Talk:Curtiss SB2C Helldiver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removed ref[edit]

Surprisingly, someone removed the external link for the greek use of Helldivers, despite being the most complete relevant website on the web: , because it's a blog, while it's a permalink and not a blog's main page. At least, could the person that removed it replace it with some other link, so that we can access such info? The existing link is about the civil war in Greece and contains minimal info about the Helldivers, not to mention that it has a highly biased tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not surprising at all. Blogs are not considered Reliable Sources on Wikipedia and are forbidden to be used as source material. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Torpedo Conversion[edit]

In the fall of 1945 some Helldivers were converted to carry one torpedo in the bomb bay. The aft end of the torpedo was in the bay and the fore end stuck out and hung below the prop. As VT-74 these planes were aboard the MIDWAY on it’s shakedown cruise in the South Atlantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Added and Un-Cited Commentary[edit]

Sometime after I added quite a bit to the article someone decided to add commentary to the additions. Now mind you, I don't have a clue as to accuracy of the commentary, I am not a pilot nor have I served when these things flew, but it made it look like I hadn't a clue when I put down the opinions of the cited articles and that the commentary was in fact supported by the citation, which it was not. Now I haven't an opinion to the commentary one way or the other but we are supposed to show more restraint that to start sticking what appears to be opinion into a history article. In the future I would ask that this person put such commentary in its own paragraph in operations and cite accordingly not leach on to existing opinion of cited sentences.Tirronan (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How many modifications?[edit]

The article states that the Navy required 880 modifications. Two paragraphs later, the number is 800. Which is correct? Cwelgo (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

SB2C range at Philippine Sea[edit]

The article states "In the first Battle of the Philippine Sea, 45 Helldivers were lost because they ran out of fuel on the return to their carriers."

Firstly, those losses were due to a combination of running out fuel, intentionally ditching, and accidents upon landing. I cannot find any figures that separate the losses into these categories. I also realize that all three causes were the direct result of low fuel, so the statement is generally correct even if not technicaly correct.

Secondly, the point would be made stronger if the reader knew that 45 out of 80 Helldivers were lost in this manner, while only 35 of 470 other aircraft types were lost this way.

Your comments? Cwelgo (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


The tone of the article is too negative and written too informally (such as having the word "skippers" in the introduction) to be encyclopedic. While the early Helldiver had more than its share of problems, it matured into a good aircraft, the reality of which is made plainly evident postwar when VB and VT squadrons where combined to form VA squadrons equipped, not with Avengers, but with Helldivers.-- (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

on display vs. under restoration[edit]

SB2C-5 is on display at Udvar Hazy, but it is also under restoration - it's being displayed in the restoration wing of the museum. Which is the appropriate section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Original engine?[edit]

What was the original engine before the R2600 of the Helldiver? -- (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)