying his books on the subject, but with the understanding that he's also about the foremost proponent of dive bombing, as well, so he may not be exactly unbiased.

As far as combat flying being deadly, I really don't intend to argue the point, but suffice it to say that dive bombing was considerably deadlier than level bombing of other flight regimes, even without enemy aircraft or anti-aircraft there to complicate things.  The main reason for this was the lack of G-suits and therefore the stress put on a pilot in the dive and subsequent pull-out.  It's very Hollywood, but watch the old Errol Flynn movie "Dive Bomber" to get an idea of why it was so deadly even in peacetime.  The color footage of yellow-wing prewar Navy aircraft and carriers alone make it worth it.

The USMC also came down on the dive bomber side of the equation because support of ground troops came first for them, too, like the Luftwaffe.  If they ever put something else ahead of that, the other services (Air Force and Navy) would say that they didn't need their own aircraft and they'd take them away.  Because of that, they had to figure out the best way to support their ground troops and they decided that was through dive bombing.  Also, you have to remember that they were naval aviators and their aircraft had to be carrier capable, so they had the aircraft of the USN and the job of the Luftwaffe, both services which came to the conclusion that they needed dive bombers, so of course the USMC would.

Compare service aircraft of the same period and you'll find that generally USAAC/USAAF attack aircraft were larger and faster than their Navy counterparts.  Look at the A-20 vs the SBD Dauntless or A-26 Invader vs the SB2C Helldiver, aircraft that were in service in basically the same time frames.  They were bigger, were faster, were better armored, had a longer range, and had greater defensive armament.  In other words, they were a lot more survivable...but they were more inaccurate.  That was a tradeoff that the USAAF was willing to make.  Why?  Well, they could afford to miss, and just come back to try again tomorrow.  If you tried that in the Navy, you were likely find yourself in floating in a raft the next day and very worried about sharks.



You'll also see that after the IJN lost its carrier fleet, the Japanese switched to kamikaze attacks, and the USN switched to land targets, the dive bombers on US carriers kept decreasing in number.  Even those that existed found themselves employed as level bombers more often than not.  They were replaced with Corsairs, Hellcats, and Avengers.  Corsairs and Hellcats were better fighters that could still drop bombs when necessary, while the Avenger was a better level bomber than the Helldiver.  As the tactical situation changed, the USN's math started to look a lot like the USAAF's.  It wasn't that they realized they were wrong or right, it was the evolving nature of the war.

You'll also notice that as aircraft got larger, bomb payloads got larger, too.  When your airplane is limited to a 250 or 500 lb bomb, you have to get the bomb VERY close to a target to do any damage to it.  That's why knocking out a tank or a ship required a dive bomber in 1940.  By 1945 you had a lot more aircraft carrying larger numbers of rockets and bigger bombs.  P-47s could knock out tanks regularly from a shallow dive using two 1000 lb bombs or eight rockets.  The larger damage radius took the emphasis off of pin-point precision.  Obviously, post war developments in guided munitions would eventually eliminate the need for dive bombing altogether.  The USAAF's experimentation with the Azon and later Tarzon bombs showed which way the wind was blowing and was another reason they abandoned the idea of dive bombing after WWII.

Cheers,

Logan

Logan,

Yes, but your method of chopping up a reply into a hundred different phrases makes it unsustainable to keep a conversation going.  Just stick to overall thoughts or throw out the less important sentences.

I did quote this because it was kind of necessary and wasn't chopped up at all.  That being said, can I just itemize things (like 1: Subject A; 2: Subject B; 3: Subject C)?

1: USAAF vs USN tactical aircraft

• The SB2U and SBD despite not possessing a great deal of speed were actually impressive in terms of top-speed (251 vs 255 respectively) considering the A-14 and A-18 (~250) which were two engined aircraft
  
• The A-20 was originally designed seemingly for export and a lower top speed (hence the defensive armament); later on it was fitted with more powerful engines, turbocharging (and probably aerodynamic modifications) and then became capable of 378 mph
  
• The A-20 in this state was meant to essentially do what the DH Mosquito could: Fly higher and faster than enemy fighters
  
• Problems with the turbocharger lead to it being replaced with a twin-staged supercharger and speed dropped; the fact that maneuverability at altitude wasn't spectacular, the defensive armament became more important and the obsession with defensive armament lead to bigger guns which brought the speed down to 339 mph
  
• The USN's SB2C, SB2A, TBF (and proposed TBY) were faster than the SBD with top speeds of 295 mph, 274 mph, 275 mph (and 306 mph) respectively
  
• The USN's eventual desire to merge the TB and DB role into the BT role lead to the BTD (334 mph), BTM/AM (367 mph), XBTC (374 mph), BT2D/AD/A-1 (375 mph at the prototype stage, 366 mph production), XBTK (373 mph) which compared well to the A-26 (XA-26: 370 mph; XA-26A: 365 mph, A-26B & C: 355 mph, XA-26D was faster from what I was told)
  
• Interestingly the USAAF did develop an aircraft called the XA-41 which was capable of 363 mph which could dive-bomb and torpedo bomb, had a radius of 800 m/nm while carrying a 1,000 pound load and a maximum load of 6,400 lbs (The AD-1 also had a similar max-load at first, but could carry 2,000 lbs a range of 1,940 miles) and could maneuver tighter than a P-51B
  

..
2.) USN & Land Bombardment

• Why didn't the USN view land-bombardment as practical from the outset?  As I understand it aircraft were viewed as an extension of sea-power and that means if ships can shell shores, they should be able to bomb coasts...
  
• The picture you showed me depicted TBF's leading SB2C's: In that arrangement what appears to be going on is the TBF's using their more precise bombing capabilities (they had a provision for the Norden and had a bombardier onboard), with the TB's unloading on sight (The USAAF had a similar scheme going with the bombardier/toggleer arrangement
  

..
3.) Precision Bombing: Both the USN and USAAC valued the ability to bomb precisely for their own reasons

• The USN wanted to hit ships
  
• The USAAC wanted to destroy the enemy's infrastructure and nail ships (mostly that was to justify the latter but they took it seriously as they did indeed try and bomb ships at Midway with rather bad results)
  

You're comparing aircraft of different eras and aircraft that didn't see combat.  I'm comparing aircraft that were in service during roughly the same periods, the A-20 and SBD and the A-26 and SB2C respectively.  There aren't many other USN dive bombers and USAAF attack aircraft to compare outside of those, save the A-36, an aircraft that was mainly ordered because there was no more allotment of funds for fighters that fiscal year, if I recall correctly.  Even then, the A-36 emphasized speed and range over vertical dive bomb capability.

Even so, looking at your examples of the A-18 Shrike, SB2U, and SBD, you can still see the mentality.  The A-18 cruised at nearly 220 mph, almost 70 mph faster than the roughly 150 mph cruising speed of the two Navy aircraft.  It would have gotten to the target faster, been traveling over the target with bomb load faster, and been harder to intercept by enemy fighters.  Not only that, but by the time WWII got going, the USAAF considered the A-18 to not have good enough performance and they were withdrawn without ever having seen combat, whereas the Navy continued produced and using SBDs until at least 1944.  It shows their different priorities quite clearly.

As for the USN and land bombardment, they did value land bombardment from the outset, it just wasn't as important as sinking enemy warships.  They had their priorities straight.  I'd agree with your interpretation of the photo, too.

On precision, though, those definitions of precision are quite different.  Hitting a maneuvering destroyer required a dive bomber.  Hitting a rail station did not (or at least they didn't think it would).  So, the USAAF decided they did not need dive bombers before the war (and eventually came back around to that viewpoint during the war).

Cheers,

Logan

Logan Hartke

I'm quoting this part because it would be easier than the rest... all the other stuff I'll list in the traditional fashion

You're comparing aircraft of different eras and aircraft that didn't see combat.  I'm comparing aircraft that were in service during roughly the same periods, the A-20 and SBD and the A-26 and SB2C respectively.  There aren't many other USN dive bombers and USAAF attack aircraft to compare outside of those, save the A-36, an aircraft that was mainly ordered because there was no more allotment of funds for fighters that fiscal year, if I recall correctly.  Even then, the A-36 emphasized speed and range over vertical dive bomb capability.

1.) Comparison of performance between aircraft of different eras

• I was merely trying to illustrate how it was possible for a single engined plane to cruise as fast as a twin provided one designed it right
  
• Despite the A-18 never seeing combat, that merely was the circumstances of the time.  The F-106 was never used in aerial combat against other planes far as I know but it was damned good at it
  

.
2.) Regarding the A-36

• I did not know it was procured due to inadequate fiscal funds (you'd think in the middle of the war that wouldn't be a major issue) though it would explain the USAAF's attitude towards them: Still you would think they'd have seen how useful they were and ultimately the USAAF did test out the XA-41 which was based around a similar concept.
  
• Despite being built around speed and range, it actually made it a better attack plane because of it's lack of need of defensive armament (less drag); the dive-brakes made it very effective and controllable in a dive regardless of what superiors thought
  
• The XA-41 actually was a damned good plane and arguably better in some respects than the P-47 due to carrying an overall more massive load.  It might have been slower but could possibly turn tighter (inside a P-51B)
  

.
3.) Cruise speed vs Top Speed

• I was actually only looking at top speed, and simply assumed that with similar max speeds, their cruise speeds would be similar to each other also
  
• This turned out to be a mistake
  
• How did the SBD do as time went on?
  

.
4.) USN vs USAAF & Land Bombardment: Thanks for the clarification and that does make a lot of sense that the USAAF would focus mostly on land and the USN mostly on sea with both focusing a little on the other.  Regarding the interpretation of the photo, I've seen this kind of arrangement used before.  Technically this was used well past WW2 (during Vietnam sometimes a B-66 would ride in front of some F-105's and the thuds would drop on command from the EB-66) -- so long as one is accurate enough the spacing between your plane and it are the same as it takes to see the bomb drop and hit the bomb-release button on your plane (reflex time) are correct the two bombs will land roughly at the same point.

5.) USN & USAAF notions of precision: Both the USN and USAAF had entertained level bombing as one of many tactics.  I'm merely surprised that with the USAAF trying to sink ships (which it would seem they valued) they wouldn't build in a back-up option.  Regardless, I agree that the Norden & Sperry sights were useful for pulverizing railway marshaling yards, airfields, and factories.  Even ships sitting in a harbor.

6.) While somewhat off-topic

A: The proponents of an independent USAF (1919-1925) actually wanted a redesigned defense department for land, air, and sea

- Would this have resulted in the unintended side effect of the head of such a defense department forcing the USAF to serve land & sea based objectives
- Would this have been a system like our DOD currently, or would it have been more streamlined?
- When I say this I mean the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, USAF would be more like deputy, or undersecretaries; with the Secretary of Defense being in charge of them with maybe a deputy in case he dies or something

Cheers,

Logan

[KJ_Lesnick]

Logan

I forgot about this, but regardless

Eventually, though, the USAAF would need to drop a bomb in a pickle barrel.  They knew that.

I don't know what the USAAF seriously expected the Norden to do, but from what I remember around 5,000 to 8,000 feet, the CEP was around 55 feet, so basically you had a diameter of 110 feet of which 50% of bombs would fall in if I recall right...

In the opinion of the USN and Luftwaffe, the only reliable way to get a bomb in a 10 meter circle to hit something small like a ship, a tank, or a bridge was dive bombing.

That's smaller than 50% of bombs in a 55 foot radius or 110-foot diameter

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm curious if the XA-41 would have been an effective design had it been allowed to enter service?

[jcf]

I'm curious if the XA-41 would have been an effective design had it been allowed to enter service?

How long is a piece of string?

[KJ_Lesnick]

How long is a piece of string?

You know there are known performance traits the plane had which could be compared...

If I posted them up here, could anybody make an evaluation?

[Gondor]

How long is a piece of string?

You know there are known performance traits the plane had which could be compared...

If I posted them up here, could anybody make an evaluation?

If you have both sets of information YOU make the evaluation between them!

Gondor

[KJ_Lesnick]

Gondor

If you have both sets of information YOU make the evaluation between them!

If I was confident in my ability to evaluate them, I would: There are sometimes small numbers can be quite significant, other times not at all...

[Gondor]

Gondor

If you have both sets of information YOU make the evaluation between them!

If I was confident in my ability to evaluate them, I would: There are sometimes small numbers can be quite significant, other times not at all...

It sounds as if you should be on a forum for Aviation Engineers rather than a Model Making Forum which this is and which has a profound lack of any input from yourself other than your endless series of questions!

Gondor

[jcf]

The performance figures would tell you nothing about how well the aircraft would actually
do in combat.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Gondor

It sounds as if you should be on a forum for Aviation Engineers rather than a Model Making Forum which this is and which has a profound lack of any input from yourself other than your endless series of questions!

Actually, I would ask my questions on Secret Projects, but unfortunately they won't let me post without approval.

Is there any aviation forum dedicated towards WW2 & Korea aviation.


JCF

The performance figures would tell you nothing about how well the aircraft would actually do in combat.

Yes but in some cases day a 30 mph difference in speed would be significant, in others miniscule; furthermore, not all variables are available which depends on questions which you guys might know.

[pyro-manic]

The XA-41 was evaluated by the USN along with the Skyraider and the Martin Mauler. There will be documents covering this evaluation in the Navy archives somewhere if you are that interested. The Convair archive is held at the San Diego Air & Space Museum Library. That might also be a good source of technical information on the XA-41.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Pyro-Manic,

The XA-41 was evaluated by the USN along with the Skyraider and the Martin Mauler.

I do know this...

There will be documents covering this evaluation in the Navy archives somewhere if you are that interested.

Where would I search?

The Convair archive is held at the San Diego Air & Space Museum Library. That might also be a good source of technical information on the XA-41.

Sounds good... for the time though I'll lay out the specs when I'm not exhausted

[maxmwill]

One bird thhat seems to have been ignored was the A31/35 Vengeance. While it served with the Army in some minimal capacity, other air arms put it to good use. How did the Vengenace fair when compared with the other aircraft mentioned here?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Max M. Will

One bird thhat seems to have been ignored was the A31/35 Vengeance. While it served with the Army in some minimal capacity, other air arms put it to good use. How did the Vengenace fair when compared with the other aircraft mentioned here?

That's a good question and I'll give you a comparison list on the following planes

• SBD Dauntless
  
• A-31 Vengeance
  
• A-35 Vengeance
  
• A-36 Apache
  

.
SBD-2 Dauntless

• Length: 32'1.25"
  
• Span: 41'6-3/8"
  
• Wing-Area: 325 ft²
  
• Aspect-Ratio: 5.3072
  
• Empty Weight: 5,652 lbs
  
• Gross Weight: 8,643 to 10,337 lbs (different sources list different weights)
  
• MTOW: 10,360 lbs
  
• Horsepower: 1,000
  
• Power-Loading (Gross): 0.0967 to 0.1157
  
• Wing-Loading (Gross): 26.5938 to 31.8062 lbs/ft²
  
• Maximum Speed: 256 mph @ 16,000 ft
  
• Cruise Speed: 148 mph
  
• Service Ceiling: 27,260 ft
  
• Normal Range: 1,225 statute
  
• Maximum: 1,370 statute
  
• Offensive Gun Armament: 1-2 x 0.50
  
• Defensive Gun Armament: 1 x 0.30
  
• Payload: 1x1,000lb + 2x100 lbs (1,200 lbs)
  

.
SBD-5 Dauntless

• Length: 33'1.25"
  
• Span: Same as SBD-2
  
• Wing-Area: Same as SBD-2
  
• Aspect-Ratio: Same as SBD-2
  
• Empty Weight: 6,404 lbs
  
• Loaded Weight: 9,359 to 10,676 lbs
  
• Maximum Weight: 10,700 lbs
  
• Horsepower: 1200
  
• Power-Loading (Gross): 0.1124 to 0.1282
  
• Wing-Loading (Gross): 28.7969 to 32.8492 lbs/ft²
  
• Maximum Speed: 255 mph @ 14,000 ft
  
• Service Ceiling: 25,530 ft
  
• Normal Range: 1,115 statute
  
• Maximum Range: 1,565 statute
  
• Offensive Gun Armament: 2 x 0.50
  
• Defensive Gun Armament: 2 x 0.30
  
• Payload: 1x1,600 lb + 2x325 lb (2250 lbs)
  

.
A-31 Vengeance

• Length: 39'9"
  
• Span: 48'0"
  
• Wing-Area: 332 ft²
  
• Aspect-Ratio: 6.9398
  
• Empty Weight: 9,725 lbs
  
• Maximum Takeoff: 14,300 lbs
  
• Horsepower: 1,600
  
• Power-Loading (Max): 0.1119
  
• Wing-Loading (Max): 43.0723
  
• Maximum Speed: 275 mph @ 11,000 ft
  
• Cruising Speed: 235 mph
  
• Service Ceiling: 22,500 ft
  
• Range: 1,400 statute (Maximum?)
  
• Offensive Gun Armament: 4 x 0.30
  
• Defensive Gun Armament: 2 x 0.30 or 0.303
  
• External Payload: 2 x 250 lbs (500 lbs)
  
• Internal Payload: 2 x 500 lbs (1,000 lbs)
  
• Total: 1,500 lbs
  

.
A-35B Vengeance

• Length: Same as A-31
  
• Span: Same as A-31
  
• Maximum Weight: 17,100 lbs
  
• Horsepower: 1,700
  
• Power-Loading (Max): 0.9942
  
• Maximum Speed: 279 mph
  
• Cruising Speed: 230 mph
  
• Service Ceiling: 22,300 ft
  
• Maximum Ferry Range: 1,400 statute
  
• Offensive Gun Armament: 6 x 0.50
  
• Defensive Gun Armament: 1 x 0.50
  
• External Payload: 2 x 500 lbs (1,000 lbs)
  
• Internal Payload: 2 x 500 lbs (1,000 lbs)
  
• Total: 2,000 lbs
  

I would have liked to have added the SB2C but I can't get enough data